User talk:Johannes Maximilian

Archives (index)

2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This was a precursor to the catalytic converter, but is there an entry? Articles here and maybe here. Does Thermal oxidizer have anything to do with it? de:Regenerative Nachverbrennung links to Regenerative thermal oxidizer, is that the same thing? I don't want to post Wikilinks to the wrong concept. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hakan, in principle, these things are all the same. The difference is that industrial regenrative thermal oxidisers are nowadays used in industrial-grade facilities (e.g., waste processing facilities). In motor vehicles, thermal reactors are significantly smaller in size and much more primitive in their operation. NSU fitted the Ro80 with such a device because of the Wankel engine's poor combustion behaviour (the combustion chamber has such a bad shape that the flame cannot reach the mixture in the "corners", i.e., the mixture doesn't combust and leaves the combustion chamber through the exhaust). Since fuel contains hydrocarbons (HC), it must be oxidised, i.e., converted into CO₂ and H₂O) if it isn't meant to produce a smelly exhaust – and this is why that device was installed in the first place. Otherwise, the smell would have been unbearable. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Draft:Thierry Rayer

Dear Moderators,

I am writing to seek your assistance regarding the feedback you provided on the article in question. First, I would like to thank you for your comments and for the work you do to maintain the platform’s quality standards.

However, I am somewhat surprised by some of your remarks, particularly those indicating that certain phrases appear too promotional. Our intention is simply to faithfully transcribe information from media outlets and official sources, such as ministries or museums. I would therefore like to raise a few points to clarify the situation.

Firstly, could you please identify the specific phrases or information that you find promotional? This would help us make the necessary adjustments while remaining faithful to the sources we have carefully selected. It is crucial not to alter the content of information from official or journalistic sources, as this might compromise its accuracy.

Secondly, I would like to emphasize that all references cited in the article come from reliable, recognized, and verifiable sources. The excerpts written are directly based on these sources to ensure accuracy and compliance. It would be helpful if you could review these references in detail, as they form the foundation of the article and ensure the reliability of the presented information.

I therefore wonder how these sources are being taken into account during the evaluation process. Have you had the opportunity to review them thoroughly? By doing so, you will see that the article is solely based on factual and verified information, drawn from credible and objective publications.

Our goal is to contribute in a neutral, objective, and well-documented manner. We would be very grateful if you could guide us on the necessary adjustments to meet your expectations while maintaining the integrity of the sources.

Thank you for your attention, and I remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Sincerely, Inspiringflow (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

I have done the correction on source link. Thanks for your advice. Could I ask you to give your kind hand to make it perfect the article Burdubai007 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize once again that my writing style aligns with UNESCO's principles, and it is solely within this context that I write my articles. UNESCO only speaks of peace and well-being, and there is nothing promotional about my statements. I do not promote any individual or anyone else. Everything I talk about here concerns the works I have accomplished, all the actions I have undertaken. I work in humanitarian aid, and I address the same topics as UNESCO. I give conferences with senior and influential officials, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, as I mentioned earlier. Everything I say is verifiable with the extremely reliable sources I have included in the article.

I go to Geneva to give conferences at the UN, etc.

There is also the Minister of Culture.

Look at all the photos I have posted of myself with princesses, with ministers, even with the most famous Minister of Culture. There are ambassadors from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, everyone is there. Despite this, you claim that I pay journalists, that the sources I provide are not reliable at all. Are you serious?

Please be very careful with your words. Verify the sources properly, take the time to thoroughly check each piece of information before making defamatory accusations against me. If you say all of this, are you insinuating that all these high-ranking officials are corrupt? That they are fake?

After all the sources, references, photos, etc., that I provide, you dare to say they are false?

I invite you to thoroughly verify the information in my article, the sources, the references, etc., before saying anything.

And when you say that I paid someone to publish the article, are you serious? The person in the article’s photo is the director of the Louvre Abu Dhabi museum, not just anyone.

So, be very careful with what you say. Are you insinuating that an influential person would have paid a journalist to publish an article? These are defamatory statements you are making.

I do volunteer work, humanitarian work. I go to Africa to help poor children, disadvantaged families, and others. I work in humanitarian aid and help them access a good education, etc.

I have even risked my life several times doing humanitarian work. Tell me, what interest do I have in doing it? Other than constantly risking my life trying to make a difference for the less fortunate?

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. So, reconsider your statements. Inspiringflow (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Inspiringflow, I must admit that I am quite entertained by your AI-aided editing, and frankly, I reckon this is not going anywhere; nonetheless, I decide to remain civil and even think it might be good to give you advice. Please, don't ignore it.

