User talk:DrFleischman

Fyi

[1]

1RR

You're beyond 1RR at the Donald Trump article. I don't want to template you, so please revert. Thanks. I have to comply with this annoying 1RR rule, so others such as yourself should have to comply as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. I don't think I reverted at all, let alone twice. Can you provide me with diffs please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=733716031

17:36, 9 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=733581444

20:19, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=733568899

18:35, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=733558622

18:25, 8 August

You are factually incorrect when you say the boycott did not precede Trump's comments about the judge, but that's a separate matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reverts, are they? Aside from the restoration of the comments about Curiel, which was implementing the talk page consensus. (And I acknowledged my error about the timing of the boycott and struck the incorrect statement.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why each of the four diffs I've given is a revert. I have been avoiding making more than one such edit in any 24-hour period.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. By your logic, any deletion or modification is a revert. That's not how WP:EW works. Are you seriously thinking of reporting me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been brought to WP:EW for two reverts like these, much less the four we're discussing here. Basically, as you probably know, if the admins like you then they let you off, if they don't like you then they enforce the actual rules. In this case, the actual rule is clear. And it's the rule that I and other editors have been following.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing personal, but if you're seriously not going to cancel the last of your four reverts, then I may well report it, if for no other reason than to make yet another futile attempt to get a narrower 1RR rule that I can actually follow without worrying about a block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a more constructive route that's less likely to get you in trouble: how about WT:EW or WP:VPP? And, while you're responding, could you please provide a link or two to examples of administrators interpreting WP:EW the way you're suggesting? Because I could be wrong, but your accusation seems like a broken arrow -- more pointy than accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm being absolutely frank with you: I have been stuck for months in the predicament of avoiding these kinds of repeated reverts within 24 hours, and other editors have been stuck with it too. This is not being pointy, it's being fair. If you're right, then I would like to know what the real rule is; more likley they will let you off without saying what the real rule is, so they can be more strict on other occasions. The language at WP:3RR is clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If you can point to an official interpretation that differs from the plain meaning of this definition, I'm all ears, because it would be very handy for me and would free me up to make more edits. I don't take notes when I edit Wikipedia, and so cannot immediately point to a specific instance where this sentence at WP:3RR has been interpreted in any particular way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't find myself often at ANEW so I'm not up on all the technicalities. Nevertheless I edit lots of contentious articles so I have a pretty good sense of community expectations. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," it is referring to actions that occurred relatively recently the edit history, not actions that occurred at some unknown time way back in the history. When it refers to "whether in whole or in part," it is not referring to good faith attempts to compromise. I make no promises, but if you follow these guidelines I suspect you'll be ok. Have you had experiences to the contrary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am submitting a 3RR report to get some clarity. I report other users extremely rarely, so I request that you please view the matter in that context; I'm not saying you're an egregious editor, just that I really need some definitive guidance on this. The rule could easily say it refers to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history, and could easily say that it does not refer to good-faith compromises. I have had experiences being sanctioned and banned when I did not violate any rule at all, much less violating the plain meaning of a rule. The 3RR report is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pity. You don't build consensus by turning friends into enemies over petty score-settling disputes with others. You seem bitter. Why not take a break and cool off? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a pity that you want to personalize the matter and attribute venal motives. I hope that after the matter is resolved (either way) we can go back to being friendly. I think you agree that the first diff shows a revert. The idea that the third diff doesn't because the matter has been disputed at the talk page is kind of perplexing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wasting my time and I am deeply offended by your behavior. I have nothing constructive to say to you. You are banished from my talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies for butting in here...I don't think I've visited this page before, but I just referenced you on another user's talk page, and thought I'd check you out. To the best of my understanding, a removal of material can sometimes be counted as a technical revert, but in my book it would boil down to the intent. I would be hesitant to call any of the first 3 edits linked above "reverts", as they seem to be citation maintenance and copyediting. The strongest case for "revert" of the 3 would be the removal of the citation. The last edit (Aug 9) I would count as a revert, since the Hispanic judge content had previously been removed. It is best to be careful on articles like this, though. Hopefully this clarification will save Anythingyouwant the trouble of making a 3RR report and the headache of trying to edit contentious articles without removing any words. ~Awilley (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Awilley. You were too late to stop Anythingyouwant from making a 1RR report, which can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. I don't think it's too late for this to be resolved amicably. It looks like Anythingyouwant is considering withdrawing the 3RR report, and that might be a good thing, since messy and contentious reports tend to be ignored by patrolling admins anyway, especially during silly season. Perhaps if you unbanned them from your talk page you two could shake hands and move on with your editing? ~Awilley (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately they withdrew their report. I'll have to cool off for a little while before considering unbanning them. Maybe I'm good at avoiding drama, or maybe I'm just lucky, but this was the lamest interaction I've had on Wikipedia in years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I'm unbanning you. Please never, ever report me (or anyone else) on the admin boards again for the purpose of gaining clarity on our policies or guidelines, or simply because you have been reported on the admin boards for similar conduct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I reported you for one main reason: what I thought was a clear violation of 1RR. I note that Awilley has not answered my question at his talk page about whether your "Wharton" edit was a revert, which I think it clearly was. Anyway, I hope we can be friends. Please report me any time you think I've violated 1RR, although I'd appreciate an opportunity to revert myself (like I gave you). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't report non-disruptive editors who happen to break the rules once in a while, and I would appreciate it if you didn't either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And no, you didn't report me for what you thought was a clear violation. In your own words, you reported me to "gain some clarity" because you "really need[ed] some definitive guidance" on how WP:EW worked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I've tried diligently to explain, two of the reverts were reported to gain guidance, and the other two were obvious reverts in my mind. And now that you mention it, it does so happen that my opinion is that you were being disruptive when you put me on a par with Gounc, and suggested that I might be topic-banned, and when you put his text into the article while discussion was ongoing to make it more balanced. I'm not saying that opinion of mine did or didn't have anything to do with the 1RR report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My goodness. I'm all out of patience. Good day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to let you know that I will carefully study the sources you gave regarding Trump and the birther stuff. Lots going on right now, so it may be a day or so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Signpost subscription

