User talk:DrFleischman

Fyi

 Requesting immediate archiving...

[1]

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Non-neutral?

How can it be non-neutral to quote Trump's exact words expressly stating that pursuant to his executive order, "there is no such thing as Obamacare anymore". He said what he said. bd2412 T 04:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title of the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to this revert at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Specifically, how is this not a repeal effort if the President basically says that it is? At the very least, we should mention something about the Executive Order (and perhaps the elimination of funding), in that they reverses underpinning regulatory parts of Obamacare. bd2412 T 11:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, neutrality generally means following the reliable sources. And last I checked Donald Trump was not a reliable source. I hope that answers your question. If not, we should probably continue the conversation at Talk:PPACA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping problem

Hey. Your ping of me on Técnico's page occurred during the time of the ping bug (I think or at least hope it's over now), and I didn't receive it. But Técnico has now themselves posted on my page, so I'm up to date and will take a look. Bishonen | talk 09:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Semi

Hi. I've semi'd this page for a few hours against persistent sock puppetry. Please let me know if you want it longer, or indeed if you want it removed. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I don't particularly care one way or another about my user talk, but I would like to see this person rangeblocked if possible to keep this person from spreading their crud elsewhere. Pinging Zzuzz since you mentioned you're not a rangeblock admin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You must be getting me mixed up with a couple of other people — I am a rangeblock admin, at least for reasonably simple cases. But his guy jumps all over the clock, and indeed does spread their fertilizer very widely. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Also, Zzuzz is a blocked impersonator — pinging Zzuuzz for you. I doubt they or anybody can rangeblock the nazi vandal, though. I don't think I'm providing the vandal with any beans by saying so. Anyway, just as you imply, it's strange that they expect people to be actually bothered. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the ping. For the record Zzuzz is my doppelgänger, but that's neither here nor there. This guy is using open proxies, using different IPs every time, which makes rangeblocks not an option. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• D'oh, I did in indeed screw up doubly. I got mixed up between Bishonen and Floquenbeam (since both helped oversight recent vandalism on my user talk), and I misspelled Zzuuzz. Thanks to both of you. Too bad about the open proxies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert of American Mirror

Hi! I'm the editor that added the American Mirror to the list of fake news websites. While I appreciate your contribution and trust your expertise (I even thanked your edit!), I'm confused as to why I was reverted specifically.

I checked the edit summary and it said that my sources were unreliable and did not verify the content. However, I think they're all reliable (MB/FC, one of the sites I presume you think is reliable, approves of Fake News Codex) and my addition to the article was composed mostly of direct quotes or faithful summaries of those sources.

What am I missing here? If I still believe The American Mirror is a fake news website, what should I change to make my edit accepted?

Thanks! --Reason is Immortal (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. If you post your question at Talk:List of fake news websites then I will respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I copied it to the talk page. --Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist/supremacist

