Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 5) (bot |
Admin canvassing |
||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
::I think you misunderstood my response. I was speaking in generalities, based on what I've observed over the years, nothing more. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
::I think you misunderstood my response. I was speaking in generalities, based on what I've observed over the years, nothing more. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Wink, you seem unable to engage constructively with other editors today. Please step back and reflect.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::Wink, you seem unable to engage constructively with other editors today. Please step back and reflect.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Canvassing administrators== |
|||
Dr. F., you need to stop doing this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=839307351&oldid=839248522], 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 [[User_talk:OberRanks#Involvement_of_DRF_User|here]]. You have now [[WP:CANVASS|canvassed]] DGG, two other administrators, and one completely un-involoved editor trying to keep this dispute alive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=832756671] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=832725042&oldid=832588976] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sturmvogel_66&diff=813922326&oldid=813817780]. What you are doing constitutes [[WP:HARRASS|harassment]], is a form of [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OberRanks&diff=833252759&oldid=833249801], which you technically violated here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OberRanks&diff=839262379&oldid=839253534], 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. -[[User:OberRanks|O.R.]]<sup>[[User talk:OberRanks|''Comms'']]</sup> 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:38, 2 May 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
A kitten for you!
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)
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...
[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
- 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)
- The entire new section keeps disappearing.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
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 2024-06-05.
(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)
- Cas Mudd, ed. (2017). "Introduction to the populist radical right". The Populist Radical Right: A reader. Routledge. ISBN 9781315514574.
- 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)
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)
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)
- I got a little laugh out of that response too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Please tone down the battlegrounding, at least on my user talk. I am not your enemy. —Dr. Fleischman (talk)
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)