User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:DrFleischman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Newt Gingrich introduction

Hi DrFleischman, my name is Joe DeSantis, and I am the communications director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. I see that earlier this month you had made an attempt to clean up the introduction to Newt's article. It is certainly better now than then, but there are clearly still issues remaining, and I've posted some suggestions on Newt's discussion page. Would you consider returning to the discussion and perhaps making such changes if you agree with them? If so, I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fyi

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
– Lionel ^(talk) 10:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hi,
I can only interpret your recent edit to Campaign for "santorum" neologism as an attempt to further the visibility of the neologism at Google. Don't do that. If you have arguments why you think the made-up definition should be at the very top of the article, feel free to lay them out at the talk page of the article.
Amalthea 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just did that. I would add, please assume good faith. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw, we should probably keep it there. But I have trouble assuming good faith here, that was too blatant, and you were certainly aware that putting the quote there would make it visible when next indexed by search engines. Amalthea 20:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, you should still assume good faith. If you would like more context please see my position on the Rick Santorum talk page. --DrFleischman (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related matter, I just thought you should know that with this edit, User:Youreallycan improperly removed the link to Savage's site from a comment by you on the talkpage.. (and in a sneaky way, judging from the incomplete edit summary only referring to the archive maneuvering, itself also improper). I've reverted it and remarked on it immediately afterwards and then in a new section on editing others' comments. El duderino (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He's removed it again. As did another editor when I reverted. El duderino (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --DrFleischman (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum wars and WP:TPO

Youreallycan, it recently came to my attention that with this edit you censored a legitimate comment I made on a talk page. Please explain three things:

Am I correct that you're trying to avoid adding to the Googlebomb effect? Do you know a link from a WP talk page to to spreadingsantorum.com adds to the Googlebomb effect? If so, how do you know?
How did your edit serve to resolve the issue being discussed?
How was your edit not a WP:TPO violation?

Thanks, DrFleischman (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about this historic, best of luck to you anyway. You really can 17:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DOMA

Thanks for your kind words. I thought I would write this advice here, since it's more about "approach". When you cite a standard like UNDUE, you should be able to make your case using the language found there. When you switch to you own language -- namely, "talking point" -- you leave the careful language of the standard behind. The closer you stay to the language of the guideline you believe is being violated, the more convincing your case will be. (Though I really don't believe it would have helped you in this instance, I've found that to be the case.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear you and agree. I've looked through the language of the policies several times and I don't see anything specific that I can point to. But I don't think that's the end of it, since we should try to be true to the spirit of the policies. There are cases that fall between the cracks of the policies as strictly written; I don't believe that we can dismiss them out of hand. And I certainly don't think it's a basis for removing a POV tag preemptively. --DrFleischman (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN tip

Hi. Regarding the Dispute Resolution case you filed at DRN - Rassumssen Reports: DRN works best to resolve specific content issues. Your opening statement goes into some depth about other editors, and how an admin closed a discussion to early. I'd suggest that you re-state your opening statement and replace all the user-focused information with content-focused issues. What was the material you wanted to add/remove from the article? Why should it be added/removed? What were the objections of the other editors? What WP policies support your position? The DRN will be much more successful, for everyone, if you focus on the content issues and refrain from discussing behavior or conduct of other editors. If you want any help, let me know. --Noleander (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying but I don't appreciate you trying to rut the discussion into something it's not intended to be. I only have a complaint about Beeblebrox's conduct and I thought I made that very clear in the opening statement. ("I want to be clear, I'm not seeking immediate resolution of the underlying substantive discussion at Talk:Rasmussen_Reports. All I want is for the administrative decision to close the discussion to be reversed so that the underlying discussion can run its course.") I'm no expert on such matters, but if you thought I did something wrong then I would have appreciated it if you had raised the issue as a question and allowed me to respond before reconfiguring the parties. As I wrote, the only reason I raised the issue in WP:DRN was because an administrator at WP:AN/I told me to. --DrFleischman (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem ... sorry if I conflicted with your goals. As you can see from the DRN discussion, DRN is only for the content issues like wording of the lead. DRN is not appropriate for the admin-closing issue you were focusing on. I just assumed that your ultimate goal was trying to improve the lead of that article, so I was helping DRN address that issue. But if you want to focus on the admin's closure, you should probably move the discussion to the WP:ANI forum (although I'm 99% sure that nothing will come of it). Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

... also, if you don't plan on using the DRN discussion to talk about the content issue (the lead wording) could you please post a note in that DRN case stating that fact? That way the DRN case can be closed. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mother Jones

I edited in the word 'liberal' into it because it is indeed a well-known liberal news magazine, plus it is listed under Wiki's category of: Modern liberal American magazines

I only felt it was relevant, then, to include it within the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.33.188 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A belated thank you! --DrFleischman (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Free advice to take or leave as you please

I realize you are probably sick of hearing from me, but I am dropping by here to offer you some advice. Open your mind to the possibility that the community doesn't agree with you. It happens. I've been here a long time, made over 60,000 edits, gained several advanced positions, met Wikipedians in person at Wikimania, and yet as recently as last week seen a deletion nomination of mine that I thought was perfectly reasonable get rejected. It happens. It is how one deals with their idea being rejected that makes all the difference. I've seen this before. Actually another time I ran into a similar refusal to accept that consensus was against an idea another user posted this:

P: Hey guys I have an idea! blahblahblah

Everyone else: this is a terrible idea because of XYZ

P: Oh good, now we're having a discussion!

E: No we're not. This idea is awful. It is rejected.

P: Awesome, now that we're discussing this, what do you think of $totally_minor_change?

E: No, we've rejected your idea.

P: I'm so glad we're having such a great discussion about this. Anyway, let's implement my idea!

E: No, your idea has been unanimously rejected.

P: You're right, this is such a great conversation about this idea. Don't you just love it?

E: Facepalm

and so on, ad infinitum

This is exactly how you are behaving with regard to your proposed change to the lead of Rassmussen Reports. Worse actually, since in between the two discussions you made a stink on four or five different noticeboards about the close of the first discussion, and somehow didn't realize that the reason nothing came of it was that you were complaining about something that nobody else perceived as a problem.

And now you are complaining that I have repeated the "drop the stick" argument too many times. Can you honestly not see the irony there?

