Bluexepnos

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources

Please read WP:RELIABILITY and don't add content that is not based on reliable sources, as you did on Ursula Haverbeck. Thanks. Chrisahn (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: The author of the photo said anyone can use it. And it's a photo. How can a photo be "unreliable"? Do you think someone edited it or something? Bluexepnos (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think what Chrisahn means is that there are no reliable sources connecting the photo to the subject of the article. Therefore adding it would introduce unverified information. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Oh, okay, that's fair enough, so if I find a reliable article which has that picture of her, it would be okay?

Also, I'll move this to the talk page, so reply there Bluexepnos (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw the source you posted on the talk page, and I now think you may be right. It's strange though, there are many places that label that pic as her, and there is some resemblance. I'm not 100% sure but it has certainly provided enough doubt that I agree that it should be left down. Sorry for my mistake, it was an honest errorBluexepnos (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of people who claim that's a photo of Haverbeck, but none of them have a shred of reliability. Most of them are Nazis or Nazi-sympathisers, which is correlated to their inability to distinguish fact from fiction. It only takes a few minutes to find the source of the image, and a bit more time to find the real name of the woman in the photo, her Facebook page, and a Facebook comment where she actually mocks those who believe the photo shows Haverbeck. (I won't publish any of that for privacy concerns.) Chrisahn (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)