User talk:Josephgoldstein

January 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Joseph L. Goldstein, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI, redux

Hi, I'm concerned re: edit summaries like these [1], which suggest conflict of interest. I've raised my concerns both at the article talk page [2] and the BLP Noticeboard [3], where you're welcome to contribute. Thank you, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, there is no prohibition of contribution to a page in which there is a personal interest, just (as in the declarations of interest I am sure you deal with all the time that are now required in most medical journals) a requirement that the interest be declared and transparent. I agree that the Article on Joe Goldstein, given the seminal nature of his work and the general applicability to everyday life, is unacceptably short. It might be better to post information and share references on the Talk page first, and wait for an uninvolved editor to add them to Article space. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You've got a Nobel Prize and this is how you spend your time, writing encyclopedia articles about yourself? Qworty (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit abusive, Qworty. We don't know that this account belongs to the article's subject; just as possible that it's maintained by someone in his office. I've broached the subject here, at the article's talk page, and the BLP noticeboard. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strong charge, and there'd better be some evidence for it. If it's even remotely true that somebody is sneaking into this guy's office after hours to heap praise on him in a Wikipedia article, I'd like to see that evidence. But if you've been editing here for a while, then surely you must have noticed that the overwhelming percentage of these WP:COI cases in biography are pure WP:AUTO. It's certainly unlikely that anybody but this guy himself would know that he published obscure article X in obscure journal X some twenty-seven years ago. I guess the person who is sneaking into Goldstein's office to secretly write this Wikipedia article also broke into a file cabinet and got the professor's resume out so it could be copied here. Qworty (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's pretty cute. We also know from experience that close associates are known to edit on behalf of subjects--doesn't require anyone to sneak into an office. Expunging the biography altogether rather settles things, though. Sure will teach this account a lesson. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, as someone who has a Wikipedia bio, I can attest that notability, be it substantial like that of a Nobel recipient, or modest like mine, doesn't inure one to basic human conditions and behavior. If the account indeed belongs to the subject, then they've earned the right to be treated respectfully, even as we strive to honor Wikipedia's guidelines. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why a well-sourced neutral article cannot be written about this subject, and nobody is stopping anybody from writing such an article. There's absolutely nothing to edit-war about. Wikipedia has policies--let the policies be followed. Qworty (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Josephgoldstein, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]