User talk:DrFleischman

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

Not broken[edit]

Believe it or not, I think we can edit together peacefully. I hold no grudge against you. I know at one point you were beginning a collection of diffs for a potential RfC about me. The guidelines state that unless you are planning to use the list of wrongdoings within a few days, it must be removed (from your sandbox and Wikipedia). If you haven't already, Please do that, and let us drop the stick. Best, petrarchan47tc 07:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read this. That said, as a sign of good faith I've removed this material from my sandbox, as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you've obviously backtracked on this quite a bit. Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment, most especially your conniving with Geogene about your "common interest". Please use the coat rack of my wrongdoings being collected in your sandbox asap or remove it per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is not possible for me to work with you and pretend to believe you act on good faith while you are doing these things, so there is no reason for you to continue to weigh in at Snowden about my edits because you obviously have a bias against me (to say the least). petrarchan47tc 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm preparing an WP:RFC/U to address our ongoing issues. It's taking some time because I've been having connectivity problems lately. This is not harassment; it's a good faith attempt to resolve our problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been two weeks. What's up? petrarchan47tc 23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I see you're back. Please stop ignoring this breach of policy and immediately use or delete the aforementioned list of my diffs. petrarchan47tc 23:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I noticed it's been a month since you've edited, and I wanted to express that I hope you'll return to the project soon; your talents are missed. That said, I understand if you wish to move on to other endeavors, and either way I wish you well. Age quod agis. Illegitimi non carborundum. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, while you're here...[edit]

Read: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. WP:POLEMIC

You can feel however you feel about me, but you don't have the right nor a valid excuse to ignore policy. You can't complain that no one alerted you to the current ANI when in fact, I have left you messages here that you have ignored. I assumed you had become unreachable. You seem to be ignoring this policy, making it difficult to AGF right now, given that you are completely aware of it and my repeated requests here.

Continuing to host this list could be considered harassment. petrarchan47tc 09:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman/sandbox[edit]

Aloha. I noticed that your user subpage at User:DrFleischman/sandbox may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Otherwise, you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the sandbox page and an administrator will delete it, or you can edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:DrFleischman/sandbox[edit]

User:DrFleischman/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DrFleischman/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DrFleischman/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Spy, etc[edit]

Raised this at User talk:CorporateM who has an interest in this sort of thing. See his user page. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi. Do you have any personal connection to the Massachusetts school system, by any chance? Also, as to providing cites, please see wp:BURDEN. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous so I generally avoid answering questions about my off-wiki life. I don't have a COI w/r/t Americans for Peace and Tolerance, if that's your question. Regarding WP:BURDEN, understood, but the sentence was already supported by the reference cited for the previous two sentences. As a general matter, when I see unsourced material my preferred approach is to use cn tags unless something is obviously unverifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that I read WP:CITEKILL#Needless repetition more closely, I see that it doesn't apply since that material hadn't been cited. Sorry for the miscommunication. I could have sworn I've seen something saying that it's not necessary to cite every single sentence... Maybe somewhere in WP:CITATION... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason for my query is your name was close to the name of someone in the article, the addition of which we were discussing. As to wp:burden, it's an editor choice whether to use a tag or not per editor discretion, but not to re-add challenged uncited material without the proper ref. WP:CITEKILL#Needless repetition in any event is just an essay. And given that sentence get moved around and inserted in between others, it's common sense to ref it -- and especially not to ref it because a ref used in a Prior sentence is what you have in mind. Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No connection. Fleischman isn't my real name. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a coincidence, then. Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ALEC sources[edit]

Hello Doc: Rather than add my clutter to the article talk page, I'll comment here. I think you are mixing the concept of Primary/Secondary sources with how sources are cited and/or identified. Take a look at WP:RS. Note it talks about sources as being three concepts: "the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work." The "piece of work" is the Moyers show; the "creator of the work" is Farley – he said the words, Moyers did not create the words; the "publisher of the work" is Public Affairs Television. So the Moyers show & PAT remain as secondary sources, but because Farley said the words, his words about ALEC are a primary source. Those words don't change in terms of primaryness even if Moyers published them. In any event, I do appreciate the support in getting the piece removed, pared down. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The creator of the work was Moyers, not Farley. Moyers arranged the interview, set up the shot, asked the questions, and made the editorial decision to include that Farley footage in his piece. If Moyers interviewed Farley the old fashioned way and then typed Farley's words into a newspaper story it would be the same thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Take a look at WP:LINKSINACHAIN. Moyers is a secondary source, but he's using primary source material. Moyers may have asked the questions, but he did not give the answers. And it is the answer that someone wants to put into the article. When we extract that primary source material and put it into articles, it remains primary – and it remains subject to WP editing primary source guidance. In the newspaper analysis, the editing might say "According to Moyers, Farley said 'ALEC is lobbying in Arizona and I want to ...'." The Moyers newspaper article might be an acceptable and noteworthy secondary source, but it is built with primary material. We must use caution when using that primary material. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree 100% with LINKSINACHAIN. Regardless, writing something like "According to Moyers, Farley said..." is double attribution, and I can't think of any scenario when that would be necessary (let alone encyclopedic). What you're talking about is a total overhaul of every article in Wikipedia quotes individuals. Unless I'm missing something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the next section: the love-letters in the museum example. Farley's words are the love-letters and Moyer's story is the museum. (An overhaul of WP is hardly necessary, because for the most part the quotes we read from individuals are used carefully. In the ALEC article we have a non-noteworthy quote added for the sake of bad-mouthing ALEC.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Farley didn't write a love letter. He said some stuff during an interview with a professional journalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Then he recited a love letter. It went like this: "How do I love ALEC? Let me count the ways. I love ALEC to the depth and breadth and height My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight...." The stuff he says and the stuff he writes is Primary. This is so because he is a legislator, perhaps lobbied by ALEC, who was promoting his bill that involved ALEC. There is nothing wrong with it being Primary, we just have to be circumspect when using it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a primary source from a secondary one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Barrett Brown[edit]

I have partially undone some of your edit to Barrett Brown. Please see WP:IC and semicolon. WP:IC clearly indicates the consensus is that "Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." (Emphasis in original.) The article on semicolons is quite clear that "While terminal marks (i.e., full stops, exclamation marks, and question marks) mark the end of a sentence, the comma, semicolon and colon are normally sentence internal, making them secondary boundary marks. The semicolon falls between terminal marks and the comma; its strength is equal to that of the colon." In other words, a colon does not mark the end of a sentence, and any citations given after the a period after a semicolon are valid for information given before the semicolon. Hence, the citations to VICE and The Dallas Morning News are applicable. Those sources are clearly not WP:PRIMARY. Therefore I have partially reverted your edit. Int21h (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This really belongs at Talk:Barrett Brown. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision for Heritage Action article[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a revised draft I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. I wanted to ask you if you might be interested in reviewing what I've prepared since you worked on the page quite a bit late last year. My work on this article has been undertaken on behalf of Heritage Action so please do take my conflict of interest into account when reviewing what I've written.

I would appreciate feedback I can use to improve my draft if you have concerns. Ultimately I am looking for an editor who will replace the current version of the article with what I have prepared. I do not want to make any edits to the article because of my COI.

I've left a detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action explaining the differences between my draft and the current version. The message also links to the draft in my userspace. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)