User talk:Golferman9

September 2021

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Daniel Martyn have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am golferman9

Not sure who yo u are but you have no right to edit false information that i removed.

A SCOTS Trident nuclear sub captain accused of an “inappropriate relationship” with a junior female crewmate has been stripped of his command. Sources confirmed that Commander Stuart Armstrong, 41, who is based at Faslane, was hauled off HMS Vigilant late last week. 3 Scots Trident submarine captain axed for 'fling with woman ... www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1646323/trident-nuclear-submarine-captain-stuart-armstrong-affair-crewmate/

Do not edit it again.Golferman9 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If you take issue with the claims made in the article, and can provide citations which prove otherwise, you are of course welcome to add your sourced claims. You may also wish to start a discussion on the article's Talk page.

The Scottish Sun source you mention is about an entirely different person. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you for real, of course i take issue with the libelous claims made in the article. Of course it is a different person, as he took over command of the boat and was the one who did it. Perhaps the article below, which is obviously checkable might get through to you.

This was sent to Daniel, who incidentally is my son, after the navy intervened on his behalf, because as i said in my edit, he left HMS Vigilant in 2016, and the navy in 2017.

It is no wonder that Wiki has such a bad reputation when people are allowed to input incorrect and defamatory smears, and people like you stop them from being corrected with the truth.

IN a story on Friday, we incorrectly named Daniel Martyn as the commander of the Trident submarine HMS Vigilant who was relieved of duty in 2017, along with another officer, for having inappropriate relationships with female crew members. Mr Martyn was not the commander of HMS Vigilant at that time. The National apologise to Mr Martyn for the error and we are happy to set the record straight. IT is our policy to correct errors as soon as we can and all corrections and clarifications will usually appear on this page. Complaints should be referred to Callum Baird, Managing Editor, The National, c/o The Print Centre, 125 Fullarton Drive, Cambuslang, Glasgow, G32 8FG or emailed, for the attention of Callum Baird, to Golferman9 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am very invested in having Wikipedia contain correct facts. We can talk about it, and I can help you include correct facts in this article, if you can speak to me like an equal adult who deserves respect. Until then, I will simply uphold Wikipedia's policies. If you edit the article with proper procedures (i.e. including sources which back up your claims), we won't have a problem. But I have no interest in assisting you, if this is going to be the tone you choose to use. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are so invested in having Wikipedia contain correct facts, why did you rescind my edit without messaging me to ask for corroboration for my actions, and then act based on the evidence. Your actions are tantamount to retweeting libelous and defamatory information by putting it back in the public domain: besmirching a person with an exemplary naval career record, and jeopardising his present career where he is involved with negotiating multi million pound defence contracts, and is at the mercy of potential clients doing a social media search and finding this spurious crap, which you have helped to facilitate. So forgive me if your sensibilities being hurt are not a great concern to me.

I am sure that this is not the correct part of the site for this further contact with you, but i cannot be bothered to learn anymore about the workings of this organisation, as i will not be on here much longer. However, before i go i just want to make a couple of points in response to your claims in the post on the resolution site. You say that the information that it was Daniel who was guilty of innapropriate behaviour was from a credible source, the BBC (big joke). I have checked, and at no time was Daniel Martyn mentioned by them as being the person responsible, they merely stated that the commander of HMS Vigilant was relieved of his command, and whoever carried out the edit obviously couldn't be bothered to check the facts, and was allowed to post these spurious claims. Where were you then when your editing was actually needed and necessary? oh sorry i forgot, it was from the credible BBC so you wouldn't question it.

As Daniel was working at the ministry of defence in London for the whole of 2017, he could obviously not have been on the submarine, which was actually tied up alongside in America at the time, be in a position to carry out this innapropriate liaison with the female office a or be hauled off the submarine.

The article that i inserted above states at the bottom that it was sourced from the Scottish Sun newspaper, and it actually names the person who was the commander of the submarine at the time, who was guilty of this offence, and relieved of his command; and yet you say that you do not understand the relevance of this information, beyond belief; if this did not flash up a warning to you that the claim had been accredited to the wrong person, then i give up.

The retraction from the National Newspaper came about because they repeated these libelous claims against Daniel, but unlike you and your contributors on here, when they were challenged they did actually bother to check the facts, accept that they had made a mistake, and printed the retraction; but you are insinuating that because the unfounded claim that it was Daniel was made by the credible BBC, you were not inclined to accept this retraction as proof that it wasn't him.

What this dispute proves is that in this type of situation you so called editor's try to play God in deciding what can or can't be input, irrespective of the damage it can cause. I consider you to be a disgrace; as i told you previously, by your actions you facilitated the re inclusion in the public domain of untrue, libelous and defamatory information, with no consideration of the impact this could have on Daniel's reputation and career. And then you act surprised that i was angry in my responses; what did you expect, my grateful thanks? you are unbelievable.

Do not bother getting me banned from the site, i will be going voluntarily once this has been resolved, and i can assure you i have no intention of ever wanting to have any dealings with this undemocratic and unprofessional site again.Golferman9 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)