User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

GNG

Just curious..., do you think Conservative Review passes GNG? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm, borderline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems promotional to me...^{Atsme📞📧} 22:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to me, but the coverage by news sources is pretty minimal. I didn't bother to check Google Books. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be relatively new - Alexa isn't overly excited about it. Coverage appears so-so. I expect opposition news sources will avoid coverage as it's competition. Levin has a radio show so it appears to me that this is a promotion for the launch of his tv show, whatever that may be - it's not MSM to my knowledge. While Levin passes GNG, there is no inherent notability, so I think this page would be better served as a merge to his BLP. I don't see it being a stand alone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a happy casual topic

Heyo! I noticed your username.. is that a hint to the "Northern Exposure" Dr. Fleischman? Couldn't help but ask :) Bryan C. W. (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It might. Check out my user page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Vox article

Hi,

There is an editor at the Vox (website) talk page that is attacking my intentions personally for raising an issue. He is also making claims about The Hill not being a RS or that the article cannot be used due to WP:Synthesis because the main subject is on another topic, even if an explicit claim about Vox is made. I don't know too much about WP:Synthesis but that appears to not be the point of it. Since you seem to be a reasonable editor who is more experienced on WP, could you perhaps take a look at the page? Thank you very much. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not inclined to weigh in, but I'm willing to give you some advice. These sorts of personal attacks are unfortunate but they happen all the time. Personally I try to ignore them. If it becomes too much of a distraction you can discuss their conduct on their user talk; that way you can focus on content on article talk. My other piece of advice is that if you've discussed a matter and you don't think the discussion is getting anywhere, don't slam your head against a wall trying to convince an stubborn contributor. It rarely works. Instead, move on to dispute resolution. I applaud you trying to recruit editors such as myself but you'd be well advised to read our canvassing guideline first. In this situation you might consider asking Neutrality to weigh in since they've already participated on that talk page. I've found them to be eminently reasonable--and they also happen to be an admin, which can be helpful when dealing with conduct issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca Masisak and Daniel Ben-Horin

Hi there, DrFleishhman. I've been looking in some detail at your recent edits on these. In the light of the discussion on Women in Red, I think you might like to reconsider your position. I'm sure the new content was added in good faith. We should make sure we do not lose a competent new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. Thanks for the message, but I don't understand. What position of mine are you referring to, and who is the competent new editor you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I found the relevant discussion and responded. Thanks for the note. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi DrFleischman! I've been briefly involved in the discussion on the Women in Red talk page, so I'm curious about the COI investigation. My question is broad: I'm not concerned about that particular editor, what I want to understand is how you can tell if someone is a paid editor or has a COI. Is there a pattern to look for? Is it something that involves IP addresses? Feel free to email me or ping me here. Looking through your responses on your talk page, you seem like you'd be good at explaining this kind of topic to me in a way that I'll understand. :) Thanks in advance. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose there are different ways to determine whether there's a COI, but in this case it can be determined by doing a google search with the username, and then conducting some cursory follow-up research. The only reason I thought to conduct such an "investigation" is because various TechSoup employees and consultants have been editing these pages semi-regularly for years. Alicjapeas is one of at least four. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit to TALK is unconstructive

I gave examples of how the Breitbart News article was being treated differnetly than MSNBC, which shows the liberal POV the article has. Even now, they are debating the fake photo stating that some of the same sources the POV Powers to Be used in their "justification" of calling it a far right News source, as being suspect in their attribution of that designation. Also, just because a FAR LEFT WING ANTI FREE SPEECH organization can get organizations who are afraid of boycotts to drop a feed, does not mean that their assertions are true, which is part of the article. The whole article is has a POV that is tightly guarded, just like you do not want anyone to see so you edit out those who debate it. Shame!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You get me wrong. I'm happy to debate it. It's just that your comment seemed like a rant about media organizations rather than about anything actionable in the article. Do you want the word "far right" changed or removed? Then say that explicitly. I'd suggest that you review our core policies and guidelines first, or your suggestion will likely be quickly shot down. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Who says "Far Right"? The liberal sources about Breitbart news or Breitbart News itself? I have seen that they state the obvious fact they are conservative, but they never claimed to be far right. Bannon stated it was a outlet that allowed one "Alt-right" faction (certainly not the faction that is white nationalist, as the members of their editorial and writing staff certainly proves! Gay, Jewish, Asian, Black, Hispanic and White members.)

Again, the article shows the Left wing bias when the same standard is NOT placed on MSNBC being a far left network.

BTW, not sure why my sig is not working AGAIN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit question. Why does the preference about the signature uncheck every once in a while so that even when the tildes are put in edit summary it states it was unsigned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you review our verifiability policy, you'll see that the way the subject of an article describes itself isn't particularly relevant to how we describe it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't put the signatures in the edit summary. Put them at the end of your comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So,even if the varifiable source is biased politically against the subject, that is all that matters? Truth doesn't? These articles are tightly guarded by liberal editors. That does not bode well for truth. When Talk sections are not even a place to be able to discuss articles, it makes the case of those who say that Wikipedia is not a good source for unbiased information.Hmmreally 17:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)

What makes you say that talk pages aren't even a place to be able to discuss articles? What I'm saying is exactly the opposite: talk pages are the very place to discuss articles. And why do you think you know the political persuasions of your fellow editors? Regarding your comment about biased sources, please read WP:BIASED. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• These articles are tightly guarded by liberal editors. That does not bode well for truth. Reality has a well known liberal bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comey dismissal

I have replied to your !vote at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Also, WP:RFC says it's fine to sign the RFC question with five tildes instead of four. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your statement that I did not sign the RFC question was false. I signed using five tildes, as specifically allowed by WP:RFC: "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date)." Since you apparently prefer that I sign with four tildes, I have now done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're banned from my user talk for 30 days. Once 30 days have elapsed the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed some of our past interactions. My goodness. Please stop degrading the experience of your fellow editors. If that means taking a good, long wikibreak, then sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate

What I CORRECTED was non-neutral and a blatant lie in the first place.--Stormwatch (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly care. You'll have to take it up with the admins if you're going to press the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Leftist ideologues

Why is it that a plurality, or even a majority of Wikipedia editors are extreme leftists, or even "alt-left"?