None of the other participants can see why it is that you still you do not understand that your proposed change has been rejected. And really, it is such a small change that it is puzzling to see this obsessive desire to keep discussing it after it has been rejected. The content is already in the article, just not in the lead. And therein lies the problem. Every single user besides you who has participated in the discussion has felt that it lends undue weight to place it in the lead. Your reason for insisting that it does belong in the lead is..... is.... yeah nobody knows what it is. You have never actually refuted the argument that it lends undue weight to place it in the lead. So, when I asked you before why you wanted this in there so bad that was a legitimate question. There must be some reason, but nobody but you knows what it is. Since you are either unwilling or unable to provide it, nobody is persuaded by it and your idea is rejected.

It's really not that big of a deal unless you choose to make a big deal out of it. So I will say this for the last time and will not be commenting further on the RR talk page: Your idea has been rejected.Literally nobody agrees with it. This is not a judgement on you as a person, it is a comment only on the merits of your proposed change. The best thing you can do, for Wikipedia and for yourself, is to accept that fact and move on to some other matter. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and your effort to explain where you're coming from. It seems we have different views of what consensus means and how Wikipedia purports to operate. By my understanding, the majority does not get to determine when or how an issue has been "decided" or when a proposal has been "rejected" or not. That runs directly contrary to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Rather, editors should make an effort to address all good-faith concerns and other editors can decide for themselves whether the discussion has been resolved. In this case, I raised legitimate arguments for why this material belongs in the lead and those arguments have not been addressed by you or anyone else. I've also already repeatedly explained why I have made and pressed my position. I'm further motivated by the nagging feeling that certain editors are trying to ram their position in, damn what other editors think.

Bottom line, why the repeated insistence that discussion should be cut off? Why can't we just let the thread lie and let people weigh in when and how they see fit? If down the road there is no consensus to support my proposal, then fine, my proposal will not be implemented. I have no problem with that. But maybe -- just maybe -- some editors will come to my support and manage to convince you, SafeHaven86, and the others that the material should be included. I don't see the harm in being open to that possibility. --DrFleischman (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've absolutely no involvement in the dispute, but do you truly not see the irony in saying "I'm further motivated by the nagging feeling that certain editors are trying to ram their position in, damn what other editors think" when I cannot think of a better exemplar that someone repeatedly going against unanimous disagreement with their position, which is what you have been doing? — Coren ^(talk) 20:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's potentially some irony there if you don't stop to consider the merits (or lack thereof) of the various editors' arguments. Besides, my motivations are my own. There's nothing bad-faith about being the the Twelfth Angry Man. Sometimes the Twelfth Angry Man is wrong, and sometimes he's right.--DrFleischman (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is completely uninvolved, please let me give a word to the wise. This isn't a jury. What happens in Wikipedia is that the 12th angry man gets blocked for disruption. You don't have consensus, and if you continue, you'll still not get your point across and you'll get blocked. I'm speaking from experience, and it is not worth it. GregJackP Boomer! 06:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here? I appreciate the advice, but I dropped the issue months ago when administrators started threatening me. End of story. I was only responding to Coren's suggestion that I might have been acting in bad faith. I wasn't. But this is all ancient history now. --DrFleischman (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports - a retrospective

The lesson I've learned from my little Rasmussen Reports snafu this past September is that when administrators start bullying you, it's best to just give up and play dead. If you start complaining to other administrators then most of them will close ranks and protect their own. If you escalate then they will threaten to block you. There's no point in explaining your position, as there are simply too many people here (admins and non-admins alike, but particularly admins) who decide who "wins" based on usernames rather than what people have to say. Ample evidence can be found here, though I experienced plenty more like that during the course of this unfortunate series of events. Overall, I've concluded that I agree with Timeshifter: The best way to edit Wikipedia lately is to post and run, since there is no efficient and effective dispute resolution here. --DrFleischman (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You rejected the idea of trying to resolve this at DRN. You were more concerned with the repeatedly contesting the close of the RFC than actually resolving the content dispute. You say there is no point in explaining your position, I would suggest that you have never actually done so in a manner that was clear and specific, which is exactly why nobody agreed with you. What you describe unfortunately does happen here, but it is not what happened in this case and it is sad that you are unable to see that. Itis also sad that you are apparently unable to just move on form what, to literally everyone else, is an extremely minor issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"You rejected the idea of trying to resolve this at DRN." Guilty as charged. I had no obligation to force a resolution of the content dispute at DRN.
"You were more concerned with the repeatedly contesting the close of the RFC than actually resolving the content dispute." I believe in letting content disputes run their course naturally and in their own time. By closing the discussion you prevented that from happening.
"You say there is no point in explaining your position, I would suggest that you have never actually done so in a manner that was clear and specific, which is exactly why nobody agreed with you." If my position wasn't clear to you then you could have (and should have) sought clarification. My position on the content dispute changed because I was trying to be accommodating. That's not a crime.
"What you describe unfortunately does happen here, but it is not what happened in this case and it is sad that you are unable to see that." Everyone has their own perspective. Sometimes it helps to see things from the other side. Your absolute refusal to acknowledge my perspective is disrespectful. This is my retrospective, not yours.
"Itis also sad that you are apparently unable to just move on..." Who's having trouble moving on? I moved on three months ago. I provided my recent comments (here and at the Village Pump) to achieve some personal closure. You, on the other hand, seem intent on reopening old wounds.
"...form what, to literally everyone else, is an extremely minor issue." Admin misconduct and editor retention are hardly minor issues.

--DrFleischman (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

note

txEpeefleche (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

? --DrFleischman (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Hagel

What I added WAS CITED & Correct, She DID NOT say what info SHE cosidered untrue. I don't give a damn What you think. S2grand (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)s2grandS2grand (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to start a fight. I'm sorry if you're offended; however, Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that you really should care what other editors think. If you continue to make uncivil comments like this, engage in persistent edit warring (on 1RR article, no less), and refuse to engage in discussion and disputed issues, then you might end up getting blocked. Just a heads-up. --DrFleischman (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind your own business. What I added was correct & cited the source & SHOULD NOT have been deleted. Kiss Carol's ass somewhere else. S2grand (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)s2grandS2grand (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

P. S. saying you're sorry that I was offended is not an apology.

You do understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, don't you? --DrFleischman (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

DrFleischman, As I said before this isn't Jr. Hi & you don't need to jump in to something that doesn't concern you because you want to make "Brownie points" with your study hall buddy. Facts are facts & the whole story should be told whether you & your buddy agree or not. And what part of "I don't give a damn what you think" didn't you understand?

