User talk:Ricarda.O.Huch

Welcome!

Hi Ricarda.O.Huch! I noticed your contributions to Draft:Clemens Apprich and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clemens Apprich

I have added an infobox to Draft:Clemens Apprich. It is mostly blank. Please fill in any blanks that you can. When you think the draft is ready, please submit it. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello Ricarda.O.Huch. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ricarda.O.Huch. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ricarda.O.Huch|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clemens Apprich (October 7)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. All references currently seem to be his papers, which I suggest is fixed before resubmitting. Thanks! :)

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:Clemens Apprich 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.

Sir MemeGod  18:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir MemeGod, Thanks for the Feedback!

I have added some additional references, including sources from the APA – Austria Presse Agentur, OSA - Open Science Austria or FWF – Austrian Science Fund. Ricarda.O.Huch (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ricarda.O.Huch! Having an article draft 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! Sir MemeGod  18:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir MemeGod, Thanks for the Feedback!

I have added some additional references, including sources from the APA – Austria Presse Agentur, OSA - Open Science Austria or FWF – Austrian Science Fund. I would appreciate an answer if the article is complete or if something is missing, so that the article can be published. Thanks in advance! Ricarda.O.Huch (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clemens Apprich (November 26)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources seem worse than before. Please refer to the blue links provided in the decline note for guidance on improving them.

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:Clemens Apprich 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]