User talk:Marinus von Eisenstein

September 2019[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Heinrich Schoeneich, from its old location at User:Marinus von Eisenstein/sandbox/Heinrich Schoeneich. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Marinus von Eisenstein, 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! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Heinrich Schoeneich (December 12)[edit]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The enWP and the deWP are different. Although by most standards, the deWP is better--a higher and more consistent standard for notability , a lesser degree of contamination by promotionalism, a higher level of grammatical correctness, a more skillful and mature approach to writing--there are some things we do differently. We do not write essays, though this might be because we have so many fewer people that could competently write anything extensive. We try to avoid advocacy for a person's views in a biography about them, and are much more likely to focus on the facts of their life more than their opinions, and for anything that might be considered in any way a judgment or evaluation, we require third party sources not based on entirely on interviews with the subject or the subject's own writings. Again, this may be because we have fewer people who could handle such material fairly, and a very large number who are eager to turn all possible articles into propaganda.

So the article will need to be abridged somewhat, removing both some personal material and some advocacy, and the number of references reduced to those that actually document the text. Any necessary notes should be listed separately.

We have an article, ReSurge International, which claims to be the successor of Interplast. It mentions that Interplast continues under the original name in Australia. From this article, it apparently does in Germany also., and it is completely unclear if there is any umbrella organization.So all these things will at some point have to be clarified. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Heinrich Schoeneich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Since I have been for many years one of the most active reviewers here for biomedical biographies, it might avoid confusion if you let me know on my user talk page when you have it ready.

* If you do not make any further changes to your draft, I shall probably "stubbify" it myself, so we have a basis for further work.   DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marinus von Eisenstein! Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some additional comments[edit]

I see that on the German WP you have also written a biography for the plastic surgeon de:Gottfried Lemperle, and the reviewer atthe deWP advised you that it need more specific references. So it does, and the current revision by TheTokl is fairly close to what we would want, except we do not include all the publicatios, just the books, and the 5 or so most cited articles. .

Your interest apparently is primarily in plastic surgery, and I therefore need to ask you if you have any conflict of interest with either of these people, or, more likely, with Interplas Germany. Ourrules for thisare considerably stricter than the deWP--you must declare it, and if it is a paid conflict of interest, you must disclose the full details according to WP:PAID.

I admire your ability to write idiomatically in two languages--though I can read some German, I could never attempt such a writing assignment. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing and some words on resubmission[edit]

Dear DGG, thank you for your feedback and kind advice. As I (back then) wrote in my email, I would be more than happy to adapt the article accordingly and get help with it if needed. So, it would be great if you or someone else interested in that subject (medical humanitarian aid) would find time for working with me.

Regarding your questions: I am not the author of the article you mentioned about G. Lemperle, whose revision by me was rejected by one of the German administrators. On the contrary, I only answered the official (boxed) call to improve its content and to put the source references in proper wikipedia form. My thoroughly researched draft was rejected for reasons completely incomprehensible to me - the commercial character of the original article as well as some factually incorrect information has thus been preserved instead of being neutralized and corrected. For reasons of time and nerves, I have refrained from further (public) wrestling (and responded to TheTokl also via email).

Also, I would like to publicly answer your question here as to whether I would have a financial benefit or be commercially entangled with this (non-profit) organization, given my working on articles on two of its members: that is definitely not the case. After I had already gone so deeply into the topic of humanitarian commitment with the article on H. Schoeneich, my aim was to look into related articles (by snowball/pyramid system) to research and present them somewhat more profound than their versions currently available on German Wikipedia. That's all. After I lost confidence in administrators balanced decision making, I abandoned this endeavor and would now simply like to finish the (with sudorific efforts) translated version of this article. In view of its lemma's international field of activity, I think it suitable for the English speaking Wikipedia world - be it in an appropriately shortened form through my own censorship (please see draft submitted later on) or with the very welcome help of some english Wikipedian(s).

In response to you one more note: According to online sources, Interplast-Germany works completely indepent from IP-groups in other countries and there is no such thing as an umbrella organisation or formal interlinkage. The US organization you mentioned was the first organization of its kind in the world, which inspired the above-mentioned G. Lemperle to found a similar organization in Germany in 1980. However, instead of covering these aspects in a biographical article (as you suggested), it could be further elaborated/made clearer (by someone) in the existing ones on those organisations.

Also: What might be read as "Advocacy" and "peacock terms" seemed to me to be necessary to meet the German criteria for legitimizing the encyclopedic relevance of the lemma. If the English Wikipedia does not ask for such supporting details, they can easily (and gladly) be removed.

Thank you so far for your time, benevolence and understanding, Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first, you say you have opened two accounts, one for enWP and one for deWP; this was not necessary--all accounts are now universal. To avoid possible questions, you sould add a note to your user page here sayign what your other account is, and then be sure to always use only one account on enWP

the enWP and deWP are different in several ways. The most important is that enWP is under more pressure from undeclared paid editing in behalf of organizations and professionals, and consequently takes a increasingly strict approach to conflict of interest and promotionalism, and tends to judge notability with somewhat less appeal to common sense. ( In addition, enWP requires specific references in some cases where deWP accepts general references.). On thebasis of your assurances about conflict of interest, I'lldo whatadjustment in style I can. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, thanx for your quick reply. re: accounts: I put a note on my user page as you suggested. re: references: What do you mean that the references in enWikipedia should be more "specific"? Is it better to have less overall? I ask, because all references in the article, as it is now, are directly related to the corresponding text passages - in my understanding this is specific(?). I am aware that they are numerous - if that is the problem, I could remove some myself, if that's okay, as I have grown quite familiar with them (and many of them are in german), I think I have a pretty clear (and quick) idea of which ones are most useful/informative. Or else I would adapt them to the requirements of the enWP as soon as I knew how exactly they should look like. In any case, thanks for yr support & polishing, Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Heinrich Schoeneich for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heinrich Schoeneich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Schoeneich until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ploni (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]