Is that a rhetorical question or are you expecting an answer? --DrFleischman (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Good faith

I went ahead and changed enumerated to protected on the NRA site. That way, if it takes a while to come back to you with a good proposal I won't have my thinking over yours on the actual article. I don't want to roll you by tiring you out. I think you bring up some great points and at the end of the day it is a fairly subtle distinction. -00:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate. --DrFleischman (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

You have my apologies if I've stepped over some line. I do stand by my positions but my intent is to be civil and I am strongwilled. Doesn't mean I'm right or that I'll get my way. If I win, I want to win through logic and consensus not through tiring someone out or through dirty tricks.

Let's see what others say on here. Again, no disrespect intended. Just a spirited contentious issue at the moment. We'll get through it. Keep the faith. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You do understand what that line is, don't you? Accusing other editors of proselytizing and POV pushing while in the middle of a heated debate with them is uncivil. Aside from it being bad form it's just not productive, as it will only serve to provoke them and cause the discussion to devolve into name-calling. If you think someone is taking an unreasonable position then a better thing to do is to explain clearly and politely why you think that. If you've run out of ways to convince them then WP:DR might be a good option. --DrFleischman (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there are many guilty parties here... The record is long and you have been one of he cooler heads. Let's all take your advice all around and make it better. It is a heated little debate. You have my apologies and I extend and olive branch.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted then. --DrFleischman (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NRA page, Sandy Hook & "armed guards"

The core group of editors (& at least one administrator) that have been working on the Sandy Hook shooting article have had many similar discussions on its Talk page. Its a tragic event that has elicited rather passionate comments and reactions from both sides of the "gun", "mental health", "public safety", etc. debates.

That said, I didn't mean to bring the conversation to such an abrupt halt. I was literally mid-edit when the Talk page discussion was taking place. I might have an active edit window open for a day or more when I'm composing a section or editing an existing one why I check sources or look up appropriate wiki code to use.

Then again, back to the Sandy Hook article, the Talk page has been so active and similarly pointless and/or unresponsive and/or circular that the archive is fairly large. Quite a few debates have resulted in just removing the information seemingly as appeasement than adherence to WP policy.

I sympathize with your plight in the discussion, it just wasn't going anywhere. Hopefully what I've done with the section, with the intention of making it about the organization and not about "current events", will simplify things for now and well into the future. Best regards --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I took no offense to your edit, and thanks for touching base and helping me see the forest through the trees. When I stop and think about it I believe that down the road if the Sandy Hook massacre gets a mention in the NRA article it won't look anything like it was shaping up to be before you removed it. (And I don't see anything wrong with removing material if consensus can't be reached over what should be included. Of course it would be great if the community could agree, but that's just not going to happen for such controversial subject matter. I just wish there were fewer POV-pushers... argh.) --DrFleischman (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Things are still evolving, the lawsuit got yanked already by the lawyer that was asking for permission to sue. He says that he got death threats which I don't doubt, but I'm sure he thought the public attention he got as a result was worth it... Ugh!

In the mean time, lets try to make the NRA article as high quality as we can and keep the POV BS out of it. I know what you mean about the pushers.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugh! Who is this "person" from Colorado that keeps bashing the NRA?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DrFleischman: Thanks for your support. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with a number of new articles in my resume, and I've never been treated to such personal attacks as on the NRA page in the last few days. Some of the commenters above show a similar desire for their pet pages to be worshipful, free of any critical comments. --Zeamays (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No problemo. The NRA raises a lot of strong feelings, especially in the wake of Sandy Hook, so it's to be expected. --DrFleischman (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have noticed that while this debate was in progress on the NRA talk page the actual NRA article has been seriously eroded to make it more to their liking. --Zeamays (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits to the lede of the article were done in close coordination with the with commentary on the talk page and DrFleischman participated in that discussion and agreed with the majority of the edits I made. Suggestions made on the talk page were accepted and changed on the main article page and I even conceded a point.. The lede is much more neutral and NPOV than before. My edit history and edits of both the talk page and the NRA page are on record. I am not an NRA activist, I resist the insinuation. A close look at my edit history will reveal that I traditionally edit contentious articles that are in the media in an effort to bring NPOV to such articles. My record is on file. My edits on the NRA page are intended to keep the article high quality and devoid of POV and to resist irrelevant minutiae from being inserted.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I've agreed with the majority of edits Justanonymous made, but that's immaterial. It should be clear that he/she, Scalhotrod, and ROG5728 have a different sense of what NPV means for this article than Zeamays, Athene cunicularia, and me. Name-calling (e.g. "NRA activists") in the middle of a content dispute is unproductive. That goes for both of you. --DrFleischman (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize NRA activist was pejorative, if so, my apologies. I edited my comment accordingly. In any event, while we were talking, a great many changes were made. I think that while a point is being debated, editing should be minimal. --Zeamays (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being an activist in the "real world" but there is when you're part of a community that emphasizes neutrality. Hence, criticizing anyone as an "activist" in Wikipedia is a form of name-calling. Btw, which edits are you referring to? I don't see any recent controversial edits to that paragraph but I might have missed something. --DrFleischman (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been so many edits I couldn't count them all. I only really paid attention to the part of the article regarding criticism of NRA, because when I first became involved, I had added a subsection heading for Republican criticism. That heading was deleted and a great amount of criticism was edited down. I do not wish to patrol any article or get into the specifics edit-by-edit, but simply wish to indicate that while we were talking, others were editing. --Zeamays (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Also, I take the position that no one is free of bias. My viewpoint is probably someone else's bias & vice versa. No single editor can be expected to be free of bias. The point of having many editors is to reach a consensus that is unbiased. This is much more of a problem in this article than in the many pharmaceutical articles I have edited, but my bias there is to include more material on the history of discovery and the chemistry and pharmacology than suits some editors, who want more about the dosages, side effects and other medical matters. In those cases, each of us adds his/her material, but we generally don't delete each other's additions. --Zeamays (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I'm with you. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you mind telling me which edits you're referring to? --DrFleischman (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Advice

