User talk:Wantanabe

Welcome!

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Gheus (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gheus, first - thanks for your work here on Wikipedia and your commitment to quality and that the standards are met. I mostly contribute to the German Wikipedia and I'm not that used to the main, English version.

Regarding your suspected conflict of interest: I assure you that this is not an advertisement and that I do not get paid for creating this or any article on Wikipedia. I actually own a pair of ATCs loudspeakers (the famous ATC SCM50ASL - https://atc.audio/hi-fi/loudspeakers/classic-series/scm50/) and would consider myself as an SME regarding studios monitors, electronics, acoustics and all things hi-fi. And yes, I'm an ATC fanboy. Which is not a criteria of COI as I understand it :-)

ATC is one of the highest praised and respected loudspeaker manufacturers in the world and meets every aspect of relevance.

Critically reading my article agin I'm with you that it is not written very well and that it lacks substantial evidence from the outside. This can and should be done better.

My question now is: Is it OK if I continue to work on this draft to meet all the criteria and quality standards?

Please let me know how I can and should proceed. Thank you again. Wantanabe (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus After reading your message again (sorry) I saw you already stated that I can continue to improve the text. I'll do so and let you know once I think it meets all criteria. All the best. Wantanabe (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Gheus, may I ask for your point of view? I edited the article to meet all criteria (imho). Can you have a look and give me advice if I should sent it to the review-process or if I can "risk" to publish it directly? Thank you. Wantanabe (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't publish it yourself as there is a high risk of deletion (see WP:AFD). I suggest to follow WP:AFC and submit it as a draft. Gheus (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you suggested. Thank you for your support. Best Wantanabe (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello Wantanabe. 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:Wantanabe. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wantanabe|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. Gheus (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus - I hereby officially declare that I never have and not intend to receive any compensation for my editing on Wikipedia. Since 2008 I'm a private contributor to this amazing work of collective intelligence, knowledge and collaboration, and I'm proud to be part of this. Please see my German profile for additional information: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wantanabe

If you need any additional information, please let me know. Thank you. Wantanabe (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wantanabe, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarioGom, I can ensure you that I do not use multiple accounts and I do not use other people to coordinate the use of multiple accounts. I do occasionally work together with people - who I personally know - on articles or edits, but I do not understand, why this violates any rule. Again - I'm not compensated in any way, I do my work here for free on subjects that interest me and where I think I can (and should) contribute.

Also: I do appreciate your efforts to ensure the quality and integrity of Wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to prove that I'm a regular user and compliant editor. Thank you! Wantanabe (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported for misuse of multiple accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wantanabe. I did not see a clear-cut policy violation, so I closed the case. No further action is needed other than you reading the above policies. While it is ok for you to work on Wikipedia together with people you know outside Wikipedia, there's some cases where that can violate some policies. Best, MarioGom (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MarioGom, thank you for the fast action on this. I've read the policies (learned some things) and will stick to them. Yes, it's complicated, but I understand and support the processes that are needed to ensure quality and trustworthiness. Thanks again! Best, Wantanabe (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Schäfer moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Wolf Schäfer. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Gheus (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gheus, I guess it's the same advice her - to submit the article to the review process. Wantanabe (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ATC Acoustic Engineers.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ATC Acoustic Engineers.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Wolf Schäfer has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wolf Schäfer. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Theroadislong, for your feedback. I appreciate it.

I'm looking into adding more external references. Still I had the impression that there are links to several reliable, independent sources, like top Universities, Google Scholar, the Max-Planck-Institute, the American Academy in Berlin and Die Zeit.

Given the academic work Schäfer has done in several areas over his lifetime, it seemed natural to me to also include references to some of his most recognised work.

As I'm more familiar with the German Wikipedia and the editing process there, may you provide me with some guidance to ensure that all criteria are met? That would be very helpful. Thank you again. All the best, Wantanabe (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wolf Schäfer (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Spinster300 were:

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 content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Notable and promising, but this draft needs to be re-written neutrally and secondary sources need to be prioritised. Please see: WP:BLP. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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:Wolf Schäfer 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.

Spinster300 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wantanabe! 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! Spinster300 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) (April 30)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Chat Help

Hi Wantanabe,

I was about to reply to you on the IRC live chat, but you left it.

As I'm sure you are aware, each Wikimedia project has it's own policies and processes, so what might be accepted at DEWP, may not be here. English Wikipedia has the strictest new article requirements.

It seems that primary sources are doing heavy lifting in the article, we don't care about what ATC say about themselves, we care what others say about them independently (so no press-releases, no interviews). Some of the other references are normally disregarded for notability purposes for example reference 14 from 'Mix Online' states the writer as 'Mix Staff', so who wrote it? Who edited it? How do we know they were not paid by ATC to write it?

Hopefully that helps

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich,

yes, that helps a lot. I'll delete all references from ATC and check that all other can be pinned down to real names. Thank you for your support! Wantanabe (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wolf Schäfer (May 16)

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

Many sources are his own publications, or standard university profiles.

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:Wolf Schäfer 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.

GoldRomean (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) (May 31)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Barely any of the sources seem reliable, and nearly none of them are not self-published.

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:ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) 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.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wolf Schäfer has been accepted

Wolf Schäfer, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

WeWake (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer) has been accepted

ATC (loudspeaker manufacturer), 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]