Are you participating in a massive confirmation bias exercise? Or do you just believe its appropriate to label a Jewish reporter as a white supremacist for deeper moralistic reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgThomas (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is it that you think it's appropriate to personalize the debate by pegging fellow contributors as having a particular ideologies? Is it helpful? Is it constructive? Does it bring us any closer to achieving consensus? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump timeline RfCs

Thanks for the notes about being too vague. I've not done RfCs before, so I wasn't sure how narrow the questions ought to be. I've restarted those RfC sections and replaced them with specific questions, per your advice. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Hi. I'm currently looking for editors to participate in this world contest in November Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. To make it work we really badly need people from as many countries as possible. Countries like Poland don't get that many women editors on here! Are you certain that this editor complaining has COI? It's a pity if there is as she's exactly the sort of person I want to participate from countries like that to produce articles for the contest! The problem with it is that whatever she declared you wouldn't believe it and would decline it so the articleare effectively barricaded from being improved which I don't think is right. I and some of my veteran friends on here can take a look at the articles and re edit them neutrally to what we want if it'll stop these people from trying to edit Wikipedia. There looks to be some decent content in there and knowledge is knowledge, these people don't own their subjects of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a few responses:

1. Yes, I am 100% certain that Alicjapeas has a COI. It's easy to confirm, and is further corroborated by the fact that TechSoup has a clear history of paying employees and/or consultants to edit related articles.
2. Of the two articles Alicjapeas has contributed to, one was an existing article about a woman ("Women in Blue?") and the other was about man. Neither were Women in Red, and it doesn't seem likely Alicjapeas is seriously interested in contributing to WIR. That said, I have no issue with her contributing to WIR, as long as it's outside of her COI area(s).
3. I am in no way barricading any articles from being improved, and I don't appreciate the unfounded accusation. I've never tried to prevent non-COI editors from making improvements to those pages.
4. If you like Alicjapeas' edits then you're welcome to promote them yourself. I'd encourage you to disclose that they were originally proposed by a COI editor and to give folks (including myself) an opportunity to weigh in on the appropriate talk pages.
5. Regarding your reference to "you and some of your veteran friends on here," I hope you're not planning to engage in any improper canvassing. Again, I'm happy to work with you to improve these pages. (And I hope I can be your friend too. ) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your response, us Doctors have to stick together right LOL? ;-) Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of barricading content and I fully understand the reasons behind it, you see it as protecting the site. Certainly not interested in canvassing people, my point was more that if neutral long standing editors took control of them and ensure that they're of the standard we would want and fully within content guidelines then that might be a more effective way of dealing with people tampering and then you would have multiple people protecting them rather than taking the easy option. I don't think notability or OR is an issue looking at the sourcing so I think something could be done between us in which we both agree is acceptable. I hope I'm not wrong about this editor Dr Fleischman, as Wikipedia badly needs people from non anglo countries who can write about women! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. We're going to have to address the issues piecemeal on the article talk page. In my analysis much of the content added by Alicja was unsourced, poorly sourced, original research, and/or promotional in tone. There was an AfD on Masisak that was closed as keep so I won't contest her notability. Ben-Horin was blarred with a talk page comment about notability so that should probably be addressed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mr Dr, I've hopefully sorted out that Masisak article, it did use good sources and had some fine content but some cruft and some irrelevant quotes and things which I've cut out (which I say without wanting to upset Alicja as she writes well overall). It should look acceptable now , though I'm only a newbie myself of course so what would I know?. ;-). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're a newbie then I don't know how to even describe what I am! Straight out of the womb? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps! The article definitely looks much better overall and you're good at condensing to the most relevant points. I agree with a lot of your edits but I still don't think it would be that harmful to have a bit more padding.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd love it if the article were fuller, but I don't believe in padding it with non-noteworthy or inappropriately sourced content. So it goes for subjects of borderline notability. Many of these will never be more than stubs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think there's a narrow line between padding and comprehension at times. The other article is in my sandbox User:Dr. Blofeld/Sandbox 2. I've only removed a small amount and updated the dates so far but I think it's best you cut out and alter what you think is appropriate there and we'll update it together rather than wasting my time doing the cutting and you drastically cutting it in the main space. Try at least to retain one fact or two though. :-) The background info seems to be from his own article in the NYT but given the credibility of the paper I think it's acceptable as long as the overall article has the right balance of sources. Some of the "appearances" look dubious, I've removed a few, descriptions in independent books I think have more validity though, though there seems to be some unnecessary quotes in parts. Anyway, all yours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Please give me a day or two. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I started working on it, but as I was cutting out the non-noteworthy material (supported only by primary sources) I decided the guy isn't notable. If I were to keep cutting, we'd end up with only a few sentences, and I agree with Lemongirl942 that WP:BLP1E applies to that. I added a talk page comment accordingly. If we're going to continue this conversation, can we please do so at Talk:Daniel Ben-Horin? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral?

