User talk:Usracehistory

—

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carl Tavo Hellmund (December 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Usracehistory, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm 5225C. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tavo Hellmund have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi 5225C, Thank you for helping on a few of the corrections as I think where the disconnect must be was with the missing sourcing that over time likely disappeared, with various peoples edits.

You are correct, non-independent source statements that are positive, could appear to be promotional. I have now corrected them with the exact wording from the well known independent sources.

After looking at thousands of wikipedia pages, you and I have ensured that this one for Tavo Hellmund is clearly in compliance more so than 99% of the rest. I just don't know that we will have the time to police everyone.

Thanks again for your help and I'm glad we have cleaned up his page and made things right.

Usracehistory — Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 23 January 2022‎ (UTC)

• @Usracehistory: The changes you have made are not neutral and do carry connotations of promotional language. They have been reverted by SSSB. This is the only article you have contributed to (aside from a draft for Hellmund's father) which makes this a single-purpose. Do you have any connection to the Hellmund's? If so, you would need to declare this conflict of interest per the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tavo Hellmund. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @5225C and @SSSB, I've taken some time to answer your questions and address your comments (please read my entire response) so that we may attempt to have a collaborative contribution to this article. Since this Tavo Hellmund wiki-page has been up for nearly 12 years and with me contributing to it for 7, I'd like to explain my position in reference to both (@5225C & @SSSB) of your recent comments and edits to the article and your position that the article: a. Is written like an advertisement b. Promotes subject in a subjective manner c. Uses phrasing with unverifiable information d. Not from a neutral perspective And that what I did last week was "just re-inserted everything that was wrong with the article in first place and removed tags". So, we all know that anyone of us could claim a-d in almost any article. Having said that, thanks to you both... I took your advise last week and painstakingly studied the Wiki Neutral POV, including the advertising, promotion etc guidelines. To satisfy your a-d, I spent an enormous amount of time checking and re-checking all my third party independent sources including several new ones, but all of the ones I am using are either globally well known or nationally well known as independent third party. These include: Forbes, Austin Business Journal, MotorTrend, Austin Monthly, Motorsport Magazine, Autoweek, Sportico etc... With your guidance (it's appreciated) and some additional expert advice, I understand that just because sources "carry connotations of promotional language" it does not make it in violation of wiki promotion or advertising. The key is appropriately stating in the text that the source claims x, so that it is not being said necessarily as a fact from wikipedia in the article. This is the exact correct procedure you both have been a part of in many articles you have either created or edited from a quick historical review, and frankly it's a procedure in 90% of all wikipedia articles created about people. As you can see, I went to great length to get that correct in every sentence, paragraph and source. Perhaps, at brief glance the Hellmund article looked the same to you, but I can tell you as someone who spent hours on it, it is very different. My time consumption may also be a function that I am not a professional at this and you guys are. A good example of this would be, in the first paragraph where the word mastermind is used, I provided one (Austin Biz Journal) of dozens of independent third party sources available, who state (in the title of the story) that's what Hellmund is considered as, as far as F1 in Austin and it's return to Mexico. This is not controversial or promotional, it's well known and well documented. So, I am either loading things incorrectly or you accidentally had not read my newest edits carefully. I refuse to believe you are deliberately ignoring the changes, text and independent sources. Thanks to you and the additional experts, I also have learned that if it's not verifiable with an actual link to an independent third party, it must be removed. Hence why I removed the 1996 IOC Olympics, as I could not find the link to the television interview I saw a few years back, where he discussed his job during the Atlanta games. Hence why I removed the mention of Comptroller Combs and the $25m legislation, although it is well known throughout Texas. The legislative piece is openly in the press because of the government component, but frankly, I just did not care to spend the time searching the governments Open Records requests from 12 years ago for a link to the source. I also changed that he 'worked' for the 1986 World Cup instead of him 'promoting' it, as he was only 20 years old and he was not the actual promoter, but he did work for the World Cup event company. That too is well documented. There are many articles and videos documenting Hellmund's life long relationship with Bernie Ecclestone, so I used the source from (as you know better than most) one of the oldest and most respected motorsport magazines (Motorsport) that uses a direct quote from Ecclestone in the opening sentence. There is nothing promotional about that. It is widely known and very well documented that Hellmund, Alejandro Soberon and Carlos Slim founded the revived 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, so again I noted it in the text that Forbes' Christian Sylt reported it and used the exact language from the Forbes source, and sourced it. You two appear to be very knowledgeable about motorsports from looking at your Wiki history, so you both know that nothing I put in Tavo Hellmunds page is inaccurate. The page does not criticize anyone, does not make anything up and is incredibly well sourced from very respected independent third parties and now the text is properly designated with quotations attributing statements. I thought you both would be pleased that I was able to track down a great third party source (Austin Monthly) for the description of the Cota track sketch and naming since you noted it needed citations. I linked the Austin Chronicle source that reported the parting of ways with his Cota partners and how he had launched the Mexican Grand Prix, but you deleted and ignored the independent source. Those are not promotional, they are factual and neutral. I either provided the independent source where you asked or deleted things that you flagged that a citation or a source was needed that I could not find. Yet, you ignored the deletions and corrections and reverted back to it being wrong, in your versions as well. John Maher of the Austin Statesman has extensively covered the USGP Austin, Mex GP and Tavo and he accurately and factually reported on the inaugural Mexican event in 2015, but you deleted that quote, text and source as well and it was not promotional, it's merely stating what occurred. The addition of the SportsTek SPAC is interesting information and is factual and third party documented but yet you deleted it. Finally, you ask if I have a connection and am conflicted with the Hellmunds. That is the easiest question to answer, absolutely and unequivocally NO. For clarity, I did not start a draft for Tavo's father. That was going to be another page for Tavo, but I realized it would be pointless with this current one already in existence. I have nothing to hide, I live in Central Texas and was a key leader of a local grass roots group that was able to help Cota secure the Austin City Council votes for the approval of the race in Austin. I have met Tavo a few times, and am a huge F1, McLaren, Checo, Max and Texas Longhorns football supporter. I also happen to have a 10 year old, very locally popular Facebook page for F1 in the Americas. My edit last week has nothing inaccurate, is well independently sourced and now follows the proper layout. I also took the further step of having two people with thousands of hours of experience and wiki accounts since 2005 to privately guide and review my last edit and this article should not have any tags anymore. I am hopeful that we can work collaboratively and I welcome you to help me with using all the properly sourced material, but thus far (I'm hoping it's merely been accidentally), it seems like you have something against Tavo Hellmund. For full transparency, may I suggest we connect privately off line to confirm to each other neither has hidden agendas, I welcome a private telephone call. It almost sounds like you think I either am Tavo Hellmund or work for Tavo Hellmund, which is hilarious. If you have followed his career, you'll know the man is technology adverse. I seriously doubt he's even aware of this article. If you can find a social or digital presence of his, please share it with me as I have never found one. Please send me your contact info so we can schedule a constructive (and educational for me) call soon. Here is my email: racingtexas@gmail.com

