User talk:Matthias Honegger

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative. Thanks! KJP1 (talk) 08:53, 11 January 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 Lacypaperclip was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft needs some more references from reliable sources. Please see: WP:RS . Please let me know if you have any questions or need assistance. Thank you for your contribution to 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative 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:Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, 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 or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Matthias Honegger, 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! Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:59, 15 January 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 Ravenswing was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere 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, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Unfortunately, the new references put in still do not demonstrate the subject's notability. Please take a careful look at the links in the decline rationales: sources must provide significant coverage to the subject -- not just a one sentence namedrop, as the second new ref (and the third, being identical) does. Sources must be independent, which the first and fourth new refs, written by your organization's executive director, are not. Sources describing what the organization is there to deal with -- as all the remaining ones do -- are very well and good, but do not support the subject's notability.

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:Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative 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:Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, 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 or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ravenswing 18:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthias Honegger. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently time-constraint, but would like to unequivocally state that I have never been (and I quote the first-above point) "editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors".

Given that there appears to be a particular interest sparked by my editing of SRM page's characterization of the Degrees Initiative – a UK charitable organization – I want to clarify the facts:

- As an SRM and climate governance expert, I was once (in 2018) invited to participate in a DEGREES and Dhaka University co-hosted 2-day capacity building and deliberation workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh. DEGREES paid for my flight and accommodation; I volunteered my time to contribute to the moderation in the workshop. I am thus accurately listed on DEGREES' website as a volunteer.

- As an SRM governance expert I was asked in December 2024 – in context of the conference committee's peer review process – to review conference session proposals for the degrees global forum. I volunteered 2h of my time to review those proposals as is common practice for academic conferences.

I am not very active on Wikipedia and thus may not be the expert on COI, so I'll defer to others' judgment as to the above-voiced concern. Matthias Honegger (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]