• At this point, I would like to emphasise once again that your draft submission must align with Wikipedia's principles, not with Unesco's. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e., it depicts what is believed to be established knowledge, and it does so in a neutral manner. An article on Wikipedia must not "speak of peace and well-being" because that would be promotional. I tend to use an engineer's approach when looking at things, so, for your understanding, if you make such a claim and then say that you "do not promote any individual or anyone else" (do you mean anything else?) I consider that claim to be proven wrong. Some editors may consider that behaviour "lying", or, to put it into Wikipedia's style, disruptive editing. I am not offended by that but other editors may be.
• The problem with your extremely reliable source "AIJESNEWS" is that it is based on the exact same AI style as your Wikipedia talk page contributions. It doesn't have proper attribution. Nobody on Wikipedia has ever cited that source, and nobody on Wikipedia knows that source. The source not only appears bogus, it is. Unesco Wikipedia has a policy called WP:BLPRS that mandates that "contentious material about living persons" that is based on extremely reliable sources such as AIJESNEWS "should be removed immediately and without discussion".
• It doesn't matter where you've held a conference or whom you've met there because Wikipedia isn't based on the principle of inherited notability, cf. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO.
• The photograph that you have "posted" is a WP:COPYVIO and must be deleted.
• Unesco Wikipedia is not a place to promote the truth, instead, Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability, cf. WP:TRUTH. Thus, on Wikipedia, it is checked a) whether or not the sources may be deemed reliable, and b) whether they support the article's contents. The extremely reliable source "AIJESNEWS" fails a).
• I hope – but I doubt – that you understand that just providing "sources, references, photos, etc." doesn't have anything to do with whether or not these are true or false. The photo (or photos?) is/are a copyright violation, the references can still be improved, and the sources are not suited for a WP:BLP.
• Regarding verifiability in the sense of Wikipedia, please see WP:V.
• People who do real volunteer work and who really risk their lives may be offended by your bold claims.
• "Last October 28, the CESR organized a day" doesn't make sense. So please, rewrite your draft.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think you are writing an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which is highly discourage in Wikipedia. Please reconsider writing this. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never considered it to be even approaching insolent for a microsecond. I've left you a reply there, but wanted to add a personal one here. I do become frustrated with offering advice when it is carefully ignored, but I have learned to lessen the frustration I find the best method is to hand the issue to someone else. Sometimes it still takes a little while. I use the mantra "I care, but not that much!" coined by Herb Cohen, whom I saw speaking on the topic. Cheesy? Certainly. Useful? You be the judge. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, Thank you for understanding correctly what I meant. I know it's weird to express that but I feel it's right to say. I can relate very well to what you're saying – the frustration about AfC submitters ignoring advice has – sadly, I must admit – led to a point at which I figure that I have stopped, for the most part, even considering to give advice. Maybe you read what I wrote about the time it takes to compose a thorough review; most of that time is spent on explaining to the submitter – and fellow reviewers – what I reckon is worth improving. Comprehending a draft's sources sufficiently enough takes just a few seconds. What what shall I do? What shall we do? Explaining that takes time; explaining it over and over again is frustrating, and then someone saying that accepting an overly promotional draft is a viable option is even more so. And I haven't put into consideration the undisclosed paid editing that I see every day; frankly, I don't judge a draft by the person who composed it, but I admit that sometimes doing so would save me a lot of time. I feel helpless sometimes. That's adding to the frustration. Best, Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So many editors are genuinely amenable to advice that I am happy to give it even when disregarded.

Paid editors, these I hold to a higher standard. I expect a paid editor to be capable of creating a draft that is accepted at their first or second submission. Anything after that makes them a timesink. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the latter! Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Draft. Olusola David Ayibiowu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olusola_David_Ayibiowu Please, join to edit this draft because the reason why the draft was rejected is not genuine.Although,it was first decline Johannes Maximilian. But after it was declined. I resubmited. But now l can't edit it because it has rejected. " Eecogru (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eecogru, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:CIR. It frankly doesn't matter whether or not the AfC reviewer is an atheist. If your draft is unsuitable for Wikipedia, it will be declined. Please improve your draft before resubmitting it. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannes, l accept your opinion in good faith. l will continue to improve on the draft before submitting. If l can still edit the draft again?

Thank you for your quick response and God bless you. Eecogru (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

l will surely improve on the draft before resubmitting. If l can still edit the draft again?

I say Big Thank You. Eecogru (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru (talk page watcher) The draft has been rejected. You may appeal to the rejecting reviewer, Guessitsavis who will doubtless be more than irritated by the headline AFC-Rejected by atheist who doesn't believe in this particular Afc which you have chosen, and the words " l can't edit it again because the draft have been rejected by atheist who doesn't believe in it." because you have cast aspersions on their integrity. If they choose, they will explain to you whether they will retract their rejection or not. If not then you may wish to approach WP:AFCHD with a request that this proceed further in the review process.

I have chosen not to look at your draft at all. My comment here is to tell you that your rudeness is unacceptable, your accusation of bias is unacceptable. I see this as a personal attack on a fellow editor and I am about to warn you over your conduct on your own talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru

Hello. Your draft was rejected, as almost all of your sources were of podcasts administered by an organization the subject appears to be a direct part of. The rest appeared to be directory information, or information the subject has uploaded. You are free to submit an appeal at WP:AFCHD, or explain why you believe it to be notable, through other sources or explanations. In the future, please do not accuse me of bias without irrefutable evidence, regardless of my religious beliefs. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guessitsavis,please don't be offended at all. I apologized and withdraw that statement. Please accept my apology.

Thank you. Eecogru (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. People make mistakes, people get caught up in the heat of the moment or emotions. Just please, think before you make accusations like that in the future. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guessitsavis, thank you for understanding and for accepting my apology.

I say Big Thank You. Eecogru (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon this has all been resolved. I don't oppose any improvements made to Wikipedia, so if you (or anybody else) can, in accordance withe the ToU, compose a proper draft, I'd happily have a look at it. Best, --15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes,

Thank you for taking the time to review this page - Draft:Titan Wealth

Could you help me understand why the links - in particular the Financial Times links - do not qualify as acceptable sources? I'd like to get this page up correctly and don't want to submit something that will be rejected again! My thoughts behind the FT links are:

1) The financial times is a globally-renowned newspaper and I would have thought a reliable source

2) It's in-depth piece on Titan

3) It's a secondary source - it's an interview by an FT journalist about the company. It includes some quotes from the firm, but news article generally do this, how can we differentiate this?

4) It's by an independent publication - the FT is renowned for its independence. The author is a Financial Times journalist independent of Titan

Appreciate your help in advance!

BLWright236 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]