User talk:YouTubeSpezialist

This is YouTubeSpezialist's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ulrich Lemmer has been accepted

Ulrich Lemmer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

nearlyevil 665 09:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

additional information needed

The reviewof this draft seem to have removed all the evidence for notability . Check WP:PROF--the significance as a researcher is usually shown by the influence in the field, and this is normally shown either by citations, or as awards. The original draft was inadequate: it asserted high citations ,but did not show them Nowthere are not even the assertions. You need to back the list of most cited publications, and add the numbers. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias Kolle (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathias Kolle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mathias Kolle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YouTubeSpezialist! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mathias Kolle

In relation to your IRC chat help question - English Wikipedia has a lot more stringent policies when it comes to biographies of living people. Basically any statement that *could* be challenged needs to be sourced or removed. Your draft was also declined for this reason. Please have a read of WP:BLP - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias Kolle (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvement since last submission. For biographies of living people all claims must be cited to a reliable source. Most of the content is unsourced. Pleas also see the notability guidelines for academics.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathias Kolle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mathias Kolle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Mathias Kolle has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mathias Kolle. Thanks! nearlyevil 665 07:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias Kolle has been accepted

Mathias Kolle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scientific bios

Let me give you some advice, based on standard practice on the enWP under the policy WP:NOT CV. (This is not necessarily my own preferences, but as one of the experienced science biography reviewers here, I give it as a summary of what I believe to be the standard.) An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Make sure the article contains, first, the basic biographical information such as birthyear and birthdplace, then the full sequence of degrees and professional positions in chronological order, with dates. Next, a complete list of books published, with year, date, publisher, ISBN (referenced to WorldCat), and links to published reviews of the books; and (in the sciences) the 5 or so most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar of Scopus or ISI; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university) Add major national-level outside positions, such as president of the major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Light Technology Institute (November 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Cites only primary sources, and mostly close ones at that. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Light Technology Institute and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Light Technology Institute

Hello, YouTubeSpezialist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Light Technology Institute, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]