User talk:Dagoldman

Welcome!

Hello Dagoldman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Solar

List of polio survivors

Thanks for you comments. Always nice to be appreciated. I've written a bigger reply on my talk page, along with a request for help. Let me know if your are interested, no pressure. Colin°^Talk 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Sarah Palin. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not add unreferenced material. I added referenced information (from the New York Times) concerning how Sarah Palin was selected as the Vice Presidential running mate. Hobartimus obviously disagrees with the referenced facts that I added. But that is no excuse for his defamatory threats. If anyone should be blocked from editing Wikipedia for making defamatory statements, it would be Hobartimus for the threats against me. Dagoldman (talk)

@ Dagoldman...You can delete whatever you want...good or bad...from your talk page. It WILL be in your History, of course, but it won't be visible to visitors. just Edit...delete all or part...Save.--Buster7 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman." to the Sarah Palin article [1], this statement was completely unreferenced. In Wikipedia terms an acceptable reference for such an execptional statement about someones thoughts or thought process would be a direct quote from McCain. I never threatened you. If you continue adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to biographies of living persons, the matter will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Certainly I can't threaten to block you since I couldn't block you even if I wanted to which is not even the case. Buster7 is right that you can remove whatever you like from your talk page. Policy only requires me to give you the warning and prove it with a diff link like this. Hobartimus (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Here is the original text from the New York Times article: "For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored." Are you saying my edit distorted the original? 2) The article was referenced, as I pointed out. The reference to the NYT article was after the next sentence, which was from the same NYT article. How can you say it was "completely unreferenced"? 3) You go on to say it had to be a direct quote from McCain. That is certainly different from "completely unreferenced". You are just arbitrarily shifting your argument. Show me where Wikipedia says that a direct quote would be required. 4) You DID make threats. To have me blocked from editing wikipedia. And you just made another threat. To have me reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. If anything, you are the one who should be investigated for your mis-statements and bullying tactics. Dagoldman (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't have you blocked. I don't have any control over any of the admins here. However I will not discuss this matter any further, you can read what I wrote at the talk page, which includes an explanation on how your statement was completely unreferenced. I did read the NYT article no need to cite it here, I also read what you added to the article multiple times. At this point you decide whether to ignore the above and the discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin or not. Hobartimus (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never said you could personally block me. So you have no point. But you did say "if you continue, you will be blocked". 2) "Completely unreferenced" is totally different from your current suggestions to change the wording. You could have just started out with a normal conversation, instead of your heavy-handed threats and mis-statements about "completely unreferenced". 3) If you had any decency, you would delete your bullying threats and mis-statements from my talk page. If you did that, with a clear and strong apology, I would delete my edits on your talk page. Dagoldman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a standard warning template handed out for BLP violations. After reading the talk page I don't think it's debatable that you violated BLP. The article is watched by a few hundred thousand people every day it's not good enough to insert unsourced falsehoods and "change the wording" later. By the time I discovered your edit you already inserted the BLP violation into the artcile 3 consecutive times [2] [3] [4]. A standard template warning with the standard wording was very much appropriate at that point. You attempted to push anonymous allegations into the article as pure fact and as such I stand by my statement that your original insertion of multiple times was completely unreferenced, and the Times article stated something completely different. Hobartimus (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness

You previously commented on the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, where the controversy of how to balance competing claims that he had polio or GBS has again arisen. Would you be interested in commenting again to help move the article to a long-term resolution? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, check that. I should have noted from the beginning that your account identifies you as one of the GBS article's authors, and is therefore serious conflict-of-interest editing. I notice that your account has primarily been used to promote the research of DA Goldman on Wikipedia. Please review our guidelines on COI editing and WP:SPAM. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Khazar2 (talk)

Use of IP addresses

If you are using IP addresses to "defend your work" while pretending to be a different user, that is considered what we call "sock puppetry" and is grounds to block all your IP addresses and this account. Wikipedia should not be used to promote fringe theories. Editors who track your insertion of fringe claims across multiple articles are not violating our policies on harassment. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual complaint from the other user was "conflict of interest". Could you please address that? Is there a conflict of interest for me to edit wikipedia?

What about my claim that the other user was incredibly over-bold in his large-scale edits of a controversial article, with no prior consensus, and that the article should be reverted to resolve the current impasse? I don't hear any mention from you about that. Could you please address that?

Instead of answering what was complained about, you have raised two new issues, both directed towards me: 1) alleged "sock puppetry" on my part, and 2) alleged "promoting fringe theories" on my part, which you suggest would justify the other user tracking and deleting past edits.

Concerning "sock puppetry", I'm not "pretending to be a different user". I basically stopped using the Dagoldman account years ago after trying to discuss an issue on a talk page concerning a theoretical math article and the bad experience of having my talk page defaced. I thought it was OK to log in as an anonymous user, and that what counted was the logic and quality of my edits.

Concerning "promoting fringe theories", you're making a serious allegation by labeling the likelihood that FDR had GBS a "fringe theory". Do you really feel informed enough to make that judgement? Are you really equating the FDR illness article with other wikipedia fringe theory examples? Could you please be a little circumspect before using this kind of pejorative label? I'm not going to waste further time and energy trying to refute your assertion here. The information is spelled out in the wikipedia article on FDR's Paralytic illness, before the recent edits. I would ask you to please read the article and the talk page, if you have not already done so.

In closing, I get the feeling I am not welcome here. The trend is this discussion and your initial review are not favorable. If, after further review, the consensus of you, other administrators, and whoever else comments is that I have been at fault, just let me know, and I will depart from wikipedia. I would suggest it's a bad sign for wikipedia when thoughtful editors are hounded off. Let me know if any other information I might provide. Dagoldman (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you in peace after this, but I did want to clarify that no one's asking you to stop editing Wikipedia as a whole, simply to stop using it to promote your research. There are many medical and programming articles to which you seem like you could contribute usefully, and where we'd be very grateful for your help. If you do want to include your own research again, I'd suggest doing as you did at the STD article--post a note on the talk page explicitly noting your COI and asking for editors without your professional stake to take a look. All best -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the COI complaint was never acted upon by the Administrator. I note that the COI complaint did not comply with the wikipedia standard for filing a COI complaint, which I quote: "Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the 'What is a conflict of interest?' list.". No diff links were provided. No item in the list was ever specified. So until further notice, I do not have a conflict of interest. I have already addressed the other informal accusations raised against me (see above), and there has been no response. Dagoldman (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say this complain wasn't acted on. Your edits were removed, your IP sockpuppets were blocked, the uninvolved reviewer at the COI noticeboard commented that you had a conflict of interest and should defer to other editors in whether to include your own research, and the article you wrote was tagged as non-neutral. What else are you looking for?

If you do intend to continue promoting your own research, and only your own research, I suggest looking again at the COI guidelines: "Accounts that appear to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." Consider this your warning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Sockpuppetry, as you did at Guillain–Barré syndrome. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is you socking.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]