Buxtobe

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (April 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HickoryOughtShirt?4 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear HickoryOughtShirt?4,

Thank you for reviewing my article. However, I am completely at a loss as to why “submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.”

All my sources are correct and the "necessary information can be verified.”

I have also adhered to the Wikipedia standards and formats for “Referencing for beginners and Citing sources”, as can be seen from the few corrections made by other reviewers, who had nothing to criticize.

So could you please be more specific about what you think is missing from the article or what needs to be corrected so that it can be approved.

Thank you very much for your information and

best regards

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Buxtobe. Numerous article sections have no sources, such as "Main areas of research" and "Professional activities". On Wikipedia, everything must be cited to a reliable source. Also, the "other reviewers" are bots, so they do not typically comment on the state of an article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4,

thank you very much for your tips. I have added the reliable sources you recommended in the appropriate places and published the text for the submission.

I hope that everything is now in place. If anything is missing or needs to be changed, please let me know.

Otherwise, I wish you a happy Easter and

best regards

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Buxtobe! 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! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Bernhard Wessling has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bernhard Wessling. Thanks! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Johannes,

first of all Happy Easter and then thank you for your kind words and question about the reason for publishing the article.

We think that this article about Mr. Wessling on the English Wikipedia page is important and informative. He is known in the USA and Canada and English-speaking countries through his numerous entrepreneurial activities and his commitment to the complex species conservation project “Whooping crane” with “Operation Migration” and the “International Crane Foundation” and Wikipedia users should be given the opportunity to obtain further information.

Have a nice Sunday and

with best regards

Dirk Buxtobe (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (May 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 Kovcszaln6 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.

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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Kovcszaln6,

thank you for your criticism of the submitted article.

I have added the “published, reliable secondary sources” you requested in the appropriate places.

I have also used existing Wikipedia entries on the person, as this is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, see “Guidelines”: Wikipedia articles are generally based on material from reliable secondary sources.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(Chemie): “There are some studies on the structure of dispersions (emulsions)” -> Wessling, Bernhard (April 1993). “Dissipative structure formation in colloidal systems”. Advanced Materials. 5 (4): 300-305. doi:10.1002/adma.19930050418. ISSN 0935-9648.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyaniline: “Polyaniline dispersions stabilized with surfactants or dopants have been commercially available since the end of the 1990s.” -> Wessling, Bernhard (2010). “New insights into the morphology and structure of organometallic polyaniline”. Polymers. 2 (4): 786-798. doi:10.3390/polym2040786.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductive_polymer: “Experimental and theoretical thermodynamic evidence suggests that conductive polymers can even be completely and in principle insoluble, so that they can only be processed by dispersion.” Wessling, Bernhard (2000). in: Nalwa, H.S. (ed.). Handbook of Nanostructured Materials and Nanotechnology. Vol. 5. New York, USA: Academic Press. S. 501-575

I hope that this now meets the high standards and “show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article” if the person has already been mentioned in three other Wikipedia articles.

If you need further secondary sources, I can of course add them.

With best regards

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Buxtobe: Hi, please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so please remove those. Also, please look into our guidelines on the notability of people. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kovcszaln6,

I am very surprised that Wikipedia itself cannot be a secondary source, given the high standards that are set here for the submission of an article.

However, I have read through the “guidelines on the notability of people” and added further reliable secondary sources.

So I hope that everything is now in order and the article can be approved.

Best regards

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Photo copyright

Do you own the copyright to the photo used in the Draft:Bernhard Wessling? It seems to be his Amazon author profile photo. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ca,

yes, I own the copyright to the photo, which was given to me by the producer of the photo, Mr. Weßling.

Many greetings

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello Buxtobe. 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:Buxtobe. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Buxtobe|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. I note individual declarations. Thank you. Please comply in all respects with WP:PAID 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (June 14)

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

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.

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.

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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent,

thank you very much for your feedback. With all due respect, the reviewing here is slowly taking on bizarre to ridiculous characteristics.

Of course, this is commissioned work for my client. This is not “hidden”, but can be read on my user page. But I am happy to quote it again here: "I also run a science relations agency where I help scientists to raise their profile through public relations work. For this reason, I also create Wikipedia entries on behalf of my clients."

I can also insert the template you suggested into the draft article.

To the best of my knowledge, however, I can't think of anything else that should be missing from the point "qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Since the last decline of the submission on 7. May I have added the “published, reliable secondary sources” you requested in the appropriate places.

