User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Canvassing administrators

Dr. F., you need to stop doing this [1], monitoring my talk page, and "warning" other editors about me. The dispute on Lion Guard was over months ago and (I feel) was adequately explained here. You have now canvassed DGG, two other administrators, and one completely un-involoved editor trying to keep this dispute alive. [2] [3] [4]. What you are doing constitutes harassment, is a form of wiki-hounding, and violates WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. I took your talk page off my watch-list long ago, I strongly suggest you do the same with mine. The chances of us interacting on any articles together is now close to zero, since I don't edit political articles and you don't edit military history. I suggest we go our separate ways. I have also asked you to stop editing on my talk page [5], which you technically violated here [6], although perhaps since it was administrative only it may be overlooked. Please make no further edits to my talk page and I will make no further to yours. -O.R.Comms 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Talking about other editors in good faith isn't harassment, and it certainly wasn't canvassing because there was no dispute. Like I said, I support your unblock. Best of luck and I hope I will never have any reason to discuss our past disputes ever again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard B. Spencer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW.– Lionel(talk) 02:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, that makes 3 totally baseless AN reports against me in 4 days. I'll count these last two as a single episode. One more like this and I'll request a boomerang for harassment. You're fortunate I haven't done that already, as I have plenty of evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content

Answer to accusation of "baseless AN reports"

My dear Fleischman, I strive for nothing less than to foster a collegial environment. If you have found my deportment otherwise that is regrettable. You have accused me of filing "baseless AN reports." The facts of the two incidents do not support your accusation.

I. Irregular conduct at AFD Sharon Statement (WP:AN)

Here are the fact of the matter:

  1. On 4/10/18 you filed an AFD regarding Sharon Statement [7]
  2. Four editors cast !votes
  3. On 4/18/18 you changed the deletion rationale [8]
  4. On 4/22/18 I filed a request at WP:AN to close the AFD as Keep.
Straw poll guidelines #6 states:

"Once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing or options of the poll are likely to result in disagreement over whether these changes are fair or if they unfairly "move the goalposts". Because of this, every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll."

When changing the deletion rationale, the supplement clearly anticipates "disagreement" and proscribes against changing the rationale. Because of your act, and based on Straw poll, filing the report at WP:AN was fully within our established polices and procedures.


II. Edit warring at Dana Loesch (WP:ANI/WP:ANEW)

The facts:

1. On 4/26/18 you were a combatant in an edit war at Dana Loesch with 5 other editors. Loesch is under DS.
(a) 1st revert [9]
(b) 2nd revert [10]
2. I filed an edit warring reprot at WP:ANEW
3. This resulted in 72 hour full protection [11]

It is ludicrous to suggest that filing a report at WP:ANEW regarding a raging edit war is "baseless." The fact that the article was placed under protection with the edit sum "Edit warring" proves that the report was not "baseless."

– Lionel(talk) 06:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you have better things to do than to clutter up my user talk like that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

I reverted your good faith, BOLD edits on Intellectual dark web because they appeared unwarranted. I suggest starting a talk page section about this matter if you feel otherwise. Thanks, --IDW5605 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use the Template:Better source on citations you feel are inadequate, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water by deleting everything connected to those sources. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Feel free to restore the content if you find reliable sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - I've deliberately refrained from mentioning any names in the ANI post, as I don't think any sanctions are necessary yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter

Hey, Dr. Fleischman! It's a pleasure to see that you're still doing good work on Wikipedia (that wasn't sarcastic—it really is). I have a couple of questions regarding the Blue Lives Matter revert. I perfectly agree that if there is no link between the 'Thin Blue Line' and the 'Blue Lives Matter' movement, then the flag should not be included. That being said, I do have a few further concerns. First, the file itself is closely linked in both the title (of the file) and the file description to the Blue Lives Matter movement. If the link between the flag and the 'Blue Lives Matter' movement is inaccurate, then there will need to be some alterations in that direction. Second, the talk page discusses discretionary sanctions including (but not limited to) "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." If my interpretation of this statement is correct, you and I would need to hash out the issue on the talk page of the article before you reverted my edit. I don't really feel like doing that (I am more concerned about reverting vandalism), but if that's what the directions on the card say, then that is what I am willing to do for the sake of good form. ;) Thoughts? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts? We should leave as is. There's no basis for restoring the logo, and what an editor wrote when they uploaded the file doesn't matter. And if you honestly agree with the edit and you don't like enforcing discretionary sanctions, then don't mention them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pizzagate GA nomination

