User talk:HerBauhaus

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Mz7 (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For referencing the Evogene article! gidonb (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate the callout. Working on the Evogene article and digging out the sources was genuinely rewarding. Thank you for recognizing the effort. It means a lot! HerBauhaus (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi HerBauhaus, nice to meet you! I saw that you are a part of WikiProjects Telecommunications and Internet. I thought that Substack would interest you, and I was hoping you would take a look at the edit request that I posted here. If the changes make sense to you, would you mind implementing them?

Thank you, LS4Substack (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the content you added to the article Ethics of artificial intelligence. It's well-written, but I just wanted to suggest that it seems more directly relevant to the articles Web scraping or Data scraping, so maybe it could be moved one or perhaps both of these articles. Alenoach (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal, and especially for reading my contributions! While there’s definitely some overlap with web scraping, the core issue I see here is the ethical implications of AI scraping becoming an existential threat to open platforms. The Stack Overflow and Wikipedia cases are examples of that trend. When Stack Overflow announced plans to charge fees, it sparked forum chatter from users saying they might delete or deface their own posts. The GNOME, KDE, and Read the Docs cases are more about aggressive scraping itself. I think moving that example to the web scraping article would make sense, and I’d lean towards keeping the others under Ethics of AI, but I’m not wed to the idea. Open to your thoughts. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you may be right, some of it (notably the first paragraph) appears to fit better in the article on AI ethics. Anyway, I let you decide what's best. Alenoach (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your input. I've added quotes from Wired and Ars Technica to highlight the ethical concern: AI scraping as a threat to open knowledge platforms. The technical side fits with web scraping, but I think the ethical impact belongs here. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw your change here. I'm going to revert that - I mistakenly didn't include the project's own site as a citation there for their mission statement, but will add it after reverting.

I'm certainly open to discussing if an org's own site is a RS for their mission statement, or if it belongs in that sentence. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, just a quick note on sourcing. For establishing notability, we need coverage in independent, reliable sources (per WP:RS), so an organization’s own site doesn’t count toward that. That said, it can be fine to use the site for uncontroversial facts like a mission statement (WP:V and WP:ABOUTSELF). The key thing is to avoid adding anything that isn’t clearly stated in the source, as that can fall into WP:SYNTH territory. Happy to discuss further if helpful! HerBauhaus (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I understand your point in discussing sourcing. I understand the general policy, and this was an acceptable use of primary sources. Am I missing something? Iknowyoureadog (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the follow-up. Just to clarify, in the Wikipedia context, WP:RS refers to secondary sources when establishing notability under WP:GNG. An organization's own website is considered a primary source. While it can be used to verify straightforward facts like a mission statement (per WP:ABOUTSELF), it does not count toward demonstrating notability. I just wanted to highlight the distinction, since the term "reliable source" can mean different things depending on context. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the release of my first article in English that corresponds with the German version

Goldenes Dosenschloss von Petershagen – Wikipedia

I will try to add language link. Tympanus (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tympanus, congratulations. Your article is off to a solid start and based on good sources. As you continue improving it, just a couple of small suggestions: try to include a reference right where detailed information appears, such as measurements or historical interpretations. It also helps to name the source directly (for example, "LWL stated that...") to keep the tone neutral. Nice work, and look forward to seeing more from you! HerBauhaus (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi HerBauhaus, Thanks for these hints, which I will take to heart. Unfortunately I failed to link the articles interlingually -- probably a job for a bot or any other expert. Tympanus (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, @Dr. Blofeld! I managed to destub 35 Switzerland-related articles during the destubathon and have definitely caught the destubbing bug. I signed up for the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge today and will be focusing mainly on articles related to Switzerland and STEM topics. I'm looking forward to contributing alongside others who care about improving coverage, sourcing, and accuracy. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. I noticed your articles and was impressed! Love seeing Swiss articles coming in! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear HerBauhaus,