I have also used existing Wikipedia entries on the person, as this is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, see “Guidelines”: Wikipedia articles are generally based on material from reliable secondary sources."

I took a look at other comparable articles here on Wikipedia and found far fewer "qualifies for a Wikipedia article".

From your point of view, what would be missing from the article?

Many thanks for the information and best regards

Buxtobe Buxtobe (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Paid editors

As a paid editor you are expected as part of your remuneration to abide by all of the rules. You are paid to discover, learn, understand, and implement all relevant rules, policies, and procedures. Further, you are paid to write neutral and correctly referenced prose which passes these criteria. This is an amateur project. Amateur editors do not generally feel the need to assist paid editors to receive their pay.

I am not averse to good paid editors. If you can write good, neutral, well referenced prose as a draft and submit it for review and acceptance, and receive payment for doing so, then good for you. I welcome you here

However

If you want to use the WP:AFC process to submit your draft more than once, thinking in your error that we will help you get paid, then you have another think coming.

If you are unable to create a draft that requires more than one corrective review, then I do not welcome you here. The only advice I will offer will be within my reviews. I will not otherwise help you to get paid.

If you create your draft as a live article or move your draft to become a live article, then you will discover how unwise this step was. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ldm1954 were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Since this is paid editing there are no excuses. This is a long essay on his life, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. By going into irrelevant details such as him getting a bank loan the key question of his notability is buried. For certain it is very unclear whether he passes WP:NPROF. Cut the puffery, remove peacock, the article should be about 1/3 its current length. Did he win any major awards? That matters far more than whether he is involved in v crane conservation.

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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ldm1954,

thank you very much for your feedback. This is merely an expense allowance and not an “excuse”.

But I have gladly revised the article once again completely according to the criteria you mentioned:

1. I added a “submission rationale” to make the motivations for the article more transparent.

2. WP:NPROF: I have tried to add arguments for the “eight academic-specific criteria”

3. The text has been completely revised so that “the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article” is taken “from a neutral point of view”.

4. The length of the text was greatly shortened.

5. “Independent, reliable, published sources” was added again.

6. Awards was added.

I hope that the text now contains all the criteria for publication. It would be a great pity if other Wikipedia users were to be deprived of important information.

Best regards

Buxtobe (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (July 9)

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

Remove the peacock and puffery please. Also does not have enough RS.

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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

Gommeh 🎮 14:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Gommeh,

thank you very much for your review, but it's getting tiring here.

Every time I get the same argument for rejection, which has long since been corrected.

The article no longer contains any “peacock or puffery”, but the details mentioned about the perosn simply correspond to the facts and they are also written in a factually neutral style that complies with Wikipedia's guidelines.

It would really make more sense to rate the article without reservations, so that this arbitrary censorship does not continue to withhold information from other interested readers.

With best regards

Buxtobe (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (July 9)

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

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The note at the bottom about notability is definitely LLM-generated. Please note that LLMs can’t actually read or think, and thus do not understand Wikipedia’ss notability guidelines.

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:Bernhard Wessling 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear pythoncoder,

thank you for your note on the use of LLMs, which I have also read through.

However, I don't see the problem here, as no “LLM really read or thought”, but this was actually done by a “natural Large Language Model” called human. Therefore, the submitted article also complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines and again cannot understand why it should be rejected.

Best regards

Buxtobe (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernhard Wessling (July 9)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Pythoncoder was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Repeatedly resubmitted without fixing the draft so it meets notability guidelines. There are a lot of references, but very little significant coverage.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear pythoncoder,

could you please also tell me where I can find the complaints office that I can contact on Wikipedia to have this case clarified in a neutral manner?

Many thanks for your information and

with best regards

Buxtobe (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Pythoncoder,

many thanks for the missing answer.

I don't know how many times I've heard this argument here, but I'm happy to respond to it again, for the last time.

I don't know exactly what “significant coverage” should be missing here, but in the end it doesn't matter. I have understood that much by now. It's just a matter of finding some flimsy reasons for rejection without actually addressing the content of the article. You probably won't reply to this either.

I'm very sorry, but I really don't feel like participating here anymore and if nothing changes on Wikipedia, this really great and actually supportable idea will itself become obsolete.

What a pity and goodbye

Buxtobe (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Buxtobe, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Rosiestep (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)