I'm going to nominate the article for GA. Seeing as you've put work into the article before, I'm informing you of this.💸Money💸emoji💸💴 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification

I opened a discussion section at the noticeboard here. Pinged you, but thought I'd make sure you're aware. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rt talk

Thanks for deleting some comments I added to the RT Talk page under the funding section. I must have copied them into my comment by mistake and certainly didn’t intend to make them public. Hope they didn’t cause any offence. They were some notes I had made on various pages in which I was interested. Burrobert 03:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Don't do that again, and don't take notes like that on Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You sound like my dad when I broke the bedroom window. It didn’t stop me playing cricket but I did stop playing in the backyard. Burrobert 07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Except that I'm not your dad. I can't stop you from taking those sorts of notes, but they reflect a battleground mentality don't lend themselves well to assuming good faith. I suggest you focus more on understanding our content policies and guidelines (especially WP:V and WP:RS) and less on tracking your fellow contributors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When the Philip Cross affair hit the news it made me curious about the dynamics of Wikipedia editing so I started paying attention to who was doing what to whom and how often. I hope any edits I have made (and there aren’t that many) have abided by the various protocols you mentioned. Let me know if this isn’t the case as I do admit that I am fairly new to serious editing. Burrobert 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Hey Doc!

I added a bunch of RS calling Spencer a neo-Nazi and I'm sure you can find more!

INstead of spinning for Spencer, perhaps you should try to educate him about the history of race, including the make-believe "white race" (made up a few hundred years ago, and it wasn't even widely accepted in Europe until after WWII!).

Money quote:

"The concept of a unified white race did not achieve universal acceptance in Europe when it first came into use in the 17th century, or in the centuries afterwards. The strongest proponents of racialism in 20th century Europe, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, regarded some European peoples such as Slavs as racially distinct from themselves. Prior to the modern age, no European peoples regarded themselves as "white," but rather defined their race, ancestry, or ethnicity in terms of their nationality (Greek, Roman, etc). Moreover, there is no accepted standard for determining the geographic barrier between white and non-white people. Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a "white race" as socially constructed."

You might also read about the Nazi extermination of the Poles (Polish is a real heritage! unlike white), whom they called "Untermenschen," to see why the nationalist Polish government doesn't want Spencer or other Nazis there.

-- ms steele. Steeletrap (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You lost me when you accused me of spinning for Richard Spencer. I mean seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In other words if I say being fat is unhealthy but can't specify an exact weight above which health risks increase then "fat" is imaginary and the concept of fatness invalid. This is your brain on Rousseau. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Get off my page, sock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
If I could write, I'd write a letter to my Congressman; if he could read. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Dr. F, the stuff about Spencer being mocked by the Hungarian Press for going there in 2014 and calling for Hungarians (who have a very distinctive and strange racial identity that appeals to the Middle East and turkey) to embrace "white identity" is from this newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9pszabads%C3%A1g. THough now defunct for compelling commercial reasons, it was certainly a respected RS when it was published. Steeletrap (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Dr. F., if you can provide specific objections to specific claims, rather than vaguely citing "BLP," (which is meaningless when it is unspecific), I will talk this out with you before reverting. The reason that people are jumping to negative conclusions about your politics is that you aren't citing specific BLP violations, but are simply making kneejerk edits (some of which involve the removal of serious RS for claims like the neo-Nazi claim and the insertion of a daily beast opinion piece). Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Calton_2 regarding your report at WP:AE.‎ --Calton | Talk 04:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

You suggested a change. I made the change using the wording your used, and you reverted it...I don't understand... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot I had agreed with you on that change. My mistake. I self-reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich

Hello,

A variety of people keep reverting my update to the Mike Cernovich page whereby I am replacing his past affiliation with alt-right to reflect his new affiliation with alt-lite. You are one of the people who has reverted my change. As far as I can tell, the only reason you have reverted my change is that other people had reverted my change. One user claimed I did not provide any sources for my change, but I had included three. Now I have six. (New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker Haaretz Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy). Please undo your revert of my edit, as the reason for my change is reasonable and well-sourced, as you have pointed out that I will be banned if I try to do this update myself again. The reason behind my update is not about any sort of political reason, but rather about improving the accuracy and recency of the contents of Wikipedia articles. Thanks. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You wouldn't be permanently banned, but you would be temporarily blocked. Sorry, silly bureaucratic Wikipedia terminology. Wikipedia is built on the consensus-building process. You need to convince a bunch of editors that you're right, and you need to do it at Talk:Mike Cernovich. If you're unsuccessful then you'll just have to accept that and move on. I'd say good luck, but did you notice my comment on your user talk about sockpuppetry? You should login. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hannity ranking sections

User:DrFleischman - Taking this to side conversation ... re my seeking input re ranking of Hannity sections.

I do appreciate that you went to extra effort to move my atop text and add comment below it rather than just undo-delete the text. However, please give more emphasis to the spirit and substantive or informative discussion of the question and article content over procedural criticism. It would feel more helpful if those were giving suggestions for better procedure along with the objection.

Overall, I'll suggest concern over the contributions having little or no susbtatnive or informative discussion on the topic. With the comment later added there are 8 off-topic posts (6 after you indicated disapproval and said "I'm not going to participate"), including a hatting of a section and ~5 WP guidances where 3 seem bad and 2 seem good, so it's looking a bit much. I'm inclined to feel WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are relevant. I did consider WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT and WP:Wikilawyering, but as I felt at least some content here and elsewhere is mellower, those seemed a bit off.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but yes there were certainly multiple things going on in that discussion that weren't very productive. In my view, the discussion was doomed from the start because there were too many editors who weren't on board with the idea that we should be cutting anything at all. You skipped over the question, "Should we cut?" and jumped straight to, "What should we cut?" That led a number of editors to object to the premise of the discussion and answer with "nothing." If I were you I wouldn't have been surprised by the lack of receptivity. It was (and still is) simply too early for that discussion. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with consensus building. You have to herd the cattle to the pasture before you can reasonably expect them to eat grass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your comment about your recent section blanking, the bottom line here is that you knew or should have known from the talk page discussion that it would not be accepted by a number of editors. So you shouldn't have done it. It's that simple. Again, consensus building. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman *Sigh*. Please stop saying false things, and then ignoring if I say that it was wrong to say it again. The discussion asked about ranking for the top 6 or 7 and how far down the list is a cut line, and what basis folks use for to rank things. There was no statement "What should we cut?", it is false to put that in quotes. That seems your own initial assumption as of 2 May and you ignored my response that the section was seeking input on which are the more vital ones and why, and continue to ignore that comment and the mention of TALK towards CONSENSUS. There were at least a few editors who objected to sections in April, and I went and asked for info to clarify the situation. Information I did not know would have been great. Methods of ranking would have been news. Cut line below 20 or above 6 or whatever else informative discussion would all be fine input. Any substantial and informative inputs on the topic would have been welcome and even from off topic remarks I got a couple points that I can handle respectfully. What I got were a few vague unsupported statements to not delete anything and a couple about deleting OK, one of which is NLA.
I have since then returned to my prior April comment of the Immigration section was trivial and should be deleted, and then started a new section about that per BRD. It was partly what led to asking about ranking all the sections and why, as a wider puzzle. Please keep the separate threads clear.
If you wish to contribute to the spirit and substantive or informative discussion of a question or on a topic, you would be welcome by me. If not, which seems to be the case, you seem mostly just wasting time stating false data and misinterpreted WP policies to criticize conduct and not offering any progress to actual consensus or any discussion of actual content. If you need me to explain in detail the policy items I previously addressed to you above, or the "I'm not really sure what you're getting at" means that you did not understand how I feel they reflect misconduct by you which offended me, let me know. However, please stop skipping a ping or addressing to me on things apparently directed to me since if you do not address it, the system does not tell me it is there, and I can only presume you did not truly mean for me to see and respond. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Markbassett, my apologies for offending you. Is my misconduct that I said you wrote, "What should we cut?" and did not ping you? Also, I continue to have trouble understanding your grammar. Did you see my comment on your user talk? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Proud

Note that the version referencing the SPLC doesn't cite a specific source. Just says "the SPLC says so". DS (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It cited the Daily Dot, not the SPLC. I suspect the reference to the SPLC was an artifact of an earlier version where we cited the SPLC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Kneejerk revert"

It's not nice to make personal comments in Edit summaries. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as anything personal. It was a kneejerk revert, wasn't it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That's OK. Yes, it was quick, but I had just looked up alma mater a few days ago. Also, I really try to advise everybody to fill in the Edit summaries, so that part could have been knee-jerk. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello DrFleischman!

