Annegret Hannawa, 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!

CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackPantherDesert! I noticed your contributions 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackPantherDesert! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Annegret Hannawa that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry -- I think I just made the same mistake again, will not repeat in the future. Thanks --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thank you! Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Annegret Hannawa, you may be blocked from editing. This is getting disruptive. You've reverted three editors now, and you keep adding primary, not secondary sources. In addition, it's pretty clear that you have a conflict of interest, and I'm going to place a COI warning below: you need to read WP:DECLARE and follow what it says. If you do not address this matter, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Drmies, I did not disrupt or intend to disrupt Wikipedia in any way. Your accusation that I reverted three editors is wrong, I ONCE undid only YOUR very first nearly commentless mass-deletion of content because I felt that your deletion happened without proper justification. Upon your repeated deletion, I accepted your deletion and said I will add more secondary sources to see if that would satisfy you. While I was working on adding the sources, an unnamed account jumped in and deleted everything again while I was on visual editing (being rather new here, visual editing is easier for me than working in source code, so I first had to undo the changes in order to be able to visual-edit the sources). Then I did have to work in source code, which took me a while, and I submitted what I considered to be constructive changes. Immediately, you again stepped in with very harsh language and now you even threaten me! Out of nowhere, you are accusing me of having a conflict of interest, and you threaten to delete my account!!! With all respect, but if anyone's being disruptive here, then it's the way you are responding to me! I am really trying my very best here and do not deserve to be treated like that. I would expect that being new on Wikipedia, if you have a problem with my edits, then you would provide me with constructive comments how to improve my editing, instead of aggressively threatening me to cut me out. I followed your instructions with my best judgment, with guidance I pulled from this article here on sourcing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources (since you didn't give me any guidance or details on what your concern is). I did my very best, and if you are still not content, then please tell me explicitly why the sources I provided now are primary and not secondary in nature. I see them as secondary, so evidently I need to better understand what you are discontent with, and to learn to become a better editor. Also: please remove that unjust COI warning, I DID NOT revert three editors and DID NOT disrupt Wikipedia, this accusation is unjust and wrong. I even reached out to you on your talk page to discuss this, and instead of responding and trying to find a solution together, you place a warning on me here and threaten to lock me out, based on completely unjust accusations. I expect to have a conversation about this, so we can work this out. Because as I understand, this is the ethical format of Wikipedia -- that editors find agreement on what they suppose are the most accurate and appropriate article content. I look forward to your explanation of why the sources you are having issues with are primary and not secondary in nature, so I can understand this. I will then try to find secondary sources and you can tell me if I am still right or wrong and why. This way I can learn the difference and improve my editing skills. If such a conversation is not possible with you and you keep aggressing against me, then I am really disappointed and will have to seek other help. Thanks, --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did revert three editors, as the history clearly shows. You may have changed things here or there, but the fact is you reverted, and the last time you reverted you still did not include proper secondary sources. As for harsh language--well, after three reverts and continued COI editing, that's warranted, if that was even harsh at all. I mean, if you are going to contribute here we should be able to expect you to learn at least some of the policies and guidelines, and someone who is obviously a decent writer and knowledgeable about academia should be expected to understand what independent, reliable sources are, and that is step one, long before any "ethical format". What you could have done, besides reading the policies and guidelines, was go to the talk page and discuss, rather than reverting. And what you still have not done is clarify your conflict of interest, and that simply needs to be done. If you don't do that, I guarantee you that you will be blocked, since the conflict of interest is pretty obvious here, and relevant here is also a subsection of the COI page I linked to, WP:UPE--the section on undeclared paid editors. User:Johnuniq, what am I missing here? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, you yourself reverted twice, yet I am disruptive? With no constructive rationale, which makes me think that if anyone has a conflict of interest here, it would be you! Why are you picking at this particular article so much -- or is it me? I am here to learn! I DID go onto EACH editor's talk page to reach out to them! To end these ridiculous accusations: Where do I clarify my conflict of interest? Please give me clear instructions! I saw the COI box, but I cannot find any "declaration" field or link. I want to get this straightened out, I feel discriminated and harassed by the way you are picking at me non-stop today, with such enormous accusations and with a consistent insatiable criticism of my sourcing. User:Johnuniq, please take a look at Drmies' talk page where I have really been trying to understand his sourcing concerns, yet everything I say gets thrown back at me. His overly picky criticism regarding the sourcing in this one particular Hannawa article really suggests that Drmies either has or is developing a conflict of interest here, either with Hannawa or against me personally, I have no idea. If his unreasonable criteria concerning what he personally considers "notable" secondary sources and his straight-out rejection of ANY primary sourcing (which goes against Wikipedia policy as I understand it) would be enacted upon all Wikipedia articles out there, then pretty soon, each article would need to be deleted. An encyclopedia entry should contain information that is accurate and verifiable as such. User:Johnuniq, I think it would be important that a neutral third party (you?) looks at the Hannawa article (including the sections deleted by Dmries) and judges the sourcing objectively and reasonably -- with reasonably, I mean in accordance with the Wikipedia-standard that is applied to all articles, not only this particular one. Thanks! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackPantherDesert. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Annegret Hannawa, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Pinging Johnuniq also. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

I hereby disclose that I have no conflict of interest that affected my creation and editing of the article Annegret Hannawa. I was not and will not get paid for my contributions to this (or any other) Wikipedia article. I have no external role or relationship with Hannawa or with any other persons whose articles I edit. I pursue no covert advertising, advocacy or campaigning with my Wikipedia contributions. Nor am I subject to any other conflicts of interest described in WP:COI. I have followed Hannawa's work for some time because it is of personal interest to me. I perceive that she has contributed to resolving severe healthcare challenges in substantial ways. I chose to write this article because I believe her accomplishments meet the criteria for a Wikipedia entry. Other editors have agreed and this is how the article ended up on Wikipedia. Shortly after its creation, an editor placed an orphan tag onto the article. I followed this editor's advice to connect the article to other Wikipedia entries, so that the orphan tag could be removed. I do not pursue any edit wars and I do not intend to engage in disruptive or non-transparent editing. I simply represent the standpoint that encyclopedia-worthy information deserve a solid online presence on Wikipedia. I am posting this disclosure consistent with my prior discussion with Johnuniq. Pinging Drmies -- is this sufficient? --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some frankness would be good. Consider the following.

• de:User:SchwarzerPanther77 (black panther 77) created de:Annegret Hannawa at 10:44, 9 April 2021.
• User:BlackPantherDesert created Annegret Hannawa at 11:20, 9 April 2021.
• SchwarzerPanther77 uploaded File:Vkd-248.jpg (later renamed to File:Annegret Hannawa.jpg) at Commons at 09:42, 20 Apr 2021.
• SchwarzerPanther77 added that image to de:Annegret Hannawa at 09:45, 20 April 2021.
• BlackPantherDesert edited Annegret Hannawa at 10:11, 20 April 2021 which included adding the image.
• The image (which I can't find elsewhere in an internet search) has an OTRS permission (23 April 2021) from the copyright holder.

There is obviously more to the story than revealed in the cute declaration above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]