How can it be non-neutral to quote Trump's exact words expressly stating that pursuant to his executive order, "there is no such thing as Obamacare anymore". He said what he said. bd2412 T 04:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title of the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to this revert at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Specifically, how is this not a repeal effort if the President basically says that it is? At the very least, we should mention something about the Executive Order (and perhaps the elimination of funding), in that they reverses underpinning regulatory parts of Obamacare. bd2412 T 11:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, neutrality generally means following the reliable sources. And last I checked Donald Trump was not a reliable source. I hope that answers your question. If not, we should probably continue the conversation at Talk:PPACA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping problem

Hey. Your ping of me on Técnico's page occurred during the time of the ping bug (I think or at least hope it's over now), and I didn't receive it. But Técnico has now themselves posted on my page, so I'm up to date and will take a look. Bishonen | talk 09:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Semi

Hi. I've semi'd this page for a few hours against persistent sock puppetry. Please let me know if you want it longer, or indeed if you want it removed. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I don't particularly care one way or another about my user talk, but I would like to see this person rangeblocked if possible to keep this person from spreading their crud elsewhere. Pinging Zzuzz since you mentioned you're not a rangeblock admin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You must be getting me mixed up with a couple of other people — I am a rangeblock admin, at least for reasonably simple cases. But his guy jumps all over the clock, and indeed does spread their fertilizer very widely. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Also, Zzuzz is a blocked impersonator — pinging Zzuuzz for you. I doubt they or anybody can rangeblock the nazi vandal, though. I don't think I'm providing the vandal with any beans by saying so. Anyway, just as you imply, it's strange that they expect people to be actually bothered. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the ping. For the record Zzuzz is my doppelgänger, but that's neither here nor there. This guy is using open proxies, using different IPs every time, which makes rangeblocks not an option. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• D'oh, I did in indeed screw up doubly. I got mixed up between Bishonen and Floquenbeam (since both helped oversight recent vandalism on my user talk), and I misspelled Zzuuzz. Thanks to both of you. Too bad about the open proxies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fyi

 Requesting immediate archiving...

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs) 11:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert of American Mirror

Hi! I'm the editor that added the American Mirror to the list of fake news websites. While I appreciate your contribution and trust your expertise (I even thanked your edit!), I'm confused as to why I was reverted specifically.

I checked the edit summary and it said that my sources were unreliable and did not verify the content. However, I think they're all reliable (MB/FC, one of the sites I presume you think is reliable, approves of Fake News Codex) and my addition to the article was composed mostly of direct quotes or faithful summaries of those sources.

What am I missing here? If I still believe The American Mirror is a fake news website, what should I change to make my edit accepted?

Thanks! --Reason is Immortal (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. If you post your question at Talk:List of fake news websites then I will respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I copied it to the talk page. --Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist/supremacist

Hi DrFleischman! I was wondering if you could give me a few RS, ideally from academics like Hawley, about white supremacy being a subset of white nationalism, as you explained in the edit summary. I think you may be correct and I apologize if I quoted Hawley verbatim. On page 13 of his book, he writes, "Throughout this text, I use the term “white nationalist” largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves. But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable." He acknowledges the critique but does not necessarily believe it, or he would make the distinction (which he does not do). Would you be able to show me JSTOR articles or Google Books excerpts that prove your point please? I intend to give you a barnstar if you do. Please reply here on your talkpage. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of the barnstar, but I haven't done this research and honestly I don't have the appetite to. Back when I started working on Richard B. Spencer, there was a consensus that we shouldn't call him both "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" because they were redundant; specifically, white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism, so we should just stick with "white supremacist." You can find it somewhere in the archives. I believe most folks who argued this, including myself, were relying on the accuracy of white nationalism. In any case, this should really be discussed on the article talk page so others can weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted it here to avoid the trolls, and you seem reasonable. I am concerned that it looks like we have a consensus without RS. I have just looked at white nationalism and it does make the subset argument in the lede, but without an RS. Then the only RS-backed content I can find is from Kofi Buenor Hadjor, but I can't figure out who he is on Google (can you?), as opposed to Hawley. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Trolls? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, lots of IP addresses have been posting about this for months. That's why no one can change the lede. I think you know that. Anyway, Hawley is more nuanced and he's definitely not a troll (has a PhD, published several books, teaches at a major research university). Who is Hadjor? Are there other academics who gave the 'subset' definition please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Yes, lots of IP addresses have been posting about this for months. That's why no one can change the lede." Sorry, I don't follow. IP addresses have been posting about this for months? How did I miss this? Can you point me to a discussion or diff please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's a recent example. There are many. But this is beside the point. My concern is that, after reading Hawley, a serious academic who has written a whole book about the alt-right published by the Columbia University Press, I'd like to know who else you are basing the "white supremacy as a subset of white nationalism" premise on? It may be true; I'd like to read about it. Who published this research on which the talkpage consensus is based on please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I see. But I don't see why this would prevent you from posting your inquiry on the talk page. I prefer to avoid content discussions on my user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who trimmed "white nationalist" with the RS from Hawley's book. But never mind. I don't care. You can call him a "white supremacist" by consensus in spite of academic sources if you want. Have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooookaaay. So you actually weren't here to have a collaborative discussion after all, I suppose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was--so collaborative that I offered you a barnstar if you helped me--and you don't have an answer, or don't want to answer. So, have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to respect people's user talk policies. It's just part of getting along with folks here. The purpose of my policy (which is pretty common, btw) isn't to avoid having discussions. I would be happy to discuss this further at Talk:Breitbart News. You still haven't explained what's so bad about that. Are you page banned or something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I was just wondering why you deleted this referenced content from academia, which is why I used your talkpage. By the way, I don't read Breitbart; I read academic books. But I apologize for writing on your talkpage without the foreknowledge that you didn't like it (which is unusual), and I wish you a very nice, long, productive life. I have no intention to write on your talkpage again. Have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. You too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Our mutual friend Robert

Wow, whatever the op-ed equivalent of subtweeting would be... that was it! I really did try to lay things out in a fairly clear manner and I would have been happy to help improve the article. Oh well. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page

Why did you remove the tag at Carter Page?