Thank you for your message, the reason I participate is almost entirely to edit grammar, but I am still new to the site. I never knew the edit would get us here and will make sure to use the summary in the future.

Cheers, StPaddyC (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Note on gadget in preferences

If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, in the "Appearance" section there is a checkbox for "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". I could see right away when the IP at Ben Swann had been blocked, since the IP was struck out. Very handy gadget. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I never noticed that! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow

So you have now misrepresented me multiple times and made it clear at least twice that you are not even reading content that you are contesting.

I strongly suggest that you pull that RfC, take a deep breath, and in a day or two read the actual article and its sources with fresh eyes, and then come back and have a calm and focused discussion.

You will do as you will, of course. Please consider this an effort on my part to avoid further drama. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What specifically do you think I did wrong, beyond continuing a dispute over an old version of the article? Where are the multiple misrepresentations? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the first line again.
Actually I am done here. I gave you a heads up. You will do as you will. I am gathering diffs. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You're gathering diffs to help me understand what I did wrong, or to help admins understand what I did wrong? Because I'm truly and honestly in the dark here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Truce?

MjolnirPants and Jytdog, in a moment of clarity I realized that my working relationship with each of you is more important than the current dispute. I laid out a lot of ammo against Mjolnir on the drama boards, I could do the same against Jytdog, and I understand Jytdog is preparing to do the same against me. We have all been nasty to each other. Can we just call it a day? I'm willing to strike all accusations against both of you on all pages, you can do the same for me, we can rollback the disputed content to a mutually agreed-upon version, and we can let the RfC run its course with no complaining or finger-pointing, just the existing !votes plus Jytdog would get a !vote since he hasn't done it yet. What do you think? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As a less involved editor, I welcome this. The problem with this article, as I see it, is twofold. First, there are not many sources because he ain't really that well known. Secondly, he uses a ton of wink-wink, equivocating language to disguise the fact that he's heavily pushing fake news. A messy area for us. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it makes it difficult to characterize his work, and you can see journalists struggling with it as well. Personally I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he was actually a Russian agent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to de-escalate then please withdraw the overly hasty RfC.
I spent probably three hours finding sources and reading them and thinking about them, to generate the content I added over the past few days.
I do not believe you have even read that content and sourcing carefully -- you were unaware even today - even as you made drama about it an ANI for pete's sake -- of the simple copy edit I made to the lead about "fake news" yesterday, even though I took the time to post on the talk page right after i did it.
Again, not only did I copy edit to try to address your concern yesterday, but I I took the time posted about it on the talk page.
I had to actually post about it a second time on the talk page TODAY to get you to actually look at the content you were complaining about.
I do not believe you have carefully read the content and sourcing that has been added to the page over the past few days.
So please withdraw the RfC, and please read the actual content and sourcing, carefully, and think about it.
Then we can discuss the content bit by bit on the talk page.
On the other hand, if you want to bring a case against me, knock yourself out. You have provided sufficient edits demonstrating carelessness and misrepresentation that the case will likely be turned to focus on you. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not de-escalation, and it's not acceptance. That's you insisting on being right and me being wrong, which is inconsistent with my proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Your offer was a poor one. I have counter-offered a different way to de-escalate.
Again you are expressing little to no sign of actually having worked and read the content and sourcing carefully. You express little to no awareness of what was actually written on the talk page as well. You missed both my copyedit about fake news in the lead and my notice of that edit. I had to provide a second notice after you started making drama.