Editing the Bushmaster Firearms International article, I had success with the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Posting it there got the attention of a senior editor who blocked edits for (I recall) 72 hrs, while outside editors looked at the dispute. ROG5728 (above) was one of the those who tried to keep the article from mentioning Sandy Hook, and he was overruled in that case. I see he's trying to intimidate you now with an fake official-looking form. I have not tried Mediation or Arbitration. --Zeamays (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about sunscreen? Thanks for the info, as I very rarely contribute to medical topics and didn't know about WP:MEDRS. In any case I did try to take a look at the primary source (in The Annals of Internal Medicine) but it was hidden behind a paywall. But per WP:PAYWALL I'll switch to that source. I wouldn't expect there to be a medical secondary source at this point since the primary source was just published two days ago. --DrFleischman (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

PPACA talk from Mfuzia

I appreciate your pointers and I'm moving the information over from National.. v. Sebelius to the PPACA article, while expanding the information and going into much greater detail with extra data. However, just a tip from me to you, in the future it is more appropriate to discuss with another user their post rather than just deleting it based on your own decision. I understand that wikipedia is essentially an open forum, but perhaps other people would have a section somewhere that you are not. And unless you are a Wiki admin, I don't think you should take the decision entirely into your own hands without at least some discussion or validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfuzia (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the accommodation. Note that my reversion of your edits was part of what is known as WP:BRD, a suggested and commonly used approach to editing. The gist is that Editor A makes a change, Editor B reverts it, and then Editor A starts the discussion on the talk page. Editor B should not re-revert (as you did) until the conflict is resolved. The benefit of this scheme is that it encourages bold editing while keeping disputed edits off the article until consensus has been reached. It can certainly be a bit jarring to those who haven't experienced it in the past (as it was for me the first time). You'll get used to it. --DrFleischman (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to the message you just sent me about my "conflict of interest", is it promotional if a person or group happens to be knowledgeable about a topic and frequently writes about it on Wikipedia? As long as I'm directly building to the Wiki database, what does it matter my affiliation. If I'm dedicated to American History and I have a wealth of knowledge on the matter, but I am also an American, should I not write on the grounds that I may be ethnocentric? You said yourself that my edits are "well-written, legitimate, and non-controversial" so if I'm displaying no bias and only providing factual, useful information, what does it matter what I'm writing about? And in response to the fact that you think I'm being paid to promote my employer or employers: on what grounds did you decide that I am employed by anyone? And if you found information on me, I'd like to know where you got it from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfuzia (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're testing my patience. Stop stonewalling and disclose your employment before the harsh sanctions arrive. I've already pointed you to the rules, which should tell you all you need to know. You've been editing here for months, so you should be intimately familiar with WP:COI by now. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:COI: "Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid advocacy, that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia, is a subset of paid editing. If you intend to participate in paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable."

First of all, I would like to make clear that I am a student, and I am well versed in settling disputes, and I think the section on paid editing makes clear that nothing I am doing is in violation of Wiki protocol, even if your assumption is correct that I am being paid to edit Wikipedia. Secondly, I have good sources of information, so why should I not make use of that information, regardless of it's from one source or one hundred sources? I have refrained from creating bias, and all I have done is add to the bounty of information that is accessible on this website in a way that is clear, concise, and factual. Also, I would like to know if you are a Wikipedia administrator, or paid employee, because I do not appreciate being threatened, and I don't think it is appropriate to speak to another Wiki user working under Fair Use in a tone that is aggressive and condescending. Also I would like to point out that although you are well articulated, you have not responded to any of my points or counter-points, you are just making threatening banter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfuzia (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel threatened, but I'm just trying to make sure you comply with Wikipedia policy. Each editor has an independent obligation to do so, and I have no obligation to respond to requests that I know you have made in bad faith. That said I'll answer two of your questions. Am I an admin? No. Am I a paid employee? No. I'm simply a volunteer member of the community. As such I have the right to refer you to administrator noticeboards, such as WP:COIN, and since you seem keen on digging in, not disclosing your COI, and turning this dispute against me, I'm going to do exactly that. --DrFleischman (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you! I think the best way to resolve disputes is to do research and more research so you can find a solution WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ron Paul's response on PRISM

I think it would be sane to guess that Ron Paul's response is there because he is no longer a legislator. He resigned from Congress around the last US election. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG - I totally forgot!!! Thanks. --DrFleischman (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PRISM: on whether it stopped terror attacks

I added PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Domestic_response info related to Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, the Tsarnaev brothers, and Faisal Shahzad in relation to PRISM and Boundless Informant - The Zazi and Headley ones use the source that I found. The Tsarnaev and Shahzad stuff use a different source. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. P.S., take care not to overuse the "minor edit" checkbox. Per Help:Minor edit, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word. Minor edits are reserved for superficial changes such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. Cheers, DrFleischman (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I check it accidentally? If so, it's my mistake! Sorry about that! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Ownership

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Edward Snowden. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Surfer43 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you please be more specific? --DrFleischman (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Surfer43. Edits which are from confirmed sources and reflect facts which conflict with Snowden's story should not be summarily deleted.Leslynjd (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your comment about edits on Snowden: "Wikipedia isn't court. Credibility isn't a free pass to inclusion."

Credibility is a free pass to inclusion if you're attempting to put out truthful and accurate information. It's hard to believe you're accepted as an editor when you do not believe inLeslynjd (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC) the credibility of your topics.

Please see WP:BRD, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NPA. --DrFleischman (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no activity that DrFleischman needs to defend or is worthy of your attack. N's number of edits given the over-active nature of this article may be recent, but are still in the minority relative to its revision history.

Furthermore, NOTHING MUST BE INCLUDED on WP especially when it relates to an emerging and evolving story. We learned this all too well with the Sandy Hook Shooting article. Even the press could not keep their facts straight, but yet because there is any citable source you feel that your edit or the information should be included, horse-pucky. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Move of NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The page history and log shows that you moved NSA warrantless surveillance controversy to NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) on June 10th. I don't see any discussion about this move; do you know if one exists? You chose a somewhat non-standard naming convention and I don't understand your reasoning in the edit summary. Is there another article on the same topic? Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. The page was basically unedited for years and its title was terribly ambiguous in light of the Edward Snowden leaks. The article isn't really about any particular "controversy" as much as it's about the Bush-era surveillance and the multiple controversies that have erupted over it. I felt the easiest thing to do was to clarify what the article was really about and to distinguish it from other, more actively edited pages. If you want to change the title (or the scope of the article) let's start a discussion on the article talk page. --DrFleischman (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but from your statement above, it appears that the original name was more accurate. You admit that it is about a controversy; whether it is one controversy or many is unimportant. While I'm sure you could find another more appropriate title, the one you chose does not appear to be an improvement over the old one. Due to time constraints, I'm unable to continue this discussion on the talk page. My complaint may be summarized thusly: don't move a page to a title that is worse than the original. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However if you want to convince others of it then you might want to consider (i) backing it up with some reasoning and (ii) taking a slightly less accusatory tone. --DrFleischman (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I just finished backing up my reasoning and I believe I pointed out that you contradicted yourself. You unilaterally moved a stable page name to a title that doesn't best reflect the topic nor our naming conventions. That's not an opinion or an accusation, it's a fact. You also made a multitude of false claims about the reasons for you move, such as saying that the article was unedited for years (the page history clearly disputes your claim) and that it was ambiguous (it wasn't). Since you obviously aren't open to having your mind changed on this topic, why would I waste my time trying to convince you? Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