Two reasons:

1) It's garbage

2) this will come as a shock, but nobody died and left you in charge of the page.

--Calton | Talk 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's rude. Can you try to be more civil please? No one left you in charge of the page either, you know. I was just following typical tagging protocol. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, I must say that I'm surprised by such incivility given that you and I are on the same side of most content disputes. I mean instead of dismissing my tag as "garbage" and ownership, you could, say, engage in discussion and ask me why I added the tag before "trashing" me (pun intended). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Franken

[2] From what I understand, Wikipedia's predominantly male editing population has been accused in the past of marginalizing women's contributions and opinions. So, to remove an action from two female Democratic Senators in response to an alleged sexual assault could be interpreted as being in that mold. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Could be, but I don't appreciate the oblique accusation. It ignores my edit summary, and it's rather nasty and doesn't help to resolve the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole incident is "recent" so you're using selective editing. You also only answered one edit request on the talk page which was for a minor edit, and ignored my request about four senators (three Democratic) calling for an ethics investigation. As a feminist, I have a hard time interpreting your edit as anything else, knowing Wikipedia's history of trying to downplay and excuse violence and repression against women. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please make at least a half-hearted effort to assume good faith and avoid personalizing disputes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh by the way Doctor, if you were the least bit concerned about WP:NOTFORUM, perhaps you should have refrained from leading the witch hunt against CorduroyCap in the middle of a WP:RFC. Smells a whole lot like hypocrisy to me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Smells like dirty socks to me. Yuck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion...

There are people I listen to because they make sense and have a good understanding of things like guidelines and policies. Based on your track record, your advice is of no value to me and I will stipulate that any future "advice" from you will automatically be ignored. So stop wasting my time. If you want to play Tone Police, take your act elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Classy. And a bit late. I don’t even know what you’re referring to. But I get your message. I love you too, bro. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk?

Quick question. What I am to click on when responding to a specific comment you made? I noticed when I clicked on "talk" after you commented on the article that we were discussing I came here and you were able to specifically respond to my comment-as indicated by the indentation of your comment following mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors have varying levels of tolerance for content discussions on their own user talk pages, but in general article talk pages are the most appropriate place to discuss article content. If you wish to respond to my comment on the article talk page, you go to the top of that specific section and click the "Edit" link. As you've already done. A helpful guide to indentation can be found at WP:INDENT. To indent you just precede your comment by one or more colons (:). You can always see a preview of how your comment will look before you post it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DrFleischman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks

I reviewed his extensive history at ANI and didn't find anything relevant to the pattern of editing evidenced in Lion Guard. I'll poke around some more and see if there's more evidence in his edit history and complaints by other editors on article talk pages. Thanks for the heads up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Also nice to know I have fans! -O.R.^Comms 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, no worries about OberRanks' history. If you really want to dig into this, the ArbCom warning can be found here. But I'm not trying to get them into trouble. Rather, my goal is to let you know that if you can't verify content added by this user then it should probably be removed. Don't rely on unsubstantiated verifiability claims by this user. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review ..

.. this [3]. I nearly reverted you for deliberately introducing a typo .. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately? Tell me, have you ever heard of AGF? Nice to meet you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor

User:TheTimesAreAChanging has been repeatedly edit-warring. This is his 3rd revert in less than 24 hours. I reverted him for his unintelligible reason of "Random/IP editors are not WP:RS". What that means, I cannot understand. I suggest you warn him from edit-warring, because if he reverts for the fourth time then I'm not reverting, I will be forced to complain him. I had warned him to make him aware, but he removed my warning. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If they violated 3RR then you're free to report them. Personally I think their position is justified and I don't think you should have reverted them--twice. You have provided no justification for your reverts. Go to the talk page now and provide a content-based argument for your reversion, or go away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

If one person is doing something, and a bunch of people start reverting that person and complaining, then that person knows consensus is against them. If that person then starts making WP:POINTy edits (in an attempt to game the system) and insulting those who politely disagree then they probably do not have the patience and wisdom required for adminship. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus for deleting a category is not the same thing as consensus to edit all pages that contain wikicode that include that page in that category. In the mainspace, if a category is deleted then it makes total sense to delete the wikicode that includes pages in that category. Userspace is different. MediaWiki's categories are a bit weird in the sense that a deleted category can contain pages.

The idea that having a userpage in a category is somehow disruptive is demonstrably false. Editing people's userpages repeatedly against their wishes after being told not to is disruptive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I do not like talking about people behind their back. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If a small group of people oppose encyclopedic maintenance and the implementation of consensus decisions, then it is up to them to demonstrate a consensus for their view. Over the last year they have repeatedly failed to do so.

Instead they are reduced to silly sniping, like this demonstrably bogus allegations of pointiness and gaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No offense to either of you, but I'm not interested in getting further involved in this dispute. I just wanted to voice my support for Potato and others who have opposed BHG's user talk page edits. Please keep the dispute over disruption, admin privileges, talking behind people's backs, silly sniping, bogus allocations, gaming, etc. off my user talk. That goes for both of you. I have better things to do with my time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The fact which Quixotic Potato and others repeatedly refuse to acknowledge is that a page (of any type) in a non-existent category is treated by the software as an error, and creates an entry in a cleanup list (Special:WantedCategories). The disrupts the maintenance task of fixing miscategorisations and creating needed categories, because these "jokes" become permanent entries in a list which should be capable of being cleared.

