User talk:DrFleischman

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

Global Impact[edit]

While not unambiguous advertising, I did, however, nominate it for deletion as non-notable. The discussion can be found here. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I recently discovered a morass of spammy content, which can be found here. I've only scratched the surface of it. I'm so drowning in spam that I feel like I'm in that Monty Python skit, and it can be hard to tease apart what's ambiguous spam from what's unambiguous spam. If my batting average is anywhere close to 50% then I figure I'm doing all right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure why you keep marking the pages I have created. Global Impact's page has been around for years and IS NOT violating anything and neither is the Scott Jackson page that you nominated for speedy deletion. I dont understand why YOU KEEP going through these pages like this after I made the changes you marked previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charities (talkcontribs) 16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charities. I'm merely following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You would benefit from reading and understanding them. Please do not remove AFD and cleanup tags without first resolving them. If you feel that Global Impact should not be deleted then I urge you to read our notability guideline for organizations and then participate at WP:Articles for deletion/Global Impact. (Also, remember to sign your comments with four tildes.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)



Further reading and external links[edit]

DrFleischman, about this revert: Wikipedia:Further_reading#Reliable states that "However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation."

It's an opinion piece written by Brown itself and readers may be interested in Brown's opinion on prison life. It may be treated like any other Op-Ed (cited for the opinion but not for the facts) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. There are two related problems here. First, an opinion article written by the subject of the article can hardly be described as "like any other Op-Ed." This source falls squarely into WP:ABOUTSELF, unlike independent op-eds. Second and more importantly, nothing in WP:FURTHER exempts "Further reading" sections from the general requirement that articles be written in a neutral tone. A source written by the subject of the article about his personal experiences, with the words "FREE BARRETT BROWN" written in bold red letters across the top is nothing akin to neutral, and including it in our article not only creates an appearance of bias but also might be construed as promotion of a specific political view. Not to mention that this source is merely one of 12 covering Brown's detention, which itself is only one of many parts of his biography, so inclusion of this source arguably puts undue emphasis on this aspect of his life. Hope this helps. P.S. I'm transcluding this over to the article talk page. Please respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
PPS good to see you around, as I appreciated your many contributions to the Snowden article back when I was working on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia yourself! I fully explained why my comment to Sammy1339 was 100% justified and how I myself was simply requesting a good faith basis for asking for links which were readily available. Your aggressive admonishment was completely out of line IMO. GaiaHugger (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements[edit]

The RfC: Is a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin access to deleted page histories[edit]

Did you see DGG's comment at the end of this section? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrFleischman would completely solve the issue of you being unable to view the deleted content, and DGG wants to create that page. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, sorry, which comment? I've been having an extended discussion on various pages about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks, yes, I saw that. A couple of other admins have said the same thing, but I don't want to be put through the ringer in an effort that would probably fail. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be extremely supportive of you going for adminship. You'd be an excellent admin. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

It's a personal attack to accuse me of harassment [2] without providing any substantiation of the alleged harassment. Either provide some evidence or retract your accusations. Schematica (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Are you sure you want to pursue this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I want to "pursue this." You're going around accusing me of harassment without any evidence. I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does either. Why don't you provide some diffs? Schematica (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have evidence but I'm not going to share it on-wiki. If you have a problem with this I suppose you could could take it to WP:ANI. Don't forget to notify me if you do. But you might want to consider WP:BOOMERANG first. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Scheiner Law Group[edit]

I restored the entire history, as you requested on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bearian! I'm curious, what had happened? ---Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After you made two minor edits, the article was deleted, and then re-created by two other people. The old history was thereby automatically erased from viewing, upon its deletion. As an admin, I can restore one or more versions, or the entire history, by clicking on certain buttons. Honestly, I didn't think all the minor edit changes were needed, so I only restored one or two edits. However, since you asked for it, I gave it all back. I restored the entire article history of all "diffs". You, too, can get fancy buttons as a sysop, but "be careful what you ask for." Bearian (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I've heard that a lot recently. Thanks for the explanation. Who re-created it? (I want to make sure the appropriate people are notified of the AfD.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Best Selling Author listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New York Times Best Selling Author. Since you had some involvement with the New York Times Best Selling Author redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm nevertheless baffled by your RFD and have added my view accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris Hayes quote[edit]

I think its interesting. Here's the problem I see. Hayes has made a mistake. There are indeed "dark money" groups spending money in campaigns all over the country. Citizens United has played a role in that. But that's really not ALEC. They aren't spending diddly in campaigns anywhere that I can find (or apparently ALECwatch, or Mother Jones, or the Nation). Aside from Hayes' quote (opinion) there is no evidence that ALEC does that kind of thing. That's not their niche. They put together conservative legislators to share legislative and policy ideas across state lines, or to put a sinister spin on it act as "a corporate dating service" for lonely lobbyists.

