User talk:Musicandarts64

Ways to improve Christa Agnes Tuczay

Hello, Musicandarts64,

Thanks for creating Christa Agnes Tuczay! I edit here too, under the username Ajpolino and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Any chance you could find a reference or two that isn't authored by the topic of the article? That would really improve the article. Thanks for your contribution!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Ajpolino}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ajpolino (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear @Ajpolino: for your feedback. I added four references as you suggested and will now remove the tag. Musicandarts64 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marina Fischer-Kowalski has been accepted

Marina Fischer-Kowalski, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft "Ingrid Miethe"

Hi, Musicandarts! Ingrid asked me to give the draft a native-speaker review. If you have any question, I'll be happy to etc. Wegesrand (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Lange moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Axel Lange. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because He is a fresh PhD with a small number of publications and few cites. He needs wider recognition by his peers via citations and major awards before he becomes notable. We also do not want a long description of his work, that is what a CV is for.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ldm1954, thanks for taking a look at the Axel Lange article. I have of course seen the number of citations. Evolutionary theorists have significantly fewer citations overall than e.g. medical ptofessors or others.

From my perspective, Axel Lange is not only relevant for Wikipedia as a scientist, but also as a book author. He has written four monographs, including three for world-renowned publishers (Springer, Taylor&Francis/Routledge). The most recent monograph on the postmodern theory of evolution, published in English in 2023, is unique on the global market. As this is scientific secondary literature, Axel Lange's books are naturally not often cited. But you can see that the English work has been recognised and praised by the world's leading evolutionary biologists (click here on critic's reviews: https://www.routledge.com/Extending-the-Evolutionary-Synthesis-Darwins-Legacy-Redesigned/Lange/p/book/9781032376899). Therefore, in the combination of Axel Lange as a scientist AND non-fiction author, I would like to argue that he is encyclopaedically relevant for Wikipedia.

As for the description of his work: if I were to shorten it, the reference to the relevant, existing Wikipedia articles would be lost. That would perhaps make it more difficult to understand his work. What do you think?

I think the form of the article otherwise complies with all Wikipedia rules. Would you agree to move the draft back to the article space? Is there anything else I need to do to optimise the article?

Thanks for your help.

Best Musicandarts64 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Musicandarts64,

A longish response which I may need to add more to, so this is a start. Much of this you may already know; while it looks like you have not made other edits, your account seems to have been around for a while -- maybe in another language? Criteria differ among the various Wikipedias. Some important comments

The last sentence of the Draftification notice is very important, "which you can improve, undisturbed for a while". With new page patrol WP:NPP there are a range of options from speedy delete to accept. Draftify is, for me, when an article might make the cut when improved, although no guarantee it will.
I am not the person you have to convince, the article has to convince everyone by itself. For instance, the review you quote should be cited in the article plus other favorable reviews, perhaps with a sentence quote. You have to demonstrate that his peers have found him notable -- it does not matter what you or I think!
He is too fresh from his PhD for notability, please read WP:NPROF. It is unusual for anyone below the rank of full professor to be considered as notable. Hence you probably should be looking at him as an author, see WP:AUTHOR. You need to demonstrate that independent sources state his notability. The review you mentioned is a start, you need more.
Much of the research of his you describe may be good, but you have to think about a Devil's advocate question "so what". If others say "wow, this is a breakthrough" that matters 100 times more than the description.
Wikipedia is very conservative. It is not a place for new ideas, it is for established ones, the "not" page WP:! is worth a read. There is both WP:TOOSOON and WP:SUSTAINED.

Good luck. You should improve, getting advice and I suggest that you then submit for review. If you just create it new and it is not good enough it could be nominated for deletion, as articles can only be moved to draft once. My first page was declined multiple times and I ended up abandoning it as I could not prove that she was notable beyond reasonable doubt. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ldm1954 for your valuable help. I will know how to use it. Musicandarts64 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Axel Lange (April 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 Voorts 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Several paragraphs lack citations.

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:Axel Lange 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Musicandarts64! 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! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Axel Lange (June 23)

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

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Axel Lange (July 1)

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

With an h-factors of 6 and no notable awards he is far from qualifying under academic notability. Please read carefully what is required, quoting one or two papers that mention him does not matter, their need to be hundreds of citations to individual papers. His total citations are 96; the top person in Google Scholar in evolutionary biology has > 400,000 and a h-factors of 130. I strongly suggest that you wait 5-10 years before resubmitting, he is too far from meeting the criteria.

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:Axel Lange 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) 10:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]