There are non-disruptive ways to display these redlinks, but sadly a small group of vocal editors refuse to use the non-disruptive alternatives. Those editors are gaming WP:USERPAGE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, you are banned from my user talk for a period of 1 month starting today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holidays to you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	umm, not really...just doing the same thing were all here to do. stop being so negative.. Katherinehurley (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I’m not here to make money. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Wikipedia noob. Would you mind explaining more about why you reverted my Gavin McInnes edit here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&oldid=prev&diff=810359833 I looked at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources; here are some parts that seemed relevant: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ... "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, the Proud Boys website is not objective... but it still seems like a great source for supporting information about a viewpoint that's being held on a particular subject here. And I don't think I did any original research here. Just provided a specific fact.--Clevera (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond but I'd prefer to do so at Talk:Gavin McInnes. Can you please repost your inquiry there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Clevera (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proud boys dubious tag

I just removed that paragraph from Proud Boys completely. It's a joke. It's obviously primary, based on the fact that while a source has repeated it, it can be sourced directly from their promotional media. At the very least wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used to parrot their promotional spiel. I put a poll on the TP - cheers. Edaham (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and message

Today, I tried to add a useful and appropriate reference for the topics that you have followed. I greatly appreciate your helpful adjustments and useful comments to improve or remove what I have tried to add to wikipedia. 67.53.214.86 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I left you a couple of messages at User talk:67.53.214.86, not sure if you saw them. If you have questions about them I'd suggest responding there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

We don't need people speculating about "the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this" and dirty tricks teams. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I was just about to write to you. I understand the need to tamp down on the flame wars, but most of that IP's post was definitely about the article and was quite specific about what they thought was wrong with it. It was most definitely not a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Deleting, hatting, or otherwise squelching the entire thing is censorship and feeds the accusations that Wikipedia is politically biased. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't care how we look to partisans (on either side). And I'm not giving a break to IPs on articles covered by discretionary sanctions that I wouldn't give to registered editors. The content is still there - editors can decide if any of it is worth pursuing in new threads. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Still not a NOTFORUM vio. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

E-mail

Turned e-mail on temporarily. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Turned it off. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Marc J. Victor "politics" section

Hey, why'd you remove that section? He's mentioned on the other candidates' wikipedia pages and how is ballotpedia unreliable? AnaCadence (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Ana

Fly, fly, fly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Proud Boys

please watch your edits on Proud Boys. You replaced a biased source, inaccurately quoted, presenting disinformation. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take it to Talk:Proud Boys if you don't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Go where?

we surely should not be using obviously partisan websites with a poor reputation for reliability. Especially when there are clear (and intentional on their part) BLP implications. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The RSN consensus is that Fox News and National Review are by and large reliable. I'm not saying I agree with that consensus, but that is the consensus nonetheless and it has massive implications across the encyclopedia. If you wish to change that consensus, you're not going to accomplish that by edit warring. If you have specialized concerns about particular Fox News or National Review sources, then raise it at article talk and obtain consensus. If you have general concerns then I think you'd better obtain consensus at RSN. Otherwise it strikes me as reckless bomb-throwing. Just my personal view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Srsly? That is brain dead. If we have learned one thing fomr the last year and a half it is that you cannot trust partisan right-wing sources on anything relating to any political issue in the US right now. Guy (Help!)

You may have learned that, but most of your fellow editors haven't, so you have some convincing to do. In the meantime, please don't call my personal views brain dead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The Soup Nazi...

Is exactly who I had in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah well someone doesn't appreciate Seinfeld's brilliance like we do I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax cuts and jobs act of 2017

Ping Alesander (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

File:File-Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thanks for cleaning up the wikilink mess on the Council for National Policy page. Just didn't occur to me, I guess, to just use Edwin Meese's name.

Anyway, thanks again.

Javert2113 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

I noticed you did 2 major things to a relatively well referenced section I added. I read the reasons for each action and have to questions about that.

1. How many false statements are required to provide a section noting that this organization has generated "Controversial, False, and Misleading" statements?

2. And this is more complex so I'll go into greater depth. The only place source you cited as contradicting me was Politifact (which I am familiar with and often read). I believe I found the article in Politifact which you are referring to and would point out that there are different implications in the different statements Scott Walker made in 2013 (which it evaluated in that article) and Judicial Watch in 2011.

Specifically the 2013 statement was that FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."

The Politifact article that rated this as true noted FDR's feelings on public unions may be debated this is more in terms of the range of things a public union could do (not on if they existed) and at the time there was not much of a public sector union tradition while private sector unions already had been building for several years.

While the 2011 Judicial Watch statement said FDR "opposed" public unions. This is on if they may exist and therefor advocate for public workers on any of the issues unions typically do.

Additionally Large numbers of public workers had not yet been unionized so that was a decision of someone before this time.

Moreover his administration's actions (as mentioned in the Politifact article) did not "oppose" the formation of public unions or public worker membership within them. The article referred to unions of workers associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also it noted FDR said that federal workers were "free to join 'any union they want'" and that "managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not".

Since Governor Walker refused to even meet with union members or representatives during the time Act 10 was being debated and protested this arguably was a violation of the spirit of FDR's views on how public workers and their treatment.

Judicial Watch exaggerated, at best, FDR's views on public workers and their unions and did so during a time of political unease over an unexpected change in several decades of traditional and legal recognition of public sector unions in Wisconsin. This was misleading.

What was also misleading in the Judicial watch statement was the claim that this was done for fiscal reasons when statewide unions had offered to take every fiscal cut he requested-meaning this was not over fiscal matters.

Perhaps I should have added that to my explanation of how the Judicial Watch commentary was misleading but this does qualify as misleading commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pplr, thanks for writing. I'm happy to respond, but could you please post at Talk:Judicial Watch so that we can discuss this there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey - I'm not trying to remove negative information about Judicial Watch. I want the page to be clean, organized, and fair. I don't think it makes sense to have many random claims of falsehood (and other criticism) listed in the "major investigations and lawsuits" section. That section should explain what activity Judicial Watch does, not be merely a list of complaints about the group. Is that fair? ResearchApproach (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi ResearchApproach, thanks for writing. I'm happy to respond, but could you please post at Talk:Judicial Watch so that we can discuss this there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. Thanks. ResearchApproach (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing- Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Penguin Books editors provide oversight per wp:RS

Please engage on talk. Loesch described her ancestry in her book, published by Penguin.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops! U accidentally blanked...

