User talk:DrFleischman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fyi[edit]

[1]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the WP:ORG link. – S. Rich (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Source failing verification at Accuracy in Media[edit]

I attemped to verify a source that was cited in the article Accuracy in Media ("Follow-Up: Interview With Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid", The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, February 8, 2005.) and found that it was not on the linked-to website. I could not find the material anywhere else. Failing verification for that reason, I removed the source. You have restored the citation without addressing that issue or explaining how a WP editor can verify the citation. Please provide on the talk page of the article a method by which editors can verify the claim. Sparkie82 (tc) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That isn't failed verification, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Failed verification is when you've actually reviewed the source (not just the link) and have concluded that it doesn't support the content. See the artlcle talk page, as Gamaliel and I both posted suggestions on how to resolve the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality of Editing[edit]

The best and the most important process for validating editing is to find out who the editors are. Are they realy qualify to edit or are they on a vendetta. Who is drfleischman, what qualifies you to be an authority. If the idea is to make wikipedia better, those involved must be verifiable as well. I noticed you have even been all over the place, editing and questioning the validity of qualifications, Cvs etc. What qualifies you to reach such a conclusion. Honesty should be the best policy. Provide access to a verifiable webpage yourself please14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.201.170 (talk)

I do agree with this too17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.15.211 (talk)

Hello, and welcome. I suggest you familiarize yourselves on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines before making these sorts of assertions. You can start by reading about our five pillars. Wikipedia is anonymous; there is no requirement that editors reveal their identities. I'm guessing you have concerns about some of my edits at Bamidele A Ojo? Could you please identify the edits you're concerned about, so that I may address your concerns? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I recommend that you, Doc, ignore this rubbish. You have demonstrated nearly countless times that you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. There is an educational aspect to this sort of thing, though -- I am training not only the newbie in the ways of WP but also myself in the ways of dispute resolution (aka zen). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In that spirit, I left "tilde notices" on their respective Talk pages... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bill Moyers[edit]

I enjoyed your recent comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page. Do you know how he feels about Bill Moyers? You should ask him. Just hold on while go make some popcorn... :) Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh, thanks for the warning. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
So, just between you and me, why is an American treasure like Moyers forced to operate out of his website (not that there's anything wrong with that), while the talking heads spend their time expounding on the size of celebrity derrières, snowmageddons, the terrorists sleeping under your bed, and the latest sweater accessories for your dog? You ever get the feeling something isn't right with the media? Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Supply and demand perhaps? My impression is that not many of us actually want to be informed these days. We'd rather be titillated, or have our existing beliefs confirmed. But don't forget that network news has been pretty vacuous for a long, long time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I must be an alien. I want to my have my beliefs challenged every day, or I don't feel alive. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're definitely un-American not human then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

I just noticed that Sophie Hunter has notable relatives and this should be reflected in her infobox. All sources are in the family family section of the page. If you may be so kind to copy-paste this to the page, I would be very grateful and it would be a big improvement to her page. Thank you in advance! 93.82.123.109 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

|family =

I'm sorry, I'm not adding anything to any article that cannot be verified with reliable sources. Not to mention that you haven't explained how this would be such a big improvement to the page, nor why you won't/can't add this material yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
hi Dr fleischman, another user has entered the info after receiving the same request as you and i, reason that the user couldnt do it themselves is that the Sophie Hunter article is semi protected. curious as to why the person asked me as i am a member of child lit project and ozzie project not any of sophie's projects; i think it is time for a cup of tea

while we ponder this Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)this:)

Indeed! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Stoking the fires of battle.[edit]

Yes, I agree. It was getting under my skin and I let it. What really gets me annoyed is continually defining the obvious. Things like; "The Chicago Tribune, a US newspaper based in Chicago." or "appeared on Frontline (U.S. TV series), a documentary series airing on PBS the US public television network." It turns what should just be a ref or link into a verbose sentence. The whole reason to wikilink is to take care of those sorts of things. I shouldn't let it bother me, eventually everything gets improved. Ah, well. Thanks for the note. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you. To be honest, and weirdly enough, I find him to be more tolerable when edit warring than when "discussing" in the talk namespace. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Me too. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that the editor was blocked for socking. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
?? Who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry there were two editors doing that. One was Spearmind. He's been blocked for two weeks. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bamidele A. Ojo & David Rosen[edit]

I noticed that you have raised several issues with two of my instructors in my undergraduate days. What is the actual problem with the sources used, They are all verifiable on the internet and the information provided for these scholars are consistent with other scholars (similar articles). Any suggestions please ? since you seem to revisit these issues often without offering any help to make the articles better. Your suggestion and help will be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)~

By the way what is your particular problem with David M Rosen articles please? Do help or make suggestions too. All the sources are valid too05:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talkcontribs)

I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm sorry, I need more information in order to understand them. Which specific edits and/or sources are you referring to? Please provide links. If you need help linking to specific edits, see Help:Diff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Q at RSN[edit]