How can you be this unaware of both the article and the talk page discussion? That is a real question. Please answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I quite honestly do not know what this thing is that you’re so upset I was unaware of. Your edit to the first sentence that resolved the verification problem but created the synth problem? We were all chasing a moving target. Perhaps I just missed it? And there were a lot of comments on the talk page...perhaps I missed something you wrote, or misunderstood it? If so I apologize. I am occasionally accused of being clueless on Wikipedia and in real life. And although I’ve worked on the Swann article more than you and read every single source about him, whether cited or not, I will readily admit that my recall for detail is not as sharp as you evidently expect it to be. Guilty as charged I guess? —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc, honestly, if you wanted to call a truce, you should have started by striking the accusations of POV pushing you've leveled against Jytdog and I, and then at least committed to discussing whether the RfC should stay. I'm not even that upset about the RfC per se, because I know which way it will end up going. The only thing that bothers me is that, with the RfC open, we've got to wait another week at least to resolve this; even though there's a pretty clear consensus that it's not going to fly, already.
But instead, you offered to strike the accusations of POV pushing if we agreed to let the RfC run. That's not a compromise, that's you getting your way. Go look at ANI: Your accusations have come to naught, and never will result in sanctions because they're obviously untrue. I'm a lot of things, but a POV pusher just ain't one of them.
Now, I do want to take the time to apologize for that robot remark. I had imagined it in my head more like "this is only really a problem if we're all fucking robots who can't use logic, and I know we aren't", but instead it came out as just this side of an insult. For that, I apologize. I should have been much more conscious of my own words than that. I certainly didn't mean to insult you with it, and I regret saying it. I intend to correct it to alter the meaning soon.
Getting back to the point: it's too late for you to retract your accusations. They've already been made, the thread has been closed and they're not going to result in sanctions. They never were. But it's not too late for you to withdraw that RfC. If we still can't see eye to eye, you could always bring it back. But after weeks of doing this already, I (and doubtless, Jytdog as well) am sick and tired of litigating the same damn argument, and I just want a break. If you want to preserve our relationship, you'll at least recognize that, and take the RfC down to let things simmer for a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wbat is this "weeks of doing this already?" The current dispute has been active for what, all of 2 days? I didn't support the IP through all of that bullshit before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The IP has been trying to whitewash this article since May 15th. It doesn't really matter that you were pushing back until a few days ago: I feel perfectly comfortable speaking for Jytdog and the rest when I say we're all thoroughly sick of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
After several ridiculous positions, the IP finally hit on one that I agreed with yesterday. That's not weeks, and you're not dealing with them any more. You have me to deal with now, haha. But seriously, please don't lump me in with that IP. You know me, you know I'm not some bullshit whitewasher, and you know I wouldn't run an RfC in bad faith. I'm sorry you're sick of dealing with that guy. Not an excuse to mistreat me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Not an excuse to mistreat them, for that matter. You and I have had this discussion before. You can disagree with bullshit artists and remain civil and patient. Well, I can. If you can't, then you shouldn't be policing our AP content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
When you've leveled bullshit accusations of POV pushing against two editors who've been disagreeing with you and added "evidence" that consisted of you drastically misrepresenting what they said and what they meant, you don't have the moral authority to sit here and complain about being mistreated and lecture others on civility. I've apologized for the one uncivil thing I said to you. What have you done? Doubled down on your bullshit personal attacks. Well fuck that hypocrisy. If you think this is how you extend an olive branch, you've got years of growing up to do before you can get along with the big kids. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Message received. How unfortunate for both of us. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Fake News Websites

Dear Mr. Fleshman - please stay away from the list of fake news websites. While you may disagree with my contribution, after looking at your talk page, you have a history of interfering with facts and the truth. Your edits violate Wikipedia's rules and terms of service. If I need to unmask you, I will do that. Don't touch my edits. Thank you very much. Jay Rush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Rush (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jay Rush: WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BRD. Bold, Revert, Discuss. When you make a contribution which is reverted, you should discuss the edit on the article's talk page. Not make vague threats on the editor's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you able to edit Laura Loomer’s page and I am not?