Dana Loesch#Personal life

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Loesch&diff=828318100&oldid=828317908

diff] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not accidental. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The entire new section keeps disappearing.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, did you read my edit summary? The other editor simply moved stuff from another section. By re-adding it you're just adding redundant stuff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blanking_of_article_section_Dana_Loesch#Personal_life

regarding need help to preserve sourced content.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Far right

Jbhunley, thank you for this comment, which is a particularly good articulation of a concept I've tried to convey in disputes over the use of "far right" (and "far left") in a number of other articles (example). I'm writing you here to keep track of your comment as I intend to draw from it in the future. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are a couple of sources that you may find interesting. I have not read them but they can be used to back up the statement in a WP:OR kind of way.

• Cas Mudd, ed. (2017). "Introduction to the populist radical right". The Populist Radical Right: A reader. Routledge. ISBN 9781315514574. (The populist radical right shares a core ideology that combines (at least) three features: nativism, authoritarianism, and populism (Mudde 2007)... In Europe the nativism of the populist radical right has mainly targeted 'immigrants')
• Mudde, Cas. "The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties:Towards a Fourth Wave" (PDF). C-REX Working Paper Series,. 2016 (1): 1. Retrieved 2024-05-21. (Since the start of the third wave of populist radical right politics in postwar Europe in the early 1980s, more articles and books have been written on far right parties than on all other party families combined.){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

These happen to be by the same author but there are lots of examples out there of the terms being effectively synonymous per the usage in the second quote. Hope this helps some in your discussions. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 19:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Paul Erickson (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Paul Erickson (disambiguation), DrFleischman!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have made a few changes, please see page.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Can you please resolve the incoming links which are now pointing to the wrong target and then request that Paul Erickson (disambiguation) is moved to the primary title? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done No links were pointing at the wrong target, but I did review them all and moved the dab page as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio link removed

Please don't post links to youtube videos unless the uploader is clearly the copyright holder. I have removed such a link you posted at WP:ANI. Such links are not allowed anywhere on enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that policy. I think it's misguided and doesn't reflect copyright law, but I appreciate you alerting me to this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic essay

I just have read that apparently some contributors agree either to a "Don't re-revert" rule or else to a "Zero revert" rule. I think I'd like for us both to agree to the latter. What do you say?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Details: No reversions before discussion. I think it's sorta based on the idea that change is not to be discouraged and to err on the side of inclusion toward good faith edits if at all possible, unless some overriding factor is coming into play (slam dunk unnecessary harm to WP or an individual).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Link is here: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Avoiding_or_limiting_your_reverts--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to follow BRD. It’s widely accepted and more consistent with Wikipedia goals and policies. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

your last comment at my edit notice thread

If you look higher up, I actually crunched the numbers, and it was something like 4% of edits to my talk page since I put the notice up even mentioned the notice (and about half of those approved of it). So you were right on the nose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at RT (TV network). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

March 2018 Edit Warring notice

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at RT (TV network). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Wolfenstein3D (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah except I reverted exactly once and my version is supported by consensus. You reverted 7 times and your version is not supported by consensus. Sorry bub. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing a perfectly valid source for no other reason then to persist in edit warring is immature and childish. Administrators may have to be contacted over your behavior. Sorry bub. --Wolfenstein3D (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Need to revert people to alt-lite

You along with others have reverted the accurate information of alt-lite into alt-right even though the beliefs have major differences.

By far one of the most ridiculous things that I've seen, (and tried to fix) is that Laura Loomer was considered "alt-right". This itself is lunacy. To say that a JEW believes that the Jewish is the enemy is absolutely ridiculous. The main and big difference between the two, is that the alt-lite do not believe in white nationalism and that they support isreal. I am trying to change these people to "alt-lite" as it is a much more accurate term, and does not get people confused. Many people consider Wikipedia reliable, and we need to make sure it stays that way. Here are three alt-lite people that I intend on changing: Laura Loomer , Mike Cernovich, and Jack Posobiec. The reason being that they all support isreal and jewish people, and they do not believe in white nationalism. They are internet trolls, definitely. Hence the term alt-lite. You can even read the alt-lite Wikipedia page for some information. TheHitmanY2J (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but this issue has already been addressed at Talk:Laura Loomer and Talk:Mike Cernovich. You need to review those discussions, and if you disagree with their outcomes then try to obtain a consensus there. I'd suggest you review our policies on verifiability and original research first, however. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Real_News_Update#RfC:_claims_of_news_stories_ignored_by_the_media

Hi DrFleischman. A courtesy note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Real_News_Update#RfC:_claims_of_news_stories_ignored_by_the_media. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 11:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Warner

Thanks. That was a good idea. What he calls "political Islam" is quite different to our article. Actually we seem to have two articles on it, Political Islam and Political aspects of Islam which probably should be merged, but they aren't about Warner's views. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I just saw the DS notices and his response. This could get messy. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I got a little laugh out of that response too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't like CAIR as a ref for his lack of expertise? I think there are other sources. How about them calling him an Islamophobe? Also, it's a bit tricky decidywhen to use a subject as a source and when not to. I rather liked my quote where he was careful not to give his opinion of Muslims. Doug Weller talk 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