Thank you @USRACEHISTORY — Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 26 January 2022‎ (UTC)

You may have made changes but the core issues remained. Wikipedia is meant to be written from an objective, detached stance. The last version you published is written in a tone that appears to praise Hellmund, reading more like a narrative of his achievements than it does an encyclopaedic article. Neither of us (nor any other editors) have disputed the factual accuracy of the article, or the quality of sources used, but instead the tone that you (and earlier editors) have written it in. Direct quotes can still contribute to a promotional tone. I do not object to your expansion of the article (and no one has), but it needs to be written in an impartial and objective tone. It's an encyclopaedic article after all.

The only thing that concerns me about your response is that you were a key leader of a local grass roots group that was able to help Cota secure the Austin City Council votes for the approval of the race in Austin and have met Tavo a few times. This is objectively a connection to Hellmund's business interests and him personally. This likely constitutes a conflict of interest (see WP:Conflict of interest § What is a conflict of interest?), and I will again remind you that any such conflict of interest must be appropriately declared. Although you may not have a formal professional or personal relationship with Hellmund, and although he has not paid you or asked you to engage in editing on his behalf, you are still a single-purpose account that is trying to produce a version of an article that three uninvolved editors have deemed to be promotional in tone, hence the suspicion of other editors (including, admittedly, myself).

I did not revert your second version, that was SSSB, and although I agree with him that there are significant issues with its tone, I also agree with you that it does address many of the issues originally raised with the article. I will take the time to review that version and ensure it is impartial in tone. If you did have two other editors assist you, please tag them in this discussion so they may explain their reasoning and weigh in. I would expect editors with c. 17 years of experience not to make errors when formatting headings, for example.

If you suspect us of being hostile to Hellmund, that would be innacurate. I had not heard of him before this article was brought to our attention at WikiProject F1. You can see from my user page all the context you will need about me as an editor, and you can do the same for SSSB. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@5225c, You are correct, I am not a professional like yourself so I really do appreciate that you "take the time to review that version and ensure it is impartial in tone" using all the information and sources. I will work on sources/citations, getting things even more accurate and revert back to you soon. As for the supposed conflict, perhaps that would be true if the article was about Cota but it is not and Hellmund was no longer there at the time. I've never had any kind of relationship with him. Having met someone certainly does not fall into the COI category. Thanks again and more soon. @USRACEHISTORY

I appreciate that you've taken our concerns seriously. I will point out that I am not a professional either, we are all volunteers here who are looking to build a better encyclopaedia. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed and corrected the intro where Hellmund is commonly described for his work with F1 in Austin, Mexico and Cota. They are accurate, sourced appropriately by world renowned sources and correctly attributed to in the text. Being positive, does not make it biased. This is true for thousands of wiki articles that are not tagged or claim to be advertisement. There are literally thousands of examples like Chris Rea and Michael Jordan, I carefully reviewed theirs. In the first few sentences of their articles they are attributed positive names by sources without flags or issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rea Racing figure Bernie Ecclestone's wikipedia intro describes him as "F1 Supremo." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone "The Mexican Wunderkind" from the intro of Sergio Perez' article has similar terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_P%C3%A9rez Hellmund has been called the mastermind, creator, brainchild, hero for the work in Austin and Mexico by many sources (Forbes, Austin Biz Journal, Austin Monthly, MotorTrend, Autoweek, Austin Chronicle, Texas Monthly to name a few). This is not being stated as it being a fact from wikipedia, it is attributed to sources like thousands of other peoples wikipedia articles. I have reworded the source attribute, so that it is consistant with how it is done in other articles. Having made these updates and corrections, I have cleared the associated flags.