The Signpost subscription page is appearing as blank (to me at least) since you signed up. For the life of me I can't see anything wrong with your addition. Any ideas? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a clue, but it looks ok to me. Maybe it was a temporary blip? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Tried it on my PC. Tried it on my phone. Slept on the problem. Logged out. Logged in again. Page still appeared blank. Hit Purge and everything appeared. Beyond weird. Thanks for having a look. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Citations unnecessary" at Donald Trump

Hi there. I hoped I was clearer about this point in my close, but it seemed to get lost. :( Citations are Very necessary for that claim per BLP. See WP:BLPSOURCES, which mandates the inline citation. I'm asking you to pick and add the best 2-3 sources you can find to that claim that weren't from a "Fact-checking site" to that sentence despite the fact that it is in the lede.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. I was just re-reading your closing statement and realized that's what you meant just as you left me your note. That has never been my understanding of how WP:BLP interacts with WP:LEAD but I can certainly see your perspective. I'll add a couple of non-fact checker sources. Politico and probably TIME. And btw thanks for doing the deep dive, much appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. WP:CITELEAD suggests that they are necessary, but it's an interesting argument. Thank you for the kind words. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: no attribution

Re: this, I think it's from Aetna’s CEO – Mark Bertolini, from something like here. Doesn't look like it should be included anyway to me, but just wanted to find the quote :) Arkon (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I did notice that. Glad to see that other folks are watching the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page & 3O

Hey, I undid your edit since it was restoring a section duplication that I did unintentionally due to some funky copy-paste. The entire Third Opinion chain is preserved in the lower block and I marked the undo summary per WP:TPO. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative?