CAIR is a political advocacy group, yes? The presumption is then that they're unreliable, except in exceptional circumstances like the SPLC that's regularly cited by other reliable sources. And I generally try to avoid all self-sourced content for obscure attention seekers, especially the controversial ones. No reason to give them a platform. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I checked through RSN before I added it and found nothing. However, how about this which we already use? We often have to use a subject for some material, and we already do in the article. I'd added it to make his views clear - well, on Islam if not on Muslims where he prevaricates. On another article I've got someone saying we can't use the SPLC as it's a primary source, which doesn't seem to square with what WP:NOR says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC source seems fine to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson's Page

DrFleischman, let's try to reach a consensus on the page we are editing. As well as you suggest that my corrections are biased, I may suggest the same about yours. The article in your vision is clearly negative, in mine are positive. Let's try to find a common ground on it. I do not mind and happy to prove the edits I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline456 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I'm generally not in favor of splitting the baby. I'd prefer to focus on Wikipedia's community standards and to abide by whatever the consensus ends up being. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

National Policy Institute

See WP:RPP#National Policy Institute. You might want to add your two bits. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erikson: Caroline456

Caroline456 definitely seems to have a bias. I gave my opinion on the talk page, and I completely agree with you. I suggest we may need to take this further if the need arises. If you have any ideas or want to contact me, just message me at my talk page. Thanks, XXCooksterXx (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Academi

Are you willing to take on ACADEMI's request for changes on article's talk page?

I know I'm way out of my depth on this, and will probably go to one of the noticeboards to get admin attention on the issue. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I went ahead and asked for help on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_needed_on_Academi_article . Tarl N. (discuss) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that was unnecessary, but no worries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits

Why should I stop marking most of my edits as minor? My edits are generally not major edits (save for adding references and whatnot), mainly just grammatical corrections or adding a – to someone who died. I generally do not do major edits, save for adding resources or adding major sections or creating new pages. --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't go through all of your edits, but this one was definitely not minor. You added a sentence of substantive content and a supporting reference. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There can be edits here and there where I could have not marked it as minor, sure, but on the whole, I usually do things like removing unnecessary spaces, fixing small grammatical errors, and so on, all things that are generally considered minor. I don't know why I needed to be messaged about this, but I can see where your concern is. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson (activist)

I've seen that you edited the article since I last posted to the Talk page. Would you still like me to comment on individual issues listed there? I'd be happy to, but I wonder if the matters might have been resolved. It's been a few days since a certain editor was active on the page, so perhaps things will die down. Please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I think it would be helpful, as I wouldn't be surprised if Caroline reverts me and we really need to develop a talk page consensus on these issues to end these disputes for good. If you're going to pick one issue, I'd propose the one marked "Fraud" since only Caroline and I have weighed in on it in any meaningful way. You can compare Caroline's version to the current version. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the situation has somewhat stabilised, so I'm going to remove it from my watch list. Please feel free to ping me for any additional issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Carter Page

Why did you remove the reference to Carter Page working on the Clinton transition team in 1993? It's well documented and was properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.21.154.83 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. And don't believe everything you read in the Gateway Pundit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman wrote: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)We need a reliable source. That Bard source isn't one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The change to be made is to include the information that Mr. Carter Page worked with the Clinton administration, as part of his early career.

How is "The Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program in New York City" website not a reliable source? This website provides 16 years of archived speakers' names, biographies and outlines, which are all unreliable?

How would anyone find a reliable source for what speakers gave speeches then? So you have decided that http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.2.93 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it reliable. Please read our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

COI van der Linden

I have only created a few biographies of notable scientists but I do so in substantial and considerable detail to avoid a stub. The van der Linden article is neutral and factual and contains dozens of appropriate references. There's no conflict of interest. I simply know of many of the scientists in this field and have created a few biographies over the years as these were notable people as per Wikipedia's notability criteria. I don't edit or create biographies for individuals or topics I know little about. As such, my activity is selective by default, so either I would have to do more editing or perhaps you can let me know how to improve the biography but it looks pretty decent to me. User:Science_contributor101 —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Science_contributor101, which biographies have you created? Your edit history suggests you've only created one (Van der Linden himself). Not that there's anything wrong with that, but SmartSE and I are trying to make sense of your contributions. As for the content of the Van der Linden article, I'd prefer we discuss at Talk:Sander van der Linden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I added some questions in the talk section on how to improve the article. I lost my login info once but I created Edward Maibach for example. I asked for some help and the user Jytdog has effectively removed 80% of the content of the article, most of which were just facts, such as notable awards and achievements, media coverage, and notable academic work. I have read many academic Wikipedia biographies and followed the same format when I created this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You've been quoted

Hello Dr. Fleischman, it's been quite a while! In case you hadn't seen it already, I thought I'd point out that your comments on Talk:Breitbart News were recently quoted in a news article: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-breitbart-declares-war-on-wikipedia-in-facebook-s-fight-against-fake-news-1.5991915 Hope all is well! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Violation & Edit Wars

I just noticed that you reverted my edit per your comment on my talk page, and I appreciate your revision (since it was potentially a violation of WP:BLP even though I was unaware of it). However, I do want to note that I had not met the requirements for an edit war. I can refer you to my talk page or to the talk page of the other editor involved to note that my second revision was made in good faith. Thanks again!  :) zfJames (chat page) 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I understand that perfectly. Thanks for the note. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Discussed on talk"

FYI, saying "I think X and will put it in the article" is not the same as "discussed on Talk". Guy (Help!) 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Just last month you participated in the discussion directly on point in which Snooganssnoogans and I both thought we should include the "watchdog group" descriptor. The discussion cannot be reasonably summarized as "I think X and will put it in the article." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement

You have been mentioned regarding an issue in which you are involved here Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement.– Lionel^(talk) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Bizarro. Permanent link here. Whatever happened to getting along? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch Page

