Hello, Austrian political observer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Austrian political observer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Brigitte Bierlein have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Austrian_political_observer, I hope all is well. I am not sure your addition of the Kohler - Tausch reference to economics and political economy is so helpful? Could you have another think. I am nobody important ... just expressing a view and suggesting, perhaps, self reverting, if, on thinking again you think/agree they might be problematic. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Dear Austrian political observer, I think a big part of the problem is the over-pomotional approach that has been taken tothe WP page on Arno Tausch, the defence of the page by some in the AFDs and the spreading cites to him throughout WP. I suspect this is due to a lack of appreciation of the problem of conflict of interest editing. For example if you yourself have any connections with Arno Tausch that it could be wise to refrain from editing WP in a way that could be seen to be promotional and one should make some mention of any COI that could arise. This is only my view of the WP approach. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Dear Austrian political observer, I think the problems with WP:COI editing of the page on Dr Tausch and mentions of Tausch's work promoted by COI editors are the cause of the problems many have with the Tausch page. These other users: User:John de Norrona, User:Franz weber, User:Bibliographer social science seem also to be interested in this topic broadly interpreted in a COI kind of way. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing and editors with a COI whenever they seek to change an affected article's content are expected to disclose it. Is this a fair worry on my part? I don't know, but it could be useful to be transparent over this. I don't mean this to be rude. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Dear Austrian political observer, I guess you are disappointed and annoyed by the draftification of the article on Arno Tausch. I think the stuff about COI is something that is a big part of the problem and you don't seem to appreciate or have addressed it. If you are thinking of editing the draft - or appealing this it could help your case to address this. Sorry about this and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

I have assessed this draft against WP:NPROF which says:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

I cannot see a match for any of these criteria. So i looked at WP:GNG, and am not convinced that Tausch passes that more general notability set of criteria

@Randykitty:: You may wish to comment upon this review. I have noted the AfD you have drawn our attention to. Draftification does not appear to me to be the most useful outcome of that discussion, but time will tell

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it 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:Arno Tausch 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Austrian political observer! 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! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]