User talk:ClarenceDeBordeaux

Welcome!

Hello, ClarenceDeBordeaux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, ClarenceDeBordeaux. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page David Rothman (medical historian), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at David Rothman (medical historian), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: first, the children's names shouldn't be in the article even if it is possible to confirm that they are Rothman's children. The article is about him, not his children.

Second, when you reverted my edit wholesale, you didn't just revert my removal of the references to the kids, you also reverted me removing non-neutral content, and a huge inappropriate and unsourced quote, and important maintenance templates. Please don't do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, you are completely out-of-control. Your power to edit this page needs to be revoked ClarenceDeBordeaux (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the page and brought it in line with Wikipedia policies in a number of ways (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS etc). What you have done in response is to call me "vindictive" and "out of control". AntiDionysius (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most generous comment one could make about you is that you applied Wikipedia policies in an unthinking manner with a bureaucratic pettiness and zeal that Nathanael Fast et al summarized best in their article "The destructive nature of power without status" (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Simply put, Fast said "We found that people who had high power and high status, they were pretty cool, but it was people who had power and lacked status who used their power to require other persons to engage in demeaning behavior." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/science-explains-bureaucrats-bad-attitudes/)

That sir, he is talking about you ClarenceDeBordeaux (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]