Sir, what you are doing is intellectually dishonest and it is against the terms of Wikipedia. You are not the sole arbiter of what happens on that page. This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's page on reliable sources, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Note the "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" part. That paragraph can not be sourced to be true from a reliable source, nor can a reliable source prove it to be untrue. Therefore, it shouldn't be there. If we get passed that rule, I'd have to question why it is even relevant to the page in the first place. That should be the next conversation on this. I'd like to assume good faith, but seeing your comments in the talk section, it seems as if you are deliberately trying to deceive new editors by sharing so many links, none of which included a link to Wiki's stance on biographies of living people. I also find the tag you added to the top to be inaccurate. There was no call for partisanship. There was a call for an error to be corrected. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a long time, and I rarely see someone try to act like you and portray himself in a position of authority, in a community that is supposed to be civil. From an outside perspective, it would seem as though you do not like Ms. Loesch very much. I would suggest sitting this one out, in order to air on the side of caution, so we can keep Wikipedia as accurate and non partisan as possible. Thank you. Mikist4 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No offense, but it seems you forgot the "terms of Wikipedia" during your 4-year absence. You can start by assuming good faith and communicating with editors in a civil fashion before you end up getting blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You are free to report any of us because we were simply "inactive". Plus you lost good faith when you accused me of meat puppetry. The fact is you are pushing "Contentious Material" despite being disputed by a well-known reporter that disputes this vs someone is quite obvoius biased against the Loesch. https://twitter.com/timelfrinkmia/status/967039274385362945. The editor in question also in bad faith misconstrued what the both of Loesch said. Did the Loesch say that they were attacked? No. Did the Editor claim that the Loesch said this? Yes. Did the video corroborate what the Loesch said? Yes. Did the video corroborate what the author claimed the Loesch said despite no evidence of them saying so? No. ViriiK (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave the content arguments on the article talk page so everyone can read them. I'm talking about conduct, and if that's your threshold for abandoning AGF then you clearly haven't been around the block here, my friend. In fact, I didn't accuse you of meat puppetry, I merely suggested that you and the others review the policy. If any of you were coordinating then that would be bad. Apparently you're not so it's a non-issue. I wasn't planning on raising it again. I understand you think I'm some sort of Loesch hater, but I've actually defended her article from attacks on numerous occasions. R-E-L-A-X and try to make your arguments as concise and persuasive and possible. The vitriol and ad hominems only hurt you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Then falsely needs to be removed because that's Elfrink's own interpretation, NOT REPORTING, and Jake Tapper's confirmation on the event in question MUST be included. ViriiK (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also you're also injecting something that I didn't say by assuming that I supposedly think you hate Loesch. The problem is that you went straight to warning me with a 3RR when you KNEW it was flat out wrong and extremely contentious based on the observation of one person which WP:BLP protects me from 3RR. ViriiK (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be consistent with our community standards... As an aside, do you have a faulty caps lock key? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

OKAY JUST TO PROVE THAT MY CAPS LOCK IS FAULTY, YES, IT IS FAULTY. Now that we can skip over your snide remark, you seem to be selectively cherry picking what you want to read. Why was it "falsely" as per your own interpretation based off of another person's interpretation, not reporting who has no connection to the event in question. Elfrink disregarded Jake Tapper completely. ViriiK (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the source says it was false. That's it, end of analysis. If you or the others or the Loesches have a problem with that, you/they can write to the New Times and complain, ask that the article be corrected. I wasn't avoiding any cherry picking anything. I politely asked you to continue the content discussion at the article talk page, not here. Do you understand? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times? The article in question is the Miami New Times which it's an editorial based on the "reporter's" own observation of a video he watched. There's no reporting in it. He made his own biases known when he made the gaslighting comment. ViriiK (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Times? Huh? I said New Times. As in the Miami New Times. This was not an editorial. It was a news article. Now, if you don't stop talking content here despite multiple polite requests then I will ban you from this page. Got it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A news article you say? Are you sure? So her statement which appears to contradict the byline doesn't seem to faze you at all and that being corroborated by Tapper? It's also a big issue when he states "Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch". That's editorializing. This editorializing article came on the 23rd right after Jake Tapper's confirmation which was on the 22nd which they completely disregarded Jake Tapper, the person who wanted to ensure safety of everyone involved. Why skip over Tapper then? Right, because you can easily find articles that attacks the Loesch. Twitchy unfortunately highlights the tweets from Jake Tapper in question but we know you are not going to accept that as a source. ViriiK (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are banned from this talk page for a period of 30 days. If you violate the ban I will report you, and I assure you that the admins take these sorts of userpage bans very seriously. After the 30 days has expired the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

You have been mentioned at AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not canvassing

I let him know about the discussion because the behavior by a particular editor he was seeing at another article was occurring at the Diamond and Silk article, as well. If you notice, the wording in the notification I left on Lionelt's talk page was not about taking part in the discussion, but about being aware of it. I don't care if he comments there, just that he sees what's going on. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike or remove your assumptive and inaccurate comment there. Honestly, you should have asked me what my purpose was, first. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the definition of canvassing. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Only to someone who needs to see it that way. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the article. O3000 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Then there's no need for you to comment on this. See WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WV, thanks for the note and I believe you. However I will say that regardless of your intention, you’re experienced enough to know that your note to Lionel would likely be interpreted as canvassing. I’m not striking my comment since your note is open to interpretation, and each editor is free to make their own assessment, just as O3000 did. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Those not exercising WP:AGF will "interpret" in the negative, that's for certain. Or comment in such a way that makes it something it's not in order to further an agenda. Thanks for the response and acknowledging that I had no mal-intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tone down the battlegrounding, at least on my user talk. I am not your enemy. —Dr. Fleischman (talk)

I think you misunderstood my response. I was speaking in generalities, based on what I've observed over the years, nothing more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wink, you seem unable to engage constructively with other editors today. Please step back and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)