So under the policies of Wikipedia it is perfectly OK to have that quote in the article (RS ref for an opinion), but the result is we are misinforming the general reader who will think that ALEC is out dropping money into campaigns when they are not, and apparently never have. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I find the quote interesting. It is entirely reasonable under policy to leave it in, but it's not correct. FWIW. Anyway, sorry to clutter your talk page with thoughts, I'm sick in bed and probably feverish. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You may be feverish but you're thinking clearly. I agree, ALEC's activities really have nothing to do (directly) with campaign finance. I'll remove the clause about dark money. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

I fixed the links to my user page. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving the Thomas Jefferson Center page[edit]

Hi. I've been tasked with updating and improving the Thomas Jefferson Center's page, on which you recently made several edits. I am admittedly inexperienced when it comes to editing pages, but your recent edits raised a couple of questions that I wanted to get your thoughts on before I dove in. First, you have called for a citation as to the Center's nonpartisan status. Why is this necessary, when a citation is not required for our nonprofit status or our stated mission? Second, can you please explain your removal of the Jefferson Muzzles content to a new page? I understand the need for secondary source coverage of the Muzzles, and can provide that information. I do not, however, understand why inclusion of a (properly cited) Muzzle section is inappropriate on the Center's main page. It was my intention to create a new section describing three of the Center's major projects, including the Muzzle Awards. The creation of this new page has left me very confused as to how I should proceed. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Tjc clay (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clay, and thanks for writing. I'd be happy to answer your questions but we need to clear up a couple of threshold issues first:
  1. From your username and the comment above it appears you have a close affiliation with the TJC. Are you familiar with our guideline on conflicts of interest and suggested best practices? I urge you to read it, particularly the section on paid advocacy. In essence, you should openly declare your COI, avoid editing the TJC article directly, and confine your contributions to TJC's talk page.
  2. I generally prefer to avoid having lengthy discussions about article content on my user talk page. It's better to discuss articles on the corresponding article talk pages so anyone interested in the article can contribute. I'm therefore going to cross-post your inquiry and answer there.
Cheers, --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Russ Baker[edit]

I agree in general with your tagging of this article. However my sense is that it probably would squeak by the notability guidelines given that he had one major book widely reviewed. I may be wrong, but that's my sense. However, the article itself is a disaster area. You may also want to take a look at the offshoot article Family of Secrets. That would be three Wikipedia articles on a totally obscure person, his life and works. Really ghastly. If you look at the LA Times review of Family of Secrets,[3] WP:FRINGE is plainly applicable so I wonder if an AfD actually may be warranted for that book, and also if there is need for a substantial toning down of the text devoted to that in the Baker article. My participation in the project is sporadic nowadays but I will help as much as I can. Coretheapple (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and the heads-up about those reviews---yikes, and I thought this guy was a respectable journalist! I don't think Family of Secrets should be deleted on fringe grounds, as it's a real, widely-reviewed book, not a fringe theory. But in light of these sources I think Russ Baker should be merged into that article. (And cut way down, to perhaps a sentence or two.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually was mulling proposing that the book and WhoWhatWhy be merged into Baker. The verdict on the latter was "no consensus," and even if it was "keep" that would not bar it from being merged. I'm not clear the book makes the cut. I just know of the L.A. Times review in terms of notable reviews. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also the Washington Post review, and there may be more, I haven't looked. I could see both the book and WhoWhatWhy being merged into Baker, despite the fact that I haven't found any secondary sources on Baker himself. If we aggregate the book review sources and the WhoWhatWhy Project Censored source then at least we have an article with 3 reliable secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Atlas/ATLAS network[edit]

Fleishman, I'm confused about your nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21#Atlas Network. Atlas Network is not actually a redirect, so I'm unclear what you are trying to do here. Please clarify. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a redirect when I proposed the deletion. I was told the proper way to address the issue to request a technical move, so I did, and the latter request was granted. Problem solved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite lead.[edit]

You say here that the claim (that it is done only be the GOP) is cited elsewhere in the article, but the claim is not even claimed elsewhere in the article. It it was there in the past it is not anymore-- so the claim in the lead looks like random vandalism.

If there is a RS somewhere in the article to back-up this claim, then it does no good when it is nowhere paired-up with the claim that needs the citation. tahc chat 03:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

On further review, you're right. I've added a {{cn}} tag and will look through the sources when I have a bit more time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm reverting you because you edited Gandydancer's comments in a way that misrepresented him. He never commented on whether or not the information should appear in U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, only that it shouldn't appear in Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. Do not edit other people's comments. Dragons flight (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for correcting me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)