User talk:DrFleischman

Newt Gingrich introduction

Hi Nstrauss, 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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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:

1. 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?
2. How did your edit serve to resolve the issue being discussed?
3. How was your edit not a WP:TPO violation?

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

I am not sure about this historic, best of luck to you anyway. Youreallycan 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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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! --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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.--Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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)

1. "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.
2. "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.
3. "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.
4. "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.
5. "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.
6. "...form what, to literally everyone else, is an extremely minor issue." Admin misconduct and editor retention are hardly minor issues.

--Nstrauss (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (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.) --Nstrauss (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)

Nstrauss: 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. --Nstrauss (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 Nstrauss 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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

note

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

? --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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? --Nstrauss (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss, 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? --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:29, 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? --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (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, Nstrauss (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? --Nstrauss (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. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)