User talk:Lbertman

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself, as you did at Louisa Bertman. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Cptmurdok (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lbertman: The above notice is relevant. One of the issues I see in the article is that most of the references you give have to do with your family, which doesn't establish your significance as the subject of the article; the only cite I see that does that so far is the Car Talk link. A quick look at your website and a Google search suggests that there's published material existent about you. In the near future I can help collect some of that and include it in the article, if you'd like. I've written many articles on the visual arts, and it would avoid the WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:COI issues. The more an objective contributor does, the better. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I would love the input. I'm a little confused w. the ref, etc so the input may be wrong. i don't know how to correspond w. you as i'm not so techy savy - but i would love the help collecting information if you're offering. thanks so much!

--Louisa Bertman 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the cites to your family members don't even appear to establish relationship, but only link to peripheral websites. Likewise, the links to articles about musical performers are also irrelevant. It's a good bet that eventually I or someone else will put more templates on the article for sources, conflict of interest, or autobiographical issues. As another contributor already offered, writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, and if other members of the community are offering their assistance, with the intention of making a better article.... JNW (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What JNW wrote about references is still true. I moved the citations tag to the section that needs it. For example, can you provide a reference about the Gorbachev item, where editors can verify that Bertman created the illustration and that it appeared in the WSJ? Clubmarx (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any help would be greatly appreciated. the jpgs are specifically not listed as an image gallery but rather as reference about the illustrations. - so editors can verify that Bertman created them. There is no other way to be specific than to show the illustration in the paper/magazine.

Hi. See below for copyright problems doing it this way. You don't actually need to show the proof online, and references to print sources are acceptable - ones that readers could go and look up for themselves, perhaps in a library. So rather than an image of the WSJ cover, for example, you could just add a reference to that print edition. There's some information on citing sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources, which might help. (Oh, and I should say that I do like your work!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB. Ty 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Louisa Bertman. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like there are copyright problems with some of the images you have uploaded and used at Louisa Bertman. Assuming you are Louisa, I don't see a problem with copyright of your own work, but uploading entire magazine/newspaper pages that contain other copyright material than your own (eg, text, photos) is a copyright violation. I've discussed it with an image expert at User talk:Magog the Ogre#PUF problem? - Magog the Ogre is planning to do some remedial editing of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wsj cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk 22:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) what would you suggest be done if i'm using the actual cover that i created entirely myself as a reference? do i blur out the text? it just occurred to me that that is what you are speaking of correct? the writer's copyright? unfortunately most of the illustrations listed which are used as reference are no longer printed and were before everything went digital - so i am unsure how to reference this? any suggestions would be much appreciated.[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dallas morningnews michaeljackson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk 22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wsj cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas morningnews michaeljackson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Louisa Bertman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Louisa Bertman is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Bertman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure how to leave a message to the editors of this. I find it frustrating because unlike writers there is no real "proof" of illustrators except for the actual illustrations and publications that the illustraitons were created for. For example the images I put up of illustrations created should serve as PROOF - not as advertisement. Unfortunately in the world of publishing there are few magazines with actual published work still available as the industry is all but dying down. Links which I can/did provide end up becoming outdated as the ezine/ipad apps. update themselves. I think Widipedia being all that it is needs to be updated with new media. Please let me know how to "prove" the worth of this information? My work is extremely valuable and relevant to the education of illustration, and it is an important part of the encyclopedia. Please let me know how else to "prove" the importance of my page other than showing the actual work created. (ie - the portait of mikhail gorbachev created for The Wall Street Journal Front Page. This is a part of history, of The article written, but there is no way except for me to reference the actual illustration to "prove" it's legitimate? PLEASE CONTACT ME and let me know if there are other ways of referencing if there is no "paper trail" other than a copy of the actual paper? As I mentioned, I thought by referencing the imagery created for the article that would show proof - however you took down the images as you thought they were self advertisement which is absolutely NOT what they were intended to be for. As you see not all categories referenced fall into the same umbrella. I look forward to hearing back about this discussion as I do not think this page should be deleted.[reply]

No one is doubting that you had illustrations published. The issue is that you need a reliable, independent, third party source to say that your "work is extremely valuable and relevant to the education of illustration." This can't come from yourself. For one thing, this is original research--see WP:ORIGINAL. For another thing, this is autobiographical--see WP:AUTOBIO. It's also worth reading WP:NPOV. In the case of the WSJ illustration, the WSJ publishes illustrations every day. Is everyone who has ever had an illustration published notable? The question is not whether the illustration was published, but whether a reliable, independent, third party source says that this work is "important" or "valuable." With regard to image galleries, Wikipedia is not an image repository--see WP:Galleries. Why not put them on your own website?

So, the bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a good place for original research, autobiographies, or image galleries. And it's a rule-following place. When there are reliable, independent, third party sources establishing this work is notable, I would strongly support a Wikipedia article on this topic. Hopefully written by someone else. But right now it seems that the cart is being put before the horse. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Americanidiot bertman.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal file. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]