Welcome!

Hello, Atomiccocktail, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is is to remind you of our policy on COI editing

Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously.

If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of articles directly:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the ((request edit)) template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

You have disclosed you coi, thank you. You appear to have missed the points about peer review, so I have incuded them above. Let me be very clear. I ask that you only edit the talk page of articles where you have a COI, such as Talk:Hofmann GmbH and refrain from editing Hofmann GmbH yourself. I have a few other points I'd like to make, but I will do so in separate threads to keep the discussion concise and to the point. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of paid edit rules here. All edits are done to provide best information. Peer review is just a proposal, not mandatory. Above that the article was translated after being checked and changed by German Wikipedians not related to Hofmann or me. Atomiccocktail (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomiccocktail I'm glad to hear that you are aware of the relevant policies and guidelines. What German wikipedians have done with regards to the German article is irrelevant. English Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines. That editors of German Wikipedia have in, a way, "peer reviewed" the article is of no consequence here. At a minimum, the article will be reviewed as part of new page patrol, which is what I am doing, to ensure that the article meets all applicable requirements for incusion and that it complies with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. That you choose to ignore the community concensus on coi editing, and insist on editing articles where you have a coi directly, is duly noted. Mduvekot (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "ignore the community concensus on coi editing". This is only your personal interpretation of my answer. Everyone is allowed to edit in articles, especially when trying to provide neutral information. That's what I did. For example, you marked reports of NDR or DW-TW as self pubilshed by Hofmann. This was missleading and incorrect. Mistakes can be immediately removed. It's quality what counts, not origin. And be sure: German Wikipedians are focussed on quality, whether or not they edit corporate articles. Atomiccocktail (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:: Atomiccocktail, I will be asking the community for their feedback on wether this is only your personal interpretation of my answer. You should receive notifcation of my mention of your accounts. Mduvekot (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of enWP policy is the same as Mduvekot's. It may be in some respects different from the deWP, so that they consider something acceptable is not relevant here. There is good reason to always fully declare, for any lack here is likely to be regarded as a significant violation of our rule on WP:COI. There is no possible advantage in not doing so. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declare it if I am paid for edits. In each an every case. If I am not paid, I don’t tell lies. My last edits (since 6 October) all were not paid ones. As stated. Atomiccocktail (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Senator International is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator International until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomiccocktail, you have contributed to the AfD discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSEN Group, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansa-Flex,and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator International with the edit summary This not a paid edit. I am not paid for defending content. even though you were not compansated by the subjects themselves, for contributing to the AfD discussion, you are the owner of the business that has been paid to write those articles in the first place. You also operate the account User:Einfach machen Hamburg and de:Benutzer:einfach machen Hamburg. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD: Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI. I ask that you revert you edit, and repost it, with a clear indication that you are representing the company einfach machen unternehmenskommunikation GmbH, which has been paid by the subjects to create or contribute to the articles ROSEN Group, Hansa-Flex and Senator International Mduvekot (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the rules on the deWP are different, nut as I understand ennWP policy, we regard your role as paid editing, and you must declare it. You can be blocked otherwise.,as we regard undeclared paid editing as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declare it if I am paid for edits. In each an every case. If I am not paid, I don’t tell lies. My last edits (since 6 October) all were not paid ones. As stated. Atomiccocktail (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomiccocktail I request that you strike a comment the statement on the sources distorts the reality that you made here. I did not misrepresent sources in my analysis, and to suggest that I do so is an insult to my integrity as an editor. Mduvekot (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insulting your "integrity as an editor". There is no reason to strike anything. Atomiccocktail (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say on this subject is that, if you are being paid by BLG Logistics, you should not be contributing in any way to an article about them. The fact that you have declared your interest does not make it all right to continue COI editing. If the German article was demonstrably written by someone who did not have a conflict of interest, then it would be okay to translate it, but that does not necessarily mean that it would meet the standards of English Wikipedia. If you do upload it here, it will not be up to me to decide whether it is promotionally worded, but be prepared to have a COI template slapped on it or have it deleted or nominated for deletion by someone else. Deb (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, I followed your advice, thanks. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MagForce AG, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Mar11 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find that the draft has been suitable enough for inclusion and has re-draftified it.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 09:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:BLG Logistics 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:BLG Logistics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waggie (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Atomiccocktail, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Waggie (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MagForce AG, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Winged Blades^Godric 17:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:BLG Logistics. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLG Logistics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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!

Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:EOS Group 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:EOS Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:EOS Group. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

tone issues have not been addressed since previous AFC reviewer comment.

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:EOS Group 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:EOS Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article, even if it is paid. But beforeI accept it, could you please edit it to conform to enWP style:

1.Do not use italics for the names of the companies and divisions--or anything else except booktitles, etc. Just use initial Caps for company names.

2. Try to see if the name of the company can be replaced by "The firm", or"the group: or "it" where it wont be ambiguous. Note that Firm and group are lower case.

3.By our standards, the article is overlinked. see if you can remove some of the ones where the reader would have no need at all to check the link.

4. Most important, since I do not have the books available, please confirm that nothing is even paraphrased from them.

4. Please add publisher to the books. There are some other differences with our citation style, but I will fix them .It would also be good to find and reference somewhere -- or at least list as additional reading--an English language book or two on the general European trading firms in Singapore in the relevant periods.

5. Do we or the deWP have articles on the founders? If so, link. If not, once it's accepted, please make redirects from their names, and the names of any major company discussed here in a substantial way forwhich there are no articles.

6. It could use some financial data, especially current financial data

AND please do the same with the other draft articles as you revise them. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hello & thanks for your precious hints. I will try to implement them and then possibly give an explanation on issues that should remain (in my view) as they are currently formulated. I'll get back to you. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I did the proposed changes.

@ #1 & #2: I deleted italics for the names of the companies and divisions and I reduced the phrase "Behn Meyer" if possible, see here.

@ #3: I reduced internal links to avoid overlinking. See here.

@ #4a: I confirm that I have not violated copyright. I have referred to all sources used. Quotations are identified as such. I have read many books and essays, but the draft is my own text.

@ #4b: I found the publisher of two books. It was "Christians Verlag Hamburg". This very old publisher does not exist anymore - as far as I know (2004: insolvency). See here.
The Kleinsteuber book of 2018 is mayby published by Behm Meyer itself (but Behm Meyer is not a publishing house). I do not know exactly, see here (Word Cat). It is today available in Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg (see World Cat) Commerzbibliothek (see here) and at Bibliothek der Stiftung Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin (see World Cat).

@ #4c: I added a new book of 2018. It is about the history of British enterprise in Singapore and Malaya. Maybe it is of help. See here.

@ #5: At de.wikipedia.org we have articles about Theodor August Behn, Valentin Lorenz Meyer and Arnold Otto Meyer. I linked them. But I am not sure, if the rules allow that. At de.wikipedia.org it is not allowed to link to en.wikipedia.org or es.wikipedia.org (and so on) in this way.

@ #6: Financial data is rare. I added 2016 sales data from a 2017 journal.

Was this ok? Thank you for your reply. Atomiccocktail (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behn Meyer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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!

Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EOS Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. 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 K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --185.249.125.13 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SmokeyJoe 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Fails WP:CORP. If you disagree, see WP:THREE.

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:Voelkel GmbH 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:Voelkel GmbH, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" 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, 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.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the projects listed here at Draft talk:Trusted_Shops:

• WikiProject Germany
• WikiProject Companies

These can be a great place to meet new people and help out.

--Gryllida (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Shops, 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!

Primefac (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]