Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi Jens. Re the first sentence of this edit, I just want to say that sometimes foreign editors can make huge contributions to articles about U.S. politics. For instance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, about the most contentious piece of U.S. legislation in decades, was brilliantly written and brought to Good Article status (a major feat) largely by a single editor from the U.K. with some advice and feedback from a handful of editors from the U.S. (including me). Foreign editors are sometimes the best at contentious U.S. politics articles because they tend to be more neutral. I know Trump inflames a lot of passions in Europe, so maybe that doesn't apply to his article, I don't know. But the point is that if you have ideas for how to improve Donald Trump or other U.S. politics articles, please don't disqualify yourself due to your nationality. Your contributions are welcomed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, this website has existed since 2015, while Draft:Juergen Boos has only existed since Feb 2017. Second, Drafts are not indexed, which means that someone would have to know exactly where the draft was located in order to even consider copying from here to there. Third, if they really did copy from Wikipedia (again, highly unlikely) then they did not follow proper copyright rules by acknowledging their source. Given that the first two points are much more likely than the third, I'm disinclined to reinstate copyrighted text. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor FBM Wikipedia IS the Wikipedia-Account of the Frankfurter Buchmesse of which Juergen Boos is CEO. They put the basic informations text in the draft, therefore they are fine that this text which is used also on other websites is used in Wikipedia under cc-by-sa. There is NO copyright-violation, because the owner of the rights put this basic information text about Boos in Wikipedia. Also the basic text from FBM Wikipedia was later edited by me and other editors (Wikilinks, some rewrites to clarify certain aspects). Therefore and because I'm now waiting for over one MONTHS to review and move this draft of a completely fine small article into the article arrea I would appreciate you review the article having all the informations now today again. --Jensbest (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there were zero references in the section I removed, the overall reason for my decline (lack of suitable sources) would still be valid. Now you have an opportunity to add back that material with sources that verify the statements being made. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I need the last version of the deleted content. Please send it to me via Wiki-Mail. Thanks, --Jensbest (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was copied directly from the site linked above, you have the content. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is surely different because I edited it after it was written by user:FBM Wikipedia. Can you sent the last version of the deleted section to me per Wikimail? --Jensbest (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you, they are nearly identical. One sentence on the original was split into two sentences on Wikipedia, and that is the only difference. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's your problem? Just sent me the last version via Wikimail. I don't wanna redo any edit, so why don't you just sent me the last deleted version of the section? --Jensbest (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to redo the edit, then why do you need the exact text from the draft? Here's the exact text. No email needed. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have a language problem: I did some work on this section after the basic text (which may be similiar to the turkish website) and I don't wanna do this work again, because it was quite difficult to check all the additional jobs and titles of the person (and to see if some of that is already avaiable on wikipedia). SO please sent me the last version of the deleted section, so that I don't have to do this time-consuming work again additionally to the now needed more third-party-sources (and some re-writing so that it is not at all a copyright violation (which it never was in the beginning). Are you please mailing me the last version? Thankyou, --Jensbest (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of the wikilinks in the removed text:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), 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:
Only one reference (faz.net) goes into any detail about Boos, and even that is rather thin coverage. Everywhere else he is mentioned in passing simply because he's involved in some dust-ups with the Book Fair. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail.
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:Juergen Boos and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.