~~Are you here to improve Wikipedia or to harass me?~~ Yes, why are you wasting your time trying to convince me? --DrFleischman (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I confused you with a rational person. It won't happen again. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Have a nice day! --DrFleischman (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like you (DrFleischman) attract the crazies at times, too. Please let me know if you ever need assistance of a third-party in resolving any issues, especially in light of current events and the strange political climate in which many of us are operating. You can just leave a message for me or do whatever is the best way of making the contact via Wikipedia... Cheers. Az x2 19:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Telecommunications Barnstar
		Awarded for your vigilance and enthusiasm in updating, editing, improving and monitoring telecomm-related articles like those dealing with Edward Snowden and the NSA, like NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07). Cheers! Az x2 19:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		Presented in recognition of your effort to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of "liberty" and "freedom of expression," in the context of events related to the NSA and Edward Snowden. Good job. Az x2 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WTP?

What's The Problem? I edited including the source of the information (a clear definition to "backdoor"). I've also written in the "Talk" section and since there were no concrete argument/critics against my edit a new consensus has now been reached. I think i can re-insert it now. OK? 87.2.112.110 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not OK. How much time did you give other editors to respond? And how can you say there are no "critics against your argument?" What about Widefox and WhisperToMe? And I don't like your edit either, but I'm not even going to dignify you with a reason until you stop trying to ram your edits through. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a battleground. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Presented to you for not taking any shit from anybody - the perfect award of this unique barnstar, imo... Az x2 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi. I left a response to you and Somedifferentstuff's opinion on PRISM lead paragraph NPOV matter, here as you said: 'please, someone else "weigh" in.' — Saeed (Talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on PRISM (surveillance program). Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What edits are you referring to? --DrFleischman (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Boundless Informant slides

DrFleischman,

There are some slides about Boundless Informant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-data-mining-slides - Do you know if they've been uploaded to the Commons yet? I haven't seen them there WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I've hardly worked on Boundless Informant. --DrFleischman (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for the heads up :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in uploading those slides? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Questioning notability

I question your application of notability tags on Federal Data Services Hub and National databases of United States persons. Even as new articles, they already had multiple references, substantiating qualification under WP:GNG. The former is even set to be the largest database of personal information ever, which is notable on its face. One case of unwarranted tagging might be anomalous, but I am concerned by the repetition. ENeville (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is different for the two articles. I started discussions on each of the talk pages. We should probably continue there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My point here is about the pattern. ENeville (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is your point about the pattern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting drives away editors

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Mass surveillance. Please see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, noting that reverting drives away editors. I would offer that your characterization of my edit as "unsourced, nonsensical, and weasely" is as precipitous as your reversion, in case further support of my concern is necessary. ENeville (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can understand how that comment sounded rather snide, but I didn't intend it that way. I didn't like that sentence for multiple reasons and I didn't think it could be improved. Perhaps the biggest problem is that I didn't even understand what you were trying to say. Reversion is a standard part of WP:BRD. If you would like to discuss the matter further we should probably do so at Talk:Mass surveillance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD is great for justifying initial bold action, but is hardly support for reversion per se. Also, the contribution of a single sentence, as in this case, was hardly bold change, so you might want to re-examine your logic. The fundamental issue is that negating an editor's contribution in toto is hostile, discouraging that person's participation, and Wikipedia has been losing editors:

We need to work not just to improve individual articles, but also to foster contribution to the whole of the project. So please, bear in mind that Wikipedia is imperfect and we want to work together to improve it. ENeville (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

EN, you might want to consider that "bold" is a relative term. WP is a varied and diverse environment, as such one person's "bold" is another person's "basic edit". You should also consider good faith. The Doc made a simple edit and you started making assertions about discouraging editors. If you haven't figured this out by now, WP is not a place for the timid. Its beneficial if an editor has even a slightly thickened skin in order to navigate its processes and policies.

Interesting reading, but I tend to be more in favor of quality over quantity. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are or why you're chiming in here, but I am concerned that your lack of concern for other editors is exactly the sort of disposition contributing to the decline in editorship that I cited. But it seems, by your comment that you're "in favor of quality over quantity", that you are pleased to drive away additional editors. I strongly oppose this position. Please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. ENeville (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ENeville, I certainly appreciate your comments but they're probably better suited for a broader discussion at WP:BRD or somewhere at WP:WER. I mean, you're really talking about doing away with BRD altogether. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but within the WP community it would be quite radical. I personally have mixed feelings about BRD. But since the vast majority of editors adhere to it to some extent, whether you like it or not, if you want to edit here, as Scalhotrod says, you just have to grow a thicker skin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I must repeat my concern about the impact on editors in general, well beyond just myself, and refer, again, to the articles I linked. And it's a specious distraction to characterize what I'm saying as necessitating a dismantling of WP:BRD. I would advise you to appreciate WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETTIQETTE. I'd certainly be interested to see any guidelines supporting an expectation that other editors "grow a thicker skin". ENeville (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It was really more of a practical suggestion than a reference to Wikipedia policy/guidelines, but if you wish you can refer to WP:MOUNTAIN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You might sidestep the evidence and ignore the fact that habitual reversion has a deleterious effect on Wikipedia as a whole, as you are apparently choosing to do, but doing so in no way diminishes the negative impacts and, indeed, only compounds the irresponsibility. Please be more responsible, rather than less. ENeville (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have a real interest in changing how people edit here then by all means, take it up in a public forum. But I suspect that's not your true intention. In reality you seem only interested in lashing out against those you perceive as having slighted you. In the process you're turning friends into enemies. You're not going to convince me or anyone else to stop reverting by resorting to this sort of harassment. Yes, harassment. I expressed some support for your position and and made good-faith suggestions. In response you've accused me of incivility, poor etiquette, "sidestepping the evidence" and "habitual reversion." I challenge you to substantiate those accusations. If you cannot then please move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And now that I've reviewed your contribution history, I see that you're quite an experienced editor, which undercuts your editor retention argument, somewhat. More importantly this isn't the first time you've been accused of harassment on this very subject. Now why do you suppose that is? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

