• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3
• /Archive4

Sorry to bother you, but since you responded to my recent request for an account, I decided to reach out. A few months ago, I submitted an article for a non-profit, volunteer organization, the Deutschheim Verein, which supports the Deutschheim State Historic Site in Missouri. The person said the language was too much of an advertisement, so I cut most of the text and made it completely objective. He said I needed references from outside media, so I provided them. But he also keeps implying that I have been paid or received some other remuneration by this organization, which is simply not true. I am a high school teacher; my only connection is that I am a member of this volunteer organization because my ancestor was an important early Missouri German immigrant. This editor is intransigent, unreasonable, and refuses to negotiate anything. How can I get someone else assigned to this case? Thank you for any help you can provide. Jmuench64 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page watcher)Jmuench64, references to sources that are event announcements that were clearly generated by press releases or other public relations efforts by the organization are of no value in establishing the notability of the organization, because they are not independent of the organization. References to sources that do not devote significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions) to the group are of no value in establishing the notability of the organization. The reviewer did their job correctly but you have not yet done your job of establishing this organization's notability. Accusing this volunteer editor of being "intransigent, unreasonable" is a very poor tactic for you, since any competent reviewer would have come to the same conclusion. When you state I am a member of this volunteer organization because my ancestor was an important early Missouri German immigrant, you are admitting that you have a deep conflict of interest regarding this organization, and you should be deferring to the judgment of uninvolved editors instead of taking a combative stance. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me combative? When this reviewer keeps spewing misinformation that I am somehow being "paid" by this completely volunteer, non-profit organization? Nothing could be further from the truth, and I will keep saying so no matter how many times this guy keeps repeating the lie, a la the Goebbels dictum, and no matter whether you desire to gloss over that fact. I am a high school English and journalism teacher; my only minor connection to the group and its material is a desire to maintain our democratic experiment, which is why my ancestors came to this country. That is NOT a conflict of interest. Seriously, the fact that my great-great-great grandfather came to Missouri 190 years ago, fought slavery and helped keep the state in the Union during the Civil War somehow blinds me to objectivity? Those are facts, plain and simple -- not opinion -- just like the fact that the Deutschheim Verein sponsored symposiums of historians who are studying the connection between the Missouri Germans and African-Americans. I earned a master's degree from the best journalism school in the country and worked as a journalist in the past. I know what objectivity is. These stories were not solely generated by news release but were often written by reporters who covered the events. Please stop impugning my character, and look at the actual facts. I am open to any textual changes that need to be made, but please quit the personal attacks. Thank you. 67.6.199.237 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two cents.

@Jmuench64: All articles have to be written from a neutral point of view, and It's frowned upon when you write about something you have bias in. Also, calling someone intransigent or unreasonable is not helpful. Disputes can happen sometimes here, and requests for comment can be helpful in breaking deadlock.

@Cullen328: Jmuench64 seems to be new, we were all new once - hopefully we can help him rather than castigate him. I welcomed this person and I'm happy to provide a third party perspective to calm things down here if that is helpful. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I am open to any third party giving a workable solution, which is why I posted to this message board in the first place. A compromise ought to start with actually reading the text rather than giving a knee-jerk response to ethnicity or non-profit volunteerism. Writing the article from a neutral point of view is not a problem to a former journalist, which is why I rewrote my subsequent drafts with a journalistic rather than public relations tone. Why, then, is that objective text not considered? It certainly ought to trump my German ancestry from 200 years ago or the fact that I volunteered to help a non-profit that traffics in the "highly lucrative" field of Missouri history. The reviewer apparently believes that, because I have an interest in Missouri's German heritage, I cannot write a basic entry about a non-profit organization using a neutral tone? Seriously? That's about as hypocritical as one can be. So every Wikipedia page written about a celebrity was written by somebody who wasn't a fan or publicist? Yeah, right. You're telling me the dozen-page Taylor Swift entry that opens with how to purchase her latest album wasn't written by a publicist? Come on! Maybe we need to add a paragraph to the Wikipedia entry on "Groupthink" citing Wikipedia's editors as a prime example... (I'm kidding, but only partly...)... I welcome anyone who can resolve this impasse and thank you in advance. Jmuench64 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmuench64: Do you have the Deutschheim State Historic Site article in draft somewhere? Happy to take a look. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the drafts area, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ADeutschheim_Verein&oldid=prev&diff=1255265124 Jmuench64 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmuench64:Okay, two of those references were about events and one of them was behind a paywall. Usually the references have to be about the subject of the article, which in your case is that group supporting the Deutschheim State Historic Site. I think it would be fine to put a link to the group on the historic site page and perhaps even a sentence about it too, but otherwise I don't think it would pass WP:NORG as is. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]