GermarRudolf
Welcome! edit
Hello, GermarRudolf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for reacting to my recent edits. I understand the concept of a conflict of interest. The issue has an ironic aspect, though. If I edit an entry about myself using merely an anonymous IP, it would not be flagged as having a "conflict of interest." But I want to be honest here so everybody knows where it is coming from. Conflict of interest or not, I'm still the best expert about my own life.
- Recently the section "Background" was marked as needing citations for verification. Having scoured the guidelines on citations, the problem is that some of the information contained can be verified only by autobiographical remarks of mine in books or magazines which may be unacceptable from your point of you. I don't know. In English this is mainly the autobiographical appendix to my expert report (2nd, revised edition, The Barnes Review (Washington, D.C.) 2011; ISBN13: 9780984631278; http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=2) the other is a paper by a South-African scholar in a periodical of not exactly generally accepted repute: Costas Zaverdinos, "The Rudolf Case, Irving’s Lost Libel Suit and the Future of Revisionism," The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 19, no. 5 (September/October 2000), pp. 26-61 (http://codoh.com/node/2936; http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p26_Zaverdinos.html); the only "establishment" publication detailing a number of things mentioned in the entry about me is cited in the German entry and is in German: Probekapitel Geschichtsrevisionisten vor Gericht. aus dem Buch Im Dienste der Lügen. Herbert Grabert (1901–1978) und seine Verlage. Mit einer Abhandlung über Germar Rudolf (PDF, 127 kB; http://www.alibri-buecher.de/docs/probe762.pdf). Other facts are backed by official documents on my own website. I didn't mess with anything in this section, though, since a) disentangling what info can be found where is a challenge, and b) also because I don't know whether autobiographical sources would be accepted. It seems that what is out there right now is acceptable to all players involved, me included (for the most part), so why rock the boat? But what will happen if no references are provided in time? Will the section be deleted? How would we proceed?
- As to the restored paragraph discussing my research of the early 1990s: You did not react to anything I wrote below, which was tailored also to you. I'd appreciate your input, please. In addition I may indicate that there are some principles which are indispensable for Wikipedia and in general. One is "audiatur et altera pars" (the other side should be heard, too), the other is "no ad hominem attacks." Even though there aren't any in the entry about me right now, papers cited in it to back up claims are at times filled with them. That disqualifies them as reliable sources. GermarRudolf (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussing Revisionist Research edit
Today I made several minor changes to the page about myself to clarify some marginal issues. But I also made a major change: I deleted the section discussing the contents of my expert report. This entry is about me, not about my publications. If the latter are to be included, all my publications need to be mentioned, of which there are many more. Since attempts at including links to my expert report have been repeatedly sabotaged, I deleted all references to works claiming to refute it as well. In one case it was claimed such a link to my expert report would be superfluous due to a general link to my personal homepage. But to be balanced, the link to the paper by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy in footnote 2 ought to be deleted as well, because the website where this is posted was already referenced and linked to in the main article. Papers on that website do not even fulfill the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/4): they are neither "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" nor "university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Further, this paper is a "Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, such as ... group blogs." Such sources "are largely not acceptable as sources," all the more so since the authors are not "established expert[s] with a previous record of third-party publications" on the topic. Another entry claimed that including a link to my expert report amounts to disseminating hatred. Hatred is defined by the choice of words when talking about individuals or identifiable groups. My expert report does not address any individuals or identifiable groups as such and does not use insulting or hateful words anywhere, whereas Green's and McCarthy's papers are filled with innuendos and ad hominem attacks. Hence it is better to delete this entire section. Otherwise all of my works will be discussed here, with audiatur et altera pars. GermarRudolf (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
GermarRudolf, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi GermarRudolf! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |