User talk:Drlesmgolden

Mercury

Thank you for helping clean-up the radio astronomy observation of Mercury and for also providing a reference. -- Kheider (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Infotest

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, for help with infoboxes (which can be terribly confusing in my experience), you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

In regards to David_W._Tucker the early years has been deleted due to copyright violation. Feel free to rewrite this section following Wikipedia guidelines. Also, you might want to Split the article from University_of_California_Jazz_Ensembles#Dr._David_W._.E2.80.9CDoc.E2.80.9D_Tucker to David_W._Tucker using THIS procedure to avoid having two articles with the same content and to avoid the risk of David_W._Tucker being redirected or deleted. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Concerning the criteria for deletion, please note the Wikipedia:Deletion comment: “If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.”

The Les Golden article was created as a first time Wikipedia article only recently. Although many editors are veterans and are aware of protocol, this was a first article. Certainly sock puppetry and its implication were completely unknown concepts. No instances of vandalization, slander, vilification, flooding of the ballot box, or any such infraction occurred. The practice will cease.

As far as verifiability is concerned, comments have been made by someone that “none” of the references were valid. We showed that the astronomical references were valid. Then the comment was made that “only one” is in a refereed journal. All are refereed journals, or certainly were at the time of publication of my papers. We’re trying to find numerous online cites to show that the academic position at the University of Illinois was valid. None of the many articles cited are fictitious.

Concerning the gambling writing for which I am notable internationally, being in the print media was assumd to be fine. That is certainly the mode in academia. A thorough bibliography of the writings was provided, as in the production of an academia C.V. These magazines are not online magazines. They are not freebies. They are print magazine, mailed to paid subscribers.

Unfortunately, unlike for print encyclopedias, apparently for wikipedia only online verifiability is acceptable. As a result, I plan to scan in the first pages of the 50 or so articles that have appeared in the various gambling journals, containing my photo and byline and the title of the article, and upload them to a personal website. I will also upload editorial commentary concerning my gambling writing that appeared in the print format. These contributions will then be verifiable online.

As far as notability is concerned, one of the criteria is third party articles. Among the many articles that have been written about me by third parties that were presented in print format, some are present on the internet and are available to be viewed. I am trying to locate others that have been uploaded by their respective publishers. Those that have not been uploaded and of which I have print copies will be scanned in and uploaded to a personal website. These include lengthy articles about me, a comic strip whose protagonist was modeled after me, and several editorials written about me in the Chicago Tribune as well as local press. Many of these articles were presented to verify the infobox commentary about my activities in animal welfare and environmentalism. Because these are not germane to my notability as a gambling writer, uploading these articles to a personal website will take second priority to the gambling writings.

There seems to be some confusion as to what area of endeavor is claimed for notability. Although I have had careers as an astronomer and as an actor, among others, those are not claimed to be the primary cause for notability. It is as a gambling writer, since 2006 writing for magazines which are distributed throughout UK, Europe, Africa, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere to a wide audience that the notability arises. That certain writers in the U.S. have not heard of me results from their apparently only reading websites and U.S. journals. Wikipedia, however, is international and it is in that international arena that my notability as a gambling writer for four journals published in the UK lies.

Of course, the task of providing links on the Les Golden page will be difficult to achieve in the next few days because I have been blocked for two weeks. The fact that one of the editors failed to find the easily located astronomy article citations indicates that the best effort in that regard will need to be done by myself. I therefore repeat the comment on the Wikipedia:Deletion page, “If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.” Because this is the only venue available for my comments, I hope if anyone sees it that it will be shared on the Talk:Les Golden page. Thank you all. Drlesmgolden (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drlesmgolden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I need to be able to place links to online articles about me on the wikipedia page "Les Golden" and to upload images of articles that I have written for print magazines to my personal webpage. The address of that personal webpage would then be referenced in the wikipage “Les Golden.” This must be done in order to establish verifiability and notability within several days or the wikipage will be deleted. Many of the articles which establish verifiability and notability are presently only in print format. I cannot place these references on wikipage "Les Golden" if I am blocked. As a new user I was unaware of what is called sockpuppeting but did not use it to damage, disrupt, vandalize, slander, etc., and being aware of it have ceased. Looking at my posts for musicians and astronomers you can see that I have contributed and wish to continue to contribute, not only as one with knowledge but also as a grammarian. Please see the above post for further clarification of the need to verify the references on the wikipage. Please also see the final comment made by SQGibbon on the "Talk:Les Golden" to verify the immediacy of the situation. Thank you.Drlesmgolden (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edits that you seem to want to make include massive violations of WP:ELNO, but more importantly WP:COI. You should not be writing about yourself other than to make minor WP:BLP corrections. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drlesmgolden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for yours. This will be my final request for unblocking so as not to litter the page. As a first time editor, I was not aware of the many guidelines, particularly of self-creation. It was difficult enough learning how to make a page. I never damaged or disrupted pages of others, believing my edits were constructive, and never would. I have multiple email addresses for my various interests and reasonably thought multiple editor names were allowed as well. Now being aware of sockpuppetry, I have ceased. My posts make it clear that my contributions have been valuable, in factual content, organizing disjointed pages, adding categories, and correcting poor grammar. Please see the comment at the top of this page. The difference between being blocked for 2 weeks and 2 days will make absolutely no difference in obtaining my compliance with wikipedia sock puppetry guidelines, which is after all the goal of being blocked. Drlesmgolden (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I realize that Wikipedia has many policies, guidelines, etc that take some time to learn and get used to, but you misrepresented yourself as multiple persons, coming to your own defense at Talk:Les Golden. That is manifestly dishonest and you shouldn't need a Wikipedia policy to tell you that. Given that you seem to pride yourself on negotiating your way around rule systems I'm glad you have already volunteered not to request unblock any more. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

With reference to something above - please note that scanning any newspaper, etc, articles and putting them on a site of yours would not be a good idea. First, you would be in violation of their copyright on your site. Secondly, such evidence would not be accepted here for two reasons. One would be that we cannot allow links to copyright violations, and the other is that being a site controlled by or associated with you, it would not be considered reliable (this isn't you personally, this is a general anybody you). Scans can be tampered with. Believe me, creating wholly fake text to be scanned isn't hard for someone with the right knowhow. (Just adding for interest that I've even unmasked a case where someone created two bogus online newspapers to back up something.) Peridon (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peridon, Thank you for that constructive information. Philip Conneller, one my editors, has emailed me that Bluff Europe will be putting their issues on line within the next two weeks. I would like to ask two favors of you, in the interest of establishing verifiability. First, could you post that fact on the Talk:Les Golden page from which I am currently blocked? Hopefully then more than three days window will be provided before wholesale removal of my credits as a gambling writer. I don't know the procedure at Lyceum Publishing, but I would hope that as articles are scanned they will be uploaded one by one rather than waiting for the entire batch of years of monthly magazines (90 pages per magazine or so) to be uploaded. Second, can you suggest some way as to how verifiability from printed books and magazines can be established? Books I guess would be listed at Amazon, but not print magazines. Perhaps the publisher could literally deliver or mail back copies to an adminstrator in London, where Lyceum is located. Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Note: newly created sock/meat puppet - User:JFMcKeown Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

JFMcKeown is technically  Unrelated to the previous accounts identified in the SPI. Meatpuppetry may still be a possibility. TNXMan 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Per verifiability sources need not be online to be verifiable. Therefore, the request for online sources made in Les' article wasn't appropriate. It also wasn't necessary. The fact that an individual has published articles isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability. Thus, proving the individual published articles is a waste of time. What we would need is evidence that Les is at the top of his fields. Information about notable honors and awards would help - but the article has none. Given the subject's ego, I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned them, therefore I'm confident that the article would not survive a deletion vote. But there's no rush. We can do it tomorrow or next week. Rklawton (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I was advised by an editor to place information on my talk page, which is still available to me within the blocking procedure. This is within the wikipedia guidelines, full conformity with which is my desire going forward.

The following verifies my graduate degrees, being an astronomer, and the NEAR project, all of which have been deleted. I hope some editor will place this on my page at the end of the Background section. I placed the references within the previously deleted text. Thank you.

He obtained the M.A. and Ph.D (1977) in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley under Professor William J. “Jack” Welch, the Watson and Marilyn Alberts Chair emeritus in Extraterrestrial Intelligence. As a professional astronomer, since 1994 he has been the principal investigator of the Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project (N.E.A.R.).

Forgot the tildes.

That didn't work. The references were simply superscripted. Here is the repeat. I replaced all with yyy. Whoever chooses to put this back on the page will have to convert the xxx's to . thank you whoever you may be. I pray that the advice I was given is correct and that I can place this information here. If not, I'm sure I will hear about it very soon.

I was advised by an editor to place information on my talk page as being within the wikipedia guidelines, that being my desire. The following verifies my graduate degrees, being an astronomer, and the NEAR project, all of which have been deleted. I hope some editor will place this on my page at the end of the Background section. I placed the references within the previously deleted text. Thank you. He obtained the M.A. and Ph.D (1977) in astronomyxxxhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006ASPC..356...87F, page 90yyy from the University of California, Berkeley under Professor William J. “Jack” Welch, the Watson and Marilyn Alberts Chair emeritus in Extraterrestrial Intelligence. As a professional astronomer,xxx http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2004/12/aftermath-of-the-earthquake-sh.html yyyxxxhttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-10-03/news/9510030038_1_wallace-gator-bradley-candidates-taxesyyyxxxhttp://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/02-01-2005/Hubbuch's_not_funny,_or_accurateyyyxxxhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2875272yyyxxxNolan, Herb (1989), “An Astronomer Tackles the Music Software Marketplace,” Upbeat, November, p. 45-46yyyxxxhttp://www.elephantinformation.com/CEMENT%20FLOORING%20or%20HARD%20DIRT%20GROUND.htmyyyxxxTrainor, Ken (1997), “Who is Les Golden?”, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, April 2, p. 29-37yyy since 1994 he has been the principal investigator of the Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project (N.E.A.R.). xxxhttp://www.astronomy.com/sitecore/content/Magazine%20Issues/1994/April%201994.aspx , page 22yyyxxxhttp://www.geocities.ws/nearearthproject/index.html yyy

Forgot the tildes again.

Drlesmgolden (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Socking again

Just to let you know, I've opened another sockpuppetry case regarding you, at the same page as the last one. It seems pretty obvious that either you or persons acting at your direction are responsible for recent edits to the article about you. If the finding is that you did engage in socking again this account will most probably have it's block extended indefinitely and any future block evasion will have a severe negative impact on your chances of ever being unblocked. For someone who claims to be so smart you seem to be having a lot of trouble with some of our most basic policies despite having them repeatedly explained to you in plain English. Either that or you are deliberately ignoring them with your extremely obvious sockpuppets. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential embarrassment

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how Wikipedia works, but you need to know that except in the case of deleted articles, 100% of the edits linked to each of your accounts are viewable by anyone, anywhere in the world. In other words, your attempts to promote yourself are all on the record for any reporter, employer, publisher, or political opponent to review and use against you. In short, rather than promoting yourself, you are effectively demolishing your reputation. For your own sake, I urge you to stop. Rklawton (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate the helpful comments. My reputation is important to me. I would like to ask a question. Is it allowable for me to post information such as the above on this UserTalk page for editors to take and post on my page? I asked that question above but no one replied so I haven’t done it again. I’m trying to be careful to abide by the rules. As a new user, there are so many guidelines they are nearly impossible to know.

For one example, one very experienced editor I think it was SQGibbon wrote that only internet references are acceptable. But then Rklawton said on this page that print references are acceptable, not simply internet references. For a second example, recently a tag was placed about the distinction between primary, original, secondary, third-party, etc. sources. Whoever placed the first two tags apparently wasn’t aware of the distinction (and it is confusing to me). Third, Beat the Dealer was placed with a footnoted reference and no one had said it was improper until somebody recently fixed it. Fourth, I asked above if scanning material to a personal website for verification would be allowed. Peridon above said that’s not allowed, and I presume would be a violation of a guideline, because of copyright and potential electronic tampering. But I asked a similar question of an administrator and that person emailed me with the very suggestion that I electronically transmit articles to interested people. So it’s clear that even experienced people haven’t mastered all the rules of protocol and editing.

