User talk:Rmesic

Welcome!
Hello, Rmesic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Michigan Volunteer Defense Force did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. John from Idegon (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What would I suggest? Give up. You totally do not understand what an encyclopedia is, despite having been provided dozens of explanatory links.

Understand this: The following will never appear in this article:
 * 1) Information based on what you "know".
 * 2) Information based on what you have been told.
 * 3) Information based on what you've observed.
 * 4) Information you've deduced.
 * 5) Information that comes from documents that cannot be accessed by the general public without filing a FOIA request.

Understand this: This article is not FOR your organization. It is not a place for your organization to express what you believe to be true. Your opinion expressed above about the veracity of some things in the article is 100% irrelevant. 100%. Does not matter. All that matters is what reliable secondary sources have said. As a matter of fact, if your website said "A" is true, and reliable secondary sources said "A" is false, the article will say "A" is false.

An encyclopedia article is not for the subject to expound their version of the true story. In fact, the purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't even to tell the story of the subject. The sole purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what has been written on the subject by others in reliable (our definition, not yours) sources. Period.

And yes you, as a holder of a leadership position in the organization (and you are not compensated in any way? I find that hard to believe. How can the chain of command be enforced? Unless you are somehow compensated, they cannot compel you to obey orders. The military chain of command is a contract, and without you being compensated, there is no contract), you would be considered a PAID editor. It's not about your personal enrichment, it's about your level of conflict when attempting to edit the article. Clearly, yours is quite high. I (or virtually any experienced editor) am far better qualified to edit this article than you. Being entirely ignorant of your organization, I would be forced to write by paraphrasing what reliable sources say. As fervent as you are acting here, it is doubtful you are capable of that.

If you have any reliable secondary sources, propose changes on the article talk page in the format prescribed in the links you've been provided, but only after making the required declarations on your userpage and the article talk page in the prescribed format. I have no interest in helping anyone who comes here with the notion of telling the WP:TRUTH about an organization they are connected with. That is not at all what Wikipedia is. Figure it out. Bye. John from Idegon (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Michigan Volunteer Defense Force, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rmesic. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Michigan Volunteer Defense Force, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rmesic. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not a webhost. The page in question is not the organization website. If you do not have reliable secondary sources, do not add information to the article. Do not edit it at all until you've complied with the requirements listed above, which include never directly editing the article,  but instead proposing edits in the appropriate format on the article talk page. 21:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, since you've already admitted your conflict on my talk page, compliance with the above is not optional. John from Idegon (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused.

I'm a duly appointed Officer of the organization - and I am NOT paid.

COL Ewald and his Staff (ie, me and a few others) define the policy approved by the General and JAG.

The people who wrote the items I'm trying to correct have been trying to bend the rules to thier liking against the direction of command staff.

It is critical that our organization not allow misinformation.

I will not claim to be paid when I am not. I would be ok with stating I am the appointed representative of the organization.

I can get COL Ewald or even MG Rogers to vouch for me if needed.

How exactly did you vet the lies and fabrications currently posted as fact about our organization?


 * I've gutted the article down to what is reliably sourced. If there are lies in it now, your gripe is with the cited sources. I wouldn't walk in to your military unit and tell you how to march... why do you think it appropriate to show up here today and tell us how this private organization should run? This is an encyclopedia. Every single bit of info here MUST come from reliable published sources, period. We are not here to distribute information for for your organization. Either take the time to learn how this private organization works, or go away. I left you some info on that initially; you chose to ignore it. I'm done. If you wish to edit here, you will do so within our policies and guidelines. If you cannot be bothered with that, goodbye. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, John:

It's painfully obvious I'm new (as in today) to this. Thank you for your patience. I'm not telling you how you should run, but I am telling you there were and may still be errors.

I'd like to follow the rules - but I am not paid nor receiving benefit from the edits. The source to cite is literally myself. My COL saw the Wiki page and asked me to make it right.

We are working with the Michigan Legislature to clarify some of these points - take the required leave point... That was an overzealous person with no legal background misinterpreting the law - but cited a source that the JAG has determined does not actually apply to us. There is a document from the Judge Advocate General but it is not published for public consumption, I can refer to it but I can't share it.

I very much want to do this properly, I have read the instructions on citations... but I don't see a way to have the legal representative of the organization defend and correct what is presented in the Wiki. While I'm not paid, is there some kind of position based reference?

I'm curious as to how you thought I was somehow paid or profiting from this, but that's just personal curiosity.

What would you suggest?

Again - thanks, I'm learning.

Reviewed the site as it stands - not perfect but very good, thank you. The COL will be pleased with the progress.

You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. ''As a key person in this organization, you are most assuredly a paid editor by your own admission. Do not edit the article directly. Instead make edit requests on the article's talk page, with reliable secondary sources to verify them.'' John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, John.

While you may find it incredulous, it is true - I am completely unpaid volunteer, in fact, the entire organization is unpaid until such a time that the Governor activates us for paid duty. Historically that would be WWI and WWII. I'm told there was something of a home guard during Korean conflict but I cannot confirm that.

So really, truly, I am not paid. At all. I would be paid only if and when WWIII breaks out and the Governor chooses to activate us. It would take an event that depletes the presence of the National Guard within the State of Michigan. This is why we are the "Volunteer Defense Force" and not the "Defense Force". The only "sorta" payment I have received is an award from the White House for volunteer service. It's a letter thanking me and a pin. Value - around ten dollars recognizing 4,000 hours of volunteer effort. If anything, volunteering with this organization has cost me hundreds of dollars in equipment and training materials.

I'm getting the idea of the Wikipedia, sorry it's taken this long to sink in. Even if I am the policy maker - my insight means nothing unless it is published and verifiable. Got it.

Some of our problems have their origin in misinterpretation of citable references. I will work with the legislature to have the certain references clarified, and will work with the organization's webmaster to update and clarify published work.

Again, I appreciate your patience.

Best,

Ron

Just to prove I'm "getting it" -- here's a reference from a citable source:

https://mivdf.org/?page_id=181

Q:  WILL I BE PAID FOR MY TIME AND OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES?

A:  No. However, if the Governor activates the MI-VDF, members are paid at the same rate of pay for their rank or grade as their National Guard counterparts. However, the only reimbursable expenses are those to which prior approval is given. The MI-VDF does have a budget from which approved reimbursements are deducted. While there may be certain tax benefits for non-reimbursed expenses, you should check with your tax adviser.