Hi, can we have a brief side-discussion? I tried to support a modified sentence that addressed your concerns: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable." But since you still have concerns, I wonder if something like this would work: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be legally advisable for someone under audit". I've inserted the word "legally" plus the last three words. All of the tax attorneys were discussing legal ramifications of an audit. Obviously, since the tax attorneys disagree about the legal ramifications, there will be politicians and pundits urging Trump to release or not release, so do we really have to mention the latter? If so, maybe we can draft something that includes all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions still raise legal considerations above political one, which is inherently non-neutral. I believe the only way to make this content neutral is to omit it. What other folks think about Trump's refusal to release his returns isn't particularly biographically significant anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I just said above that "we we can draft something that includes" the politicians and pundits, so it's hard to comprehend why you think that's non-neutral. Anyway, I assume you mean that the tax attorneys need to be omitted along with the pundits and politicians. I think that way implies that he has no legitimate legal reason to withhold the tax returns during the audit, which is simply false according to the sources I cited. How you think that's NPOV eludes me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Template:Z33

Donald Trump RfC

Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

AE question

In this your edit (edit summary) you canvass and encourage other contributors to reinsert "content challenged by reversion" on the page, something they gladly did, just a minute after your edit. How come? That does not seem to be consistent with your current AE complaint. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What rule did I violate, and how? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You ask someone else to restore a tag that was previously removed by another contributor (challenged through reversion). Moreover, you tell that you have already exhausted your limits of reverts, so you are asking someone else to continue edit warring for you. This is WP:Canvassing, as blatant as it can possibly be. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Restoring a tag that reflects an existing dispute and then self-reverting isn't edit warring, and requesting that someone restore a legitimate tag isn't canvassing. Canvassing is improper notification. There was no notification here, let alone an improper one. Anyone who saw the edit summary was already aware of the dispute. I could just have easily posted the same request at Talk:Donald Trump and it would have fallen explicitly into WP:APPNOTE. I am disturbed that you've been consistently avoiding discussion about your edits, and now you seem to be trying to stifle it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Can you please explain why did you single me out for reporting on WP:AE and comments like this? This info was not originally included by me, but by other contributors. It was reinserted, with various modifications, multiple times by other contributors. It still remains on the page because of edits by other contributors. I stopped editing this page. The fact that it still remains on the page is an indication that my last edit actually reflected consensus on the page, in addition to the RfC comments. I only happened to agree with others, and I do believe that the content of the paragraph in question should generally remain the same as it was at the beginning of the RfC, regardless to the page and the question. I even agreed to leave this subject area until after the elections. What else do you want from me and why? My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You weren't the only offender, but I believe you were the biggest one. I want both you and other editors who are battle-grounding at Donald Trump to knock it off and edit more collaboratively. There has been an uptick in this kind of behavior from one side of the political debate since AYW's ban started taking shape, and I think that should stop immediately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you telling that your WP:AE request was a kind of retaliation for the topic ban received by AYW? But regardless to your reasons, reporting someone on WP:AE is never the way to force him to work more collaboratively. To the contrary, this is the way to force him to stop working in certain subject area(s) or stop interacting with certain users. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm telling you at all. I thought AYW's ban was reasonable. But with AYW gone there was no one policing his opponents, and some folks took advantage of that. And of course I'd rather have you editing collaboratively than not editing at all, but you didn't show much willingness to do that, and neither did several other editors. So yes, the sledgehammer known as AE became necessary. Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. So, you just admitted that you submitted this WP:AE request to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. But unfortunately I can not help you because these contributors are not my buddies and because it is you who continue edit warring on very same page [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, and since you deliberately used my user talk to fish for responses for you to distort, I am banishing you from this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: So you are using the AE case deliberately to force content out of an WP article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand your langauge correct? --SI 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Please re-read my comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I re-read and re-read it over and over again, perhaps you could re-write it in other words what you want to say instead of what you wrote? My very best wishes has also stated he understood your words just like they are written. Thanks for posting, but your link here doesn't help me to better understand your words either. (And Yes, I do appreciate collaborative and constructive and deescalating communication a lot. I just don't like writing long texts, especially not long talkpage texts, I favour focussing on article content. :) --SI 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

email

"If you absolutely must discuss something with me off-wiki then please leave a note on my talk page and I will temporarily re-enable my e-mail." please do.108.20.74.42 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please login first and renew your request. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind.108.20.74.42 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I'm not interested in doing you any favors. Move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)