I have learned the hard way that using multiple names is not allowed and have apologized and I repeat that apology. I’m not creating new user ID’s and when I’m unblocked I will start contributing again mainly to jazz and astronomy articles. The question though is whether I will just start fresh with a new User ID (I think that’s allowed, but then again, I’m not sure) or just use this one.

So please 1. Let me know if posting material on this page is acceptable for others to see and then use. 2. Since I’m here and just broached the subject, am I allowed to start fresh with a new User ID or can I only use a current user ID? I can imagine if I start fresh with a new name I will be brought to task on that if it’s not allowed. 3. If someone contacts me asking for information, am I allowed to provide them with references? I would hope that is allowed! So I ask those who are far more knowledgeable than me to please answer those questions here so that I can avoid pitfalls and abide by the guidelines.

Drlesmgolden (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Clean start for information regarding starting over. If material has been published, then it's up to us to verify it, and you have no obligation to provide copies. If you do wish to provide copies, I suggest avoiding copyright violations. Read also reliable sources for more information about types of sources. Next, if you would like to suggest information for inclusion in an article in which you have a conflict of interest, you can provide it on the article's talk page for other editors to review, discuss, and potentially add to the article. Not that it has come up, but please also keep in mind our prohibition against the publication of original research. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where the "new user" claim keeps coming from. This username was registered two years ago; Les Golden has posted hundreds of edits with just the sock puppets we know about. WikiMrsP (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This account has only been editing just over 3 months and has less than 500 edits. Regardless of account creation date, actual editing by this account indicates a new user. Rklawton (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you add in the socks it is several hundred more than that. And it's clear he employed several of them since his second month of editing here. Creating a second account so that you can use it to write an article about yourself is a manifest act of bad faith, whether you are aware of WP:SOCK or not. And also note that WP:CLEANSTART does not apply while a user is blocked. With the situation he's gotten himself into now a more appropriate suggestion is to consider the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict the point that this editor is a new user and well behind the learning curve. As I've noted above, he's off to a terrible start and has set himself up for some serious embarrassment, but he hasn't been indefinitely blocked, so the standard offer isn't as relevant as clean start. Rklawton (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I anticipate that an indef block is forthcoming as a result of the latest SPI, see the section above this one. Evading a block while blocked for sockpuppetry is not something that can be explained away by inexperience. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was AGF. I also assume he's clever enough to not get caught the same way twice. I believe the only way he'll get indef'd for socks is via DUCK. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of David W. Tucker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David W. Tucker 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/David W. Tucker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

I received your email. What's up? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Drlesmgolden. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Predatory behavior

Les, I know you are upset that you lost RfCs and your pages about you were removed from Wikipedia. I know you have decided to remove all posts referring to me, one ref at a time, in retribution because I was one of numerous people that !voted against you. I know that, despite the fact that you phoned me saying how much you appreciated my contributions to the field, that you then threatened me after I suggested that your sole purpose in editing WP was self-promotion. But, your vindictive behavior is truly sad. Your only purpose here was to self-promote. This has now been replaced by a sole purpose of some sort of odd vengeance. I don’t care about links in WP. I don’t want to be in WP. I would be the first to remove any attempt to add my name to WP. But, if you want to continue removing valuable links to online information easily read by visitors, replacing them with older print links with less info requiring that people purchase books, go right ahead. But, please understand that predatory behavior like this is not good for you. Try to concentrate on what good you can do in the world. Not how you can punish your perceived enemies.Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that you found me and made a disturbing phone call to me related to the page you created about yourself, your numerous sock-puppets, some of which you have used to attack me, your odd, now year-long, continuing focus on my edits, even though I have stopped making additions to WP and your conviction in court after previous acts, and your statements about the judge that convicted you; you are making me very nervous. I am simply a volunteer editor. Your attacks are scary. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Drlesmgolden. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Drlesmgolden. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drlesmgolden. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)