Re: this. I somehow had the impression that you were active in the med. area and therefore directed the question to you by name. Mea culpa; should have done better due diligence. Hope it didn't come across as a personalized challenge. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It didn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Franklin Center question[edit]

Dr. Fleischman: Trying to correct misstatements on the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity entry -- an entry that seems to have been written entirely by activists associated with one anti-Franklin Center organization. (Full disclosure: I work at the Franklin Center.) How does one go about pointing out so many errors that their corruption would rewrite the entry? Will Swaim (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"corruption" = "correction," though any real doctor would understand the Freudian slip. Will Swaim (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

handled. Will Swaim (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Will. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for disclosing your affiliation. My suggestion is to review WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI, and WP:NPV if you haven't already. Re-writing the entire Franklin Center article is perfectly appropriate, articles get re-written all the time -- but it's not something that should be attempted by an employee such as yourself. That said, your input is appreciated. Please put your feedback at Talk:Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity so that it can be considered by the community. The more specific you can be the better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: This is terribly embarrassing, but the truth is that I confused for Wikipedia an activist page designed to look just like Wikipedia. I was wrong. Sorry to waste your time. Thanks for the generous response. Here's the activist page: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Franklin_Center_for_Government_and_Public_Integrity.

Will Swaim (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I was wondering what you meant by "handled." Sourcewatch is a useful research tool but I agree it's not particularly reliable as it tends to reflect the progressive blogosphere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Justice - Links, etc.[edit]

Hey! Question for you - the recent edit, "IJ opposes many kinds of business licensing" is certainly true, and may not need a reference given the context and the other references in this section. But if it does, should we be using editorials for this purpose? In the editorial used as a reference for this, the phrase "opposes many kinds of business licensing" is from the author. For an organization like this one, it's inevitable that a lot of coverage is going to be editorial, but I think that we should avoid using opinion pieces as references for statements that could be taken as a matter of opinion. If an editorial quoted someone as saying something, then I think it would be a fine reference for that statement. But beyond that, how far should we go? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Upshot is neither editorial nor opinion. It's analysis. I think most of its content is reliable and can be cited without attribution. It's fact-checked by David Leonhardt and heavily cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider "analysis" to be closer to opinion that to real news. What worries me here is that this reference only confirms that this is a statement made by the author. The author in this case, Josh Barro, is a sometimes MSNBC host and a former employee of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. So anyone with a political ax to grind anywhere on the political spectrum has something to hate, and can seize on this as a reason to impugn the article. But again, it is certainly true, so maybe I'm splitting hairs here. Thanks James Cage (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Barro's background impugns the reliability of the source in the slightest. So he hosts a show at an often liberal but generally reliable news station, and he used to work at a conservative think tank. So what - see WP:BIASED. Anyway, I was surprised to see that the Upshot hasn't appeared at WP:RSN yet. If I were a betting man I'd wager that it will come up sometime soon, and that there will be rough consensus that it can be usually be used as a reliable source with caution, depending on the specifics of the case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that Barro's opinion is the source. Your opinion about Barrow is certainly valid, but others could reasonably disagree. I agree that caution is warranted. James Cage (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not Barro's opinion. It's Barro's factual statement, reviewed by Leonhardt. This is not in the Opinion section where contributors can write pretty much whatever they want. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

DrFleischman put See Also and King v Burrwell A NON-Constitutional challenge then all of the following should be part of the page and more. Why are you trying to limit user information. Who is paying you???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.164.113 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here and starting a new dialog. No one's paying me. I'm merely trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Among them is the requirement that you avoid edit warring and try to obtain consensus through discussion before attempting to ram your preferred version through. There has been a discussion at Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since September 9, 2014 on this subject and instead of weighing in, you edit warred (and continue to edit war), which has already led to one of your IP addresses being blocked and the page being protected for months. When are you going to stop raging and start collaborating? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't let this crap get you down - you can't talk sense to a troll. Hang in there - James Cage (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he's a troll. Just a true believer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't get how Wikipedia works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Then for his or her benefit: Almost every Wikipedia editor gets frustrated and spouts off. I'm sorry to say that I've done it myself. But accusing another Wikipedian of being a paid editor is especially insulting. When the accused is very clearly an honest volunteer (as is the case here), the accuser's credibility drops to zero. As your has. For all I know, you may have a legitimate case to make. (I stopped reading after 'Who is paying you?') If so, make your case on the facts, and take some time to learn about Wikipedia. James Cage (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg

Mentioned you on another complaint against me[edit]

Hi, Dr. Fleischman. Sorry for taking your time. But I had to mention you on a recurring charge against me in the admin noticeboard. I think the charges are untrue and unfair. I'd be glad to have your input as well here. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TPIA[edit]

Hi, Dr. Fleischman. Please take a glance at the Talk:Take Pride in America page when you have a chance. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)