On the talk page of Draft:Eva-Maria Beck-Meuth, I left a note for the AfC reviewers, which it seems that you perhaps did not see when you reviewed the draft. As documented in the article, Beck-Meuth has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution, and is therefore notable according to WP:PROF 6. Please also note that according to WP:PROF 6a: "publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source". a bunch of penguins (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. We both agree that holding the top position at a university can meet the notability criteria under WP:PROF #6, and I did see your message on the draft’s talk page. That said, notability on Wikipedia also needs to be supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject and offer in-depth coverage (see WP:RS). At WP:AfC, we usually look for at least a few such sources to support a standalone article. Most of the current references come from the university or are short local mentions. These are helpful for confirming facts but not quite enough on their own to establish notability. The Bavarian Parliament mention is a solid start, and with a few more independent sources that explore Beck-Meuth’s work in more depth, the draft would be in much better shape. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. WP:PROF 6a says that "For documenting that a person has held such a post (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution or society is a major one), publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source." I agree it would be preferable to have more sources (there's a banner tag for that, right?), but WP policy as far as I can understand it says that the current sources are reliable. This is presumably the reason why 6a exists - the presidents of teaching colleges aren't generally going to be covered by national news. a bunch of penguins (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Institutional sources can verify the position itself under WP:PROF 6a, but from an AfC perspective, that's not enough on its own to support mainspace inclusion. We still look for some independent, in-depth coverage to establish notability at the time of review. Without that, the draft doesn't currently meet the sourcing expectations for acceptance. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems very strange to me. Notability is a property of the article subject, not the article itself. Notability must be established with a reliable source. A university saying that the president is X is a reliable source. Ergo, X is notable, and as long as the university page is linked, then an article created at stub class should not be deleted by NPP or other editors. But because I went through AfC instead of just putting it into mainspace directly, the demand for sources is (somehow?) larger, so the article cannot be put into mainspace, and the draft is instead scheduled for deletion after some time period passes. That doesn't make sense to me. It certainly doesn't motivate me to use AfC instead of just creating articles directly and having NPP check them instead of AfC.

Independent of that, I think that in this specific case even if you discount all of the university pages, notability has still been established by other reliable sources. The subject is named as the president of the university in:

• The German national library catalog (ref #1)
• A State government webpage (ref #6)
• An article in an 80 year old regional newspaper with a circulation of 200,000 (ref #7)
• An interview on a regional TV station with an audience of up to 350,000 (ref #9)

Aren't all four of those are reliable sources with regard to the question of whether or not she really is the University president? a bunch of penguins (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The 4 sources you mentioned are reliable for confirming that the subject holds her position. But on Wikipedia, notability isn’t just about whether something is verifiable. It also needs significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that go beyond routine facts, as explained at WP:N. Here’s how the current sources compare:

• Ref #1 (German National Library): Reliable for confirming identity, but it’s more of a directory and doesn’t offer independent or in-depth coverage.
• Ref #6 (Bavarian State Government): Confirms her role, but as a government source, it’s not independent.
• Ref #7 (Main-Echo): Looks like a solid independent source, but it’s behind a paywall, so I couldn’t check how in-depth it is.
• Ref #9 (TV Main Franken): A four-minute interview that gives useful context, but since it’s just the subject speaking about herself, it isn’t considered independent.

Thanks again for digging into this and being part of the conversation. I hope this helps explain how notability is looked at during AfC reviews. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, this still doesn't make sense to me. Requiring significant coverage in independent reliable sources is the General notability guideline. The Subject-specific notability guidelines WP:PROF says that the subject is notable because she is a college president. I've read the notability pages several times, and as far as I can understand, that should be the end of the story.

It appears we are not going to come to consensus here, so I plan to ask for feedback on the WP:PROF page. I hope that is fine with you. a bunch of penguins (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Totally fair. We're all acting in good faith, and you're welcome to raise it at WT:PROF. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Question_about_point_6. If you are convinced, can you please approve the draft? a bunch of penguins (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the input at WT:PROF, I’d suggest resubmitting the draft for fresh review. That allows another editor to weigh in, and AfD remains an option if needed. I’m happy to revisit as well. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I've also since added a few additional references and changed the lede as recommended. a bunch of penguins (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi HerBauhaus, would you mind reviewing my suggested updates to Group-IB, a Singapore-based cybersecurity company? I see that you have a background in STEM, as well as related topics, and that you are a member of WP:COMPSEC. I was in discussion with another editor, who pointed out that my office network had corrupted some of the references. Since I fixed them, he has not been back online and I'd appreciate your perspective here: Talk:Group-IB#Updating and expanding History section. Thanks DL02042024 (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:HerBauhaus and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:HerBauhaus and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hi @HerBauhaus, I was wondering if you might take a look at this edit request about a leader in AI: Talk:Eric Xing#Rewrite and expansion request. I am affiliated with the university, but think I've done a good job with neutrality and sourcing. Cheers, Ben Bhps1997 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:HerBauhaus and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:HerBauhaus and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I.I.M.U.N., to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.I.M.U.N. (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)