Your charge of edit war on my part is wrong. I reverted a single edit that deleted the factual comparison of damage from NSA cold war defectors to Edward Snowden leak damage. The comparison is in the cited New York Time article. Patroit22 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare

Oy vey... I had an edit in a different article reverted because I used the phrase "Obamacare" and it was called partisan. General usage is fine by me... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's touchy. There was a prolonged, heated debate a long while back at Talk:PPACA and I believe the consensus was that it wasn't partisan in part because the White House adopted it in its own marketing materials (e.g. here). At the same time it shouldn't be used in most places based on WP:TONE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, I hate walking into the unmarked minefields... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Linkrot risk

Dr. Fleischman, you've made some dynamic, linkrot-prone section links to Talk:Edward Snowden at your recent ANI submission. Those types of links are usually all right to archives, which don't change, but not good to live pages and a bit of a disaster to lively, frequently archived pages; as soon as the section is archived, the link dies, and the person trying to review the matter at a later date is frustrated. If you first click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox on the left and then use the TOC, you'll be able to make a permanent link. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, I'll update. I've wondered how to do that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've actually written a help page about that stuff — from one non-technical person to other non-technical people — but I keep having to defend it from the code nerds who like to put in the kind of alternatives that they and their friends think are "simple". ;-) Bishonen | talk 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

ANI

Dr. Fleischman, I'm trying to de-escalate the issue at ANI and elsewhere. Your commentary containing your interpretation of Bugs's comments and their literary or other merits is totally not helpful. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Faith assumptions in face of repeated editing to reflect what you think is important.

DrFleischman Posting extensive edits hat appear to tailor the Edward Snowden entry to what you personally think is important does not pass the smell test. How do you justify your edits and deletions? Thanks.Patroit22 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Each edit had a different justification. Why don't you identify the specific edit and I'll explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I've noted your comments under the complaint I made yesterday about Mo-aimn. As you can see from Cailil's comments he asked me to drop it so I'm no longer posting any responses. There's a lot more to this than is evident from the complaint. There's a history going back at least five years and is all to do with POV on articles relating to The Troubles. I made the complaint in good faith because I don't want to see a return to WP:BATTLE but without you knowing what has already transpired it's easy to see ME as the guilty party. I am pretty paranoid about this and that is undoubtedly a factor. Put yourself in my shoes though: I've changed identities twice to try and get these people off my back. On reflection it was probably the wrong thing to do but I did it and I can't change that now. I'm not changing again though because I realise that, to edit where I want to edit, changing identities means nothing because I have a very recognisable editing style. What you don't know however is that the person I complained about has also changed identities and you won't find him as forthcoming on the subject. That might serve as a good indicator to you? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not my problem. I was merely making an observation that others can take or leave as they please. As you're surely aware you have to be very careful what you write when you go to the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In case your interested Mo ainm~Talk 08:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I know your observation was made in good faith which was why I took the time to let you know that sometimes all isn't what it seems to be. On the advice of a sysop a WP:SOCK report has been made here in an attempt to make him comply with WP:FRESHSTART or declare who he is on both user pages. I'm not trying to drag you into anything but sometimes knowing all the facts can change opinions and I'd hate you to think badly of me because I raised a complaint in good faith. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I care nothing of your stupid wikibattle. I would appreciate it if you both left me alone. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this and previous post as I said, it was just in case you were interested. Mo ainm~Talk 23:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Minor edits

Sorry about that. I've previously been unsure when I'm meant to use 'minor' or not, thanks for clarifying - innocent mistake, and I'll know for the future =)

Also, I saw you were also concerned with the employer mandate part. I think you see what I'm trying to do with the section. I'm currently working on including the reason beyond the employer mandate + reason beyond its delay + impact; and try and ensure that's done comprehensively, without undue weight or bias. Yell out if you've got any ideas on that. (I will actually move the Temporary Waiver section into the employer mandate bit, on reflection). Sb101 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, and no worries about the minor edits. Lately my participation in that article has been pretty minimal, but every once in a while I feel a brief wave of inspiration. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I know that feeling! I tend to edit in manic bursts then disregard the page for a while because fact-verification is time-consuming! On the other hand, I'm feeling pretty good about where the article is at atm. After we've nailed the employer mandate bit, I'll probably submit it for a re-evaluation (I do wonder what needs to be done to get it to GA status) Sb101 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Re GA status, I'll just say if you keep at it we'll get there! Which would be quite an accomplishment for such a hot and controversial subject. Given the public's general lack of knowledge about Obamacare you're providing a great benefit not only to Wikipedia but also to American democracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I try. Couldn't do it without everyone else of course =) Sb101 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

More from SB101

Hey, I just wanted to mention, FWIW, in regards to 'Opposition and resistance#Complaints from labor unions' (probably best inserted before 'Congressional obstruction', imo), that I'm not opposed to including the letter from the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE, and the quotes from the IRS' NTEU. I personally have not been motivated to add them, but wanted to clarify this as when I replied to the issue on the talk page I was a little bit curt due to Grundle. I do agree, however, that - if added - we would have to include sourced language indicating that most unions supported PPACA's passage (and perhaps still support it). =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. The intro to the "Opposition and resistance" section would also have to be refactored somehow, as much of it wouldn't apply to these unions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I did actually contemplate that. I figured that it would be acceptable to leave it as "Opposition and resistance," with Unions falling under 'resistance' whilst making it clear their resistance only extends to certain provisions (because even the critical unions, as far as I could tell, didn't seem to go so far as oppose the entire law). But as long as we make that clear, I don't see the problem. (And the reason I suggest after Noncooperation and before Congressional obstruction is that I think it makes sense to group Congress (Congressional Obstruction with Repeal Efforts), States (Legal Challenges -> Medicaid, Noncooperation)). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW

I wanted to thank you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For resolving editorial disagreements in a civil and friendly manner Sb101 (talk\|contribs) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I'm on a wikibreak but this will probably encourage me to come back sooner... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars

If you wish to discuss, that's one thing. But you're participating in what you call an edit war, even while you demand that others cease. How do you justify that? Izuko (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you and you haven't even bothered to explain yourself in the edit comments. You'd better start explaining your edits before you get blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN

You do not WP:OWN the talk page. I suggest you back off. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you start complying with WP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for maintaining and editing the PPACA article. I'm in the midst of review, and admire your persistence. Not sure this sustenance is sufficient! LT910001 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I love pie! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi there, good Dr.

From the note to Drmies, there was one claim about me that I don't believe was true, and I would like for you to consider striking it. You mentioned that I had edited the Snowden page against talk page consensus. I have never knowingly done that, on any page. But during the month of July, for instance, I didn't check the talk page much, as it was too long to read. I figure that someone will fix my edits and alert me to the talk page entry, as usual. I usually update articles without first reading the talk page, and this has not presented a problem for me yet. If you have evidence that I made edits against consensus, but knew about the consensus, you could enter those diffs instead of striking the comments at Drmies. I don't mean to give you a hard time, but I have worked hard to follow the rules and don't want a good reputation ruined by what might be untruths, or misunderstandings whispered to Admins that then influence future decisions about me. Thanks, petrarchan47 t c 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - I said (or at least I meant) that Axxxion had edited against consensus but that you had not. If you point me to my offending comment then I will clarify. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you said I had done some editing against consensus? petrarchan47 t c 03:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, or if I did it was a slip of the fingers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, I completely misread it. Sorry to bother you with this. petrarchan47 t c 01:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Still on review

Charles I is still on review I have not put it on hold or anything, just so very little time these days and so many issues to deal with an such on and off Wiki. Thanks for your patience and I will return to it shortly.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your message was intended for someone else. I've never touched any Charles I-related pages. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)|

Mandate, etc.

Sorry if I put things in the wrong place. 99% of the time I just try to fix simple errors and so don't have familiarity with inter-wkipedia communication even though I feel like I've been editing a while. I just figured out from your note yesterday that you can mention a name so the mention creates a notification (like using '@' before a name on FB). I don't know if that's new or just new to me :) I agree that I ought to have responded at the bottom. I was just a little thrown by the newness of the 'tagging' and committed right below, but if I'd thought for two seconds, I'd have realized that my using a tag (p'haps not the right terminology?) would send you to it regardless of where on the page it was in relation to the one I'd followed!

You make a good point about the PPACA article. To me, the 'Background' section seems highly questionable. It's fine material for the article on the politics of healthcare in the U.S., but I don't see how the background for the PPACA is all about positions which were held before Obama was elected and by people who didn't support the PPACA as a bill. In context, it strikes me that framing the background in such a way is an indirect inductive argument about motive on the part of opponents of the law (ie, here's why we should consider the opposition to be acting cynically for merely political reasons rather than acting on principle). I'll try to think of a way to say this that doesn't accuse anyone of bad faith and add it to the talk page.

BTW- what's the little padlock symbol mean? (It's been on a couple of the links you've left.)OckRaz ^talk 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'd want to do a bit more looking to be certain, but I think you're probably right about private vs employer mandates and the veto in Massachusetts. I'm kind of surprised. The source was one I didn't think needed fact checking. OckRaz ^talk 18:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree on nearly all fronts. I believe the lock symbol denotes that it's an https (secured) link, though I could be wrong. The only thing I disagree with is that I think the material in PPACA#Background is appropriate and fairly well written, though I don't claim to have any expertise in the subject. I do think the sentence starting with "Given the history of bipartisan support" can be read non-neutrally, and given its lack of sourcing it should probably go (and I will delete it accordingly). Aside from that, certainly the section leaves open the question of why Republicans changed their position on the individual mandate, but that may be due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject. I've never heard any explanation of why Republicans swung so far the other direction. If you find one, you're more than welcome to add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned, the sources I found on the subject of the Republicans' turnaround (here, here) are already in the article, though in the next subsection ("Healthcare debate, 2008–10"). The New Yorker article implies (but doesn't state explicitly) that Republicans were driven by polls and a power struggle with Obama. In light of this I think the "Legislative history" section is quite well written. We have to stick to facts provided by reliable sources, even if those facts might be suggestive of behavior some might find unflattering. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Troll"?

I started an ANI on you. Attleboro (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Not a snark - this dispute has clearly come to a head and needs prompt resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Orthogonius

Based off your comment on their talk, I thought you might find this interesting.

Orthogonius and Attleboro appear to be the same person or working very closely together. Orthongius has edited very few pages and almost all of them were edited by Attleboro around the same time.

Connection #1 Connection #2 Connection #3 Connection #4 Connection #5 Connection #6

Arzel (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you do know. Arzel (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Orthogonius, Attleboro, User:Somedifferentstuff, 72.37.249.60 are all socks of banned User:Mbhiii/Trift/Welhaven etc. He gets block/banned and just comes back with more socks for another year or two before it happens again. 173.123.51.98 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I know. Would you be willing to summarize the evidence against Somedifferentstuff, beyond what's already in Mbhiii's SPI? This is so time consuming. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Early edits of his at Redistribution of income and wealth and others are what I remember. He's kept that one clear of Attleboro in most cases but they've intersected a couple of times for edit wars along with tag teaming with User:Trift. He used to heavily use his work IP, 12.7.202.2 but it sounds like he mostly uses proxies now. 173.123.51.98 (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I'm not seeing the connection to Somedifferentstuff. Sure, there's a little suspicious behavior -- most notably that he/she started working on Redistribution of income and wealth just after Welhaven was blocked, and then tag-teamed (briefly) with Trift -- but that's it. Very different editing styles and no other indicia of sockpuppetry. If you have additional evidence, I'm all ears. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

edits on Larry page

I removed the blog citation, along with the claim of "non-partisan" since it was only in that one source, which does not adhere to WP:V. 192.188.230.2 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't understand, why didn't it satisfy WP:V? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For persistently responding to all the incoming bombs and accusations at PPACA in a constructive and civil manner. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(Cue conspiracy theory that the reason we're sharing coffee is because we want to defend Obamacare... and then conquer the world.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Or, cue accusations of sockpuppetry between us. It's bound to happen sooner or later... --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

Yep. Though to be fair, sometimes even I suspect I'm one of your socks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA: TBSchemer

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to United States v. Jones (2012)

Greetings. I noticed your recent edits to United States v. Jones (2012). I wanted to make sure that you're aware that this article is currently undergoing a nomination for "Good Article" status. (I'm the reviewer there.) Can I ask you to look at and perhaps participate in the review at Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)/GA1 so we can gain consensus for the best way to handle certain aspects of the article?

For instance, your reversion of the removal of "See also" material was directly relevant to a discussion at that review page. Your input and rationale would be valuable there. Another of your changes removed a large section of sourced text, with the edit summary of "remove self-promotional material"; this confuses me, as I see no evidence that Public Mind was responsible for adding the information. Again, discussion to establish consensus would be the best way forward here.

I look forward to your input. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know how involved I'll get in the GA review, as that's not really my cup of tea, but I'm happy to explain my edits and get involved in any interesting conversations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in there. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA: Rms125a@hotmail.com / Quis separabit

::: "These are more than disputed claims. Reliable sources call these myths" -- reliable sources are in this case unavoidably partisan pro-PPACA sources. "Contested allegations" is the proper NPOV term, not "myths", Doctor. Please stop edit warring. Quis separabit? 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the edit warring accusation (to which I respond by suggesting you review WP:BRD), your comments more properly belong on the article talk page (probably in a new section) to get the input of the wider community. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually engage in snark and I apologize if I took it too far, but the fact is that we are having this passionate discussion about monumental healthcare legislation (PPAGA) and your username clearly states "Dr." -- which doesn't of course have to mean you are a medical doctor -- well, it kind of, well, stands out. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that was your only snarky comment, then please check again. And if you can't edit in a civil manner due to the subject matter, then you should probably stick to other articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I know that that was not my only snark, Doctor, regarding the PPACA. I tried to extend the olive branch. Sadly, you don't want to accept it. No response either, I guess, to my point (supra) that, when discussing the PPACA, anybody using a username which implies that he or she is any kind of doctor or physician is matter which, again, "kind of, well, stands out." Nor am I making any COI accusations here either. Sorry that I evidently irremediably ruffled your feathers. Quis separabit? 21:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this "olive branch" you speak of? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Uncited information

All information added to articles should include inline citations to reliable sources. If material is challenged and removed, the burden is on you to produce sources for information that you want to restore.

These rules are designed to prevent false and misleading information from being introduced to the project, which is what happened when you ignored them to make your recent edit at Freedom of information in the United States. Please don't do that. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, that's why I added a clean-up tag. So what's false or misleading about that material? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that I had already cleaned it up. Adding wrong information and then asking someone else to make it right doesn't really move the project forward. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Your recent edit on Freedom of information in the United States constitutes plagiarism and is a copyright violation. Don't do that. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please take a more constructive approach to addressing your concerns, per WP:PARAPHRASE#Addressing. If you insist on WP:BATTLEing instead of collaborating then I'll start an ANI report on you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

ALEC

I just wanted to say that I think that your edits to the article have been broadly helpful. While I get the sense that we may not agree on politics, your edits have served to greatly improve the article. Thanks and well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

^seconded Rebeccalutz (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, to come from both of you, I'm both relieved and flattered! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruption of Edward Snowden article

There is clear consensus on the talk page against your addition of the "undue" tag. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please point to it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy vio

I think it is generally regarded best to not copy or cut-and paste even one sentence. If you are quoting and referencing a sentence that is fine. Just using other's writing is not done Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of camaraderie

I apologize for upsetting you. Please feel free to delete or archive (I don't care which) any of my comments on the talk page. You can point to this discussion as permission to do so. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're definitely a character, I'll give you that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And you have a good sense of humor. (Re: Gotta run, I've got a Verax meeting at Langley with the other intel boys.) Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Petrarchan found it funny. (Though that doesn't mean others can't have a chuckle at his/her expense.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's try and show more compassion to our fellow editors. You definitely showed me that I can do better a job of that, so let's do onto others, etc... BTW, have you thought about linking to the List of Northern Exposure characters in your user page explanation of your name? Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think that Dr F is intel, or working for the government. I didn't think it funny because I didn't get the reference. Now I do, and I don't blame Dr F for making fun of me for that, in hindsight. petrarchan47 t c 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

I meant that. Let's drop the witch hunt, yes? petrarchan47 t c 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What witch hunt are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're involved in more than one? I'm speaking about your sandbox list and the invite from Sandy for an RfC about me. Truthfully, I shouldn't ask you to cease, it's completely your right. But it's a bit over the top to stalk my talk page looking for things I might be doing wrong, so it can be added to your list. The researcher I have invited to help with the cannabis articles is no surprise to anyone, I've told them at the talk page of Medical Cannabis. I learned during my days at the BP article that it is not only acceptable and legal, but it is considered a boon to the Pedia for editors to call in experts from the outside. With regard to this subject, it is quite new and unsurprisingly, there is no one at Wiki thus far with good knowledge of the subject, which leaves all the related articles open to anyone's POV, since we tend to find proof for what we already believe. I also think that it would serve to get very clear on how editors can ask for help from others, in a way that is legal and won't get a person in trouble. Your comment today at my talk page shows you aren't very clear on the distinction between good, responsible editing behaviour and malfeasance. petrarchan47 t c 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining yourself; that's exactly what I was asking for, and it's somewhat reassuring. I can understand your concern about my sandbox but it's not what you think it is. Based on our recent interactions I decided to start making a list of all of the controversial things people have said about me. So far I've only gotten around to the things you said. Others have called me a libtard, a fascist, a hero worshiper (w/r/t Snowden), etc. Eventually once I've collected enough of these I'm planning to put them on my user page so that editors like you can see my biases aren't so easy to characterize.

As for your comment about how editors can ask for help from others, I very much agree it's not perfectly clear, and I myself have had similar concerns in the past. That has an unfortunate chilling effect. However I feel that in this case you crossed over the line, and I stand by my admonishment about your contact with MastCell. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Don Lusk

Since I missed it before it was archived, just leaving a quick note to say thanks for your comments on my RSN thread on Don Lusk! I'll see if I/the author can dig up any better sources before I nominate it for deletion. Thanks again! Canadian Paul 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Wikipedia about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm cutting down on my editing activities, and one of the casualties is Wiki-PR. Best of luck to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)