Why are you able to edit Laura Loomer’s page and I am not? Lindsay Culbert (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Laura Loomer is protected against edits by new and inexperienced editors, in order to insure that those editing the page have some degree of experience with Wikipedia's rules and practices. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I have express written consent from Laura Loomer to edit her Wikipedia page. How do I go about doing that? Lindsay Culbert (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response by the way. Lindsay Culbert (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Loomer does not own her WP article, so her consent is immaterial. More to the point, the point of the protection applied is to prevent inexperienced editors from editing it, as BD2412 explained already. Until you are an experienced editor, you should not be trying to edit that page. So go edit some other pages. Make some mistakes, get corrected on them, learn, grow. Become an experienced editor, and then return and you can edit Loomers article to your heart's content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Approximately, how long does that process take. Lindsay Culbert (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like there was a bit of hostility in that post. I just didn’t understand the rules. And I didn’t understand that bd2412 explained. Any chance any one of you would like to change it for me? Lindsay Culbert (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall off the top of my head what it takes to get around semi-protection, but I can assure you that there was nothing hostile in my response. If there is a particular edit you feel should be made to Laura Loomer, you can make an edit request at Talk:Laura Loomer. To do that, go to the page, click "New Section" at the top right, and paste the following:
==Requested edit, July 2018==
{{Edit template-protected|answered=no}}
Please replace "X" with "Y", based on source Z. ~~~~
where "X", "Y" and "Z" are the following:
  • X: A sentence or passage from the article that you wish to change.
  • Y: The sentence or passage as you believe it should be written.
  • Z: A reliable source that meets our criteria for inclusion. If the source is already there, and you simply want to change the text to match it, please specify that is your intention. You do not have to use the exact verbiage "Please replace..." as I wrote it, but edit requests are expected to include those three parts: the part of the article to change, what to change it to, and a reliable source supporting the change. If your edit request is declined, do not make a fuss trying to get it. Instead, simply ask why (if necessary: most editors will explain why when they decline) and then move on to something else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is OberRanks and fabricated sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarossa139 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

On the page on Islamophobia, where you undid my contribution, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/799755548, reviewing your editing history of that page, you seen very intent on protecting the worst possible interpretation of the word Islamophobia. Why? SaintFrances (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Such as here also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/849679129

Islam is an ideology not persons. Phobia us Greek for fear of. Hence Islamophobia is the criticism (or fear) of an ideology and is NOT the same as muslimophibia. Can we please be linguistically and grammatically precise here? SaintFrances (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that currently all scrutiny and rational criticism of Islam is called by MSM Islamophobia, can we please have the article the correct definition? It is, or can be, criticism not fear of an ideology. It is criticism or scrutiny, rather than fear. SaintFrances (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

Hey can you remove the alt-right tag on that guys page. I dont think it is correct, nor does anyone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancepickell (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Glendon Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glendon Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glendon Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Belated kudos.

After reading 2019 June Signpost and this https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-fake-news-disinformation and this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maria_Butina#Claims_this_page_is_being_brigaded_by_less_than_savory_intentions. and your persistent yet polite enquiries on "Caroline"'s Talk Page - may hat off to you.

Now, pray tell me: does this "young, somewhat uptight, Jewish doctor from Manhattan" come from a Woody's film that I should add to my "to watch" bucket list? Zezen (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Added to WP:Missing Wikipedians

Hello Dr Fleischman. It has been quite a while since your last edit, and I have added you to the list at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. You are welcome to remove yourself. I hope you are doing well and that you return one day to editing; your contributions are greatly appreciated. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act article: ongoing RFC, and otherwise, law-knowledegable person needed

Hi, user:DrFleischman. I noticed you had some comments a bit back in Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_subsidies, and there is an RFC now on it over some additions I put in. We need some people familiar with the law and mechanisms to help judge, and it sounds like it may be you.

This is the RFC Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#RfC:_Recent_additions if you are interested and have time.

The subject matter is (mainly) 3 added sections Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems, Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_Reductions, and Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Outline_of_Coverage_Mechanism

(There is also a related article that I expanded from a stub, Medicaid estate recovery, not part of the RFC, that you may wish to comment on, to help us out.)NormSpier (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Green America

Dear Dr. Fleischman, you edited Green America in the past, and I have been working on the article. Do you think it is okay to remove the flag of multiple issues from the article?Toandanel49 (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you, DrFleischman, for pointing out the editorializing content in the article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". Being a former young earth creationist, I can testify that the closed-minded and condescending treatment that any criticism of the theory of evoultion receives in a number of fora did not contribute to my mind being changed; it was not until someone bothered to take the creationist claims seriouly and rebut them in a respectful, non-combative tone that I was convinced that the theory of evolution does not rest on a global conspiracy to disregard evidence to the contrary.

(I did not have the courage to make a comment myself as I have recently been accused of pseudoscientific propaganda simply because I requested a citation - and I can tell that you have been unfairly criticized as well, so thank you for taking the blows!) Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Not watching

Template:Not watching has been nominated for merging with Template:Please ping. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrFleischman/Archive_6&oldid=1184170097"