Jump to content

User talk:DrFleischman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.82.123.109 (talk) at 06:01, 25 February 2015 (→‎Hello!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fyi

[1]

Cite lead.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarity

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)[reply]

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

Wallace Hall

I think the article is slowly improving. One thought; the legislative influence over university admissions is the heart of the controversy. Absent that, it is clear that the legislators would not have come down on Hall so savagely. Rather than removing the section entirely I believe it would be better to find additional material and refs. With your agreement I will attempt to find proper material. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could see a very limited amount of material about the broader controversy being re-included in the article, but only with very careful sourcing and phrasing that explains the connection to Hall. We have to be careful not to include content that is there only because it implies that Hall has been vindicated. That would be non-neutral synth, unless the sources actually say that Hall was vindicated. I'll take a look at whatever you come up with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any articles about vindication. There is a longform article in Texas Monthly about all this that I haven't finished yet. TM is a little lefty for my taste (it reminds me of a western version of Washington Monthly) but it really dives deep. I am finding this interesting though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the story sounds intriguing from afar but I haven't had the bandwidth to dig into it. Do you have a link to the TM article handy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Is This the Most Dangerous Man in Texas? Here it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

Source failing verification at Accuracy in Media

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 (t•c) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quality of Editing

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In that spirit, I left "tilde notices" on their respective Talk pages... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill Moyers

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)[reply]

Uh oh, thanks for the warning. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, you're definitely un-American not human then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

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)[reply]

|family =

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrFleischman&oldid=648748027"