Hi DrFleischman! I was wondering if you could give me a few RS, ideally from academics like Hawley, about white supremacy being a subset of white nationalism, as you explained in the edit summary. I think you may be correct and I apologize if I quoted Hawley verbatim. On page 13 of his book, he writes, "Throughout this text, I use the term “white nationalist” largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves. But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable." He acknowledges the critique but does not necessarily believe it, or he would make the distinction (which he does not do). Would you be able to show me JSTOR articles or Google Books excerpts that prove your point please? I intend to give you a barnstar if you do. Please reply here on your talkpage. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of the barnstar, but I haven't done this research and honestly I don't have the appetite to. Back when I started working on Richard B. Spencer, there was a consensus that we shouldn't call him both "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" because they were redundant; specifically, white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism, so we should just stick with "white supremacist." You can find it somewhere in the archives. I believe most folks who argued this, including myself, were relying on the accuracy of white nationalism. In any case, this should really be discussed on the article talk page so others can weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted it here to avoid the trolls, and you seem reasonable. I am concerned that it looks like we have a consensus without RS. I have just looked at white nationalism and it does make the subset argument in the lede, but without an RS. Then the only RS-backed content I can find is from Kofi Buenor Hadjor, but I can't figure out who he is on Google (can you?), as opposed to Hawley. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Trolls? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, lots of IP addresses have been posting about this for months. That's why no one can change the lede. I think you know that. Anyway, Hawley is more nuanced and he's definitely not a troll (has a PhD, published several books, teaches at a major research university). Who is Hadjor? Are there other academics who gave the 'subset' definition please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Yes, lots of IP addresses have been posting about this for months. That's why no one can change the lede." Sorry, I don't follow. IP addresses have been posting about this for months? How did I miss this? Can you point me to a discussion or diff please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's a recent example. There are many. But this is beside the point. My concern is that, after reading Hawley, a serious academic who has written a whole book about the alt-right published by the Columbia University Press, I'd like to know who else you are basing the "white supremacy as a subset of white nationalism" premise on? It may be true; I'd like to read about it. Who published this research on which the talkpage consensus is based on please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I see. But I don't see why this would prevent you from posting your inquiry on the talk page. I prefer to avoid content discussions on my user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who trimmed "white nationalist" with the RS from Hawley's book. But never mind. I don't care. You can call him a "white supremacist" by consensus in spite of academic sources if you want. Have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooookaaay. So you actually weren't here to have a collaborative discussion after all, I suppose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was--so collaborative that I offered you a barnstar if you helped me--and you don't have an answer, or don't want to answer. So, have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to respect people's user talk policies. It's just part of getting along with folks here. The purpose of my policy (which is pretty common, btw) isn't to avoid having discussions. I would be happy to discuss this further at Talk:Breitbart News. You still haven't explained what's so bad about that. Are you page banned or something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I was just wondering why you deleted this referenced content from academia, which is why I used your talkpage. By the way, I don't read Breitbart; I read academic books. But I apologize for writing on your talkpage without the foreknowledge that you didn't like it (which is unusual), and I wish you a very nice, long, productive life. I have no intention to write on your talkpage again. Have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. You too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Our mutual friend Robert

Wow, whatever the op-ed equivalent of subtweeting would be... that was it! I really did try to lay things out in a fairly clear manner and I would have been happy to help improve the article. Oh well. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page

Why did you remove the tag at Carter Page?

Two reasons:

1) It's garbage

2) this will come as a shock, but nobody died and left you in charge of the page.

--Calton | Talk 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's rude. Can you try to be more civil please? No one left you in charge of the page either, you know. I was just following typical tagging protocol. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, I must say that I'm surprised by such incivility given that you and I are on the same side of most content disputes. I mean instead of dismissing my tag as "garbage" and ownership, you could, say, engage in discussion and ask me why I added the tag before "trashing" me (pun intended). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Franken

[2] From what I understand, Wikipedia's predominantly male editing population has been accused in the past of marginalizing women's contributions and opinions. So, to remove an action from two female Democratic Senators in response to an alleged sexual assault could be interpreted as being in that mold. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Could be, but I don't appreciate the oblique accusation. It ignores my edit summary, and it's rather nasty and doesn't help to resolve the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole incident is "recent" so you're using selective editing. You also only answered one edit request on the talk page which was for a minor edit, and ignored my request about four senators (three Democratic) calling for an ethics investigation. As a feminist, I have a hard time interpreting your edit as anything else, knowing Wikipedia's history of trying to downplay and excuse violence and repression against women. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please make at least a half-hearted effort to assume good faith and avoid personalizing disputes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh by the way Doctor, if you were the least bit concerned about WP:NOTFORUM, perhaps you should have refrained from leading the witch hunt against CorduroyCap in the middle of a WP:RFC. Smells a whole lot like hypocrisy to me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Smells like dirty socks to me. Yuck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion...

There are people I listen to because they make sense and have a good understanding of things like guidelines and policies. Based on your track record, your advice is of no value to me and I will stipulate that any future "advice" from you will automatically be ignored. So stop wasting my time. If you want to play Tone Police, take your act elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Classy. And a bit late. I don’t even know what you’re referring to. But I get your message. I love you too, bro. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

I noticed you did 2 major things to a relatively well referenced section I added. I read the reasons for each action and have to questions about that.

1. How many false statements are required to provide a section noting that this organization has generated "Controversial, False, and Misleading" statements?

2. And this is more complex so I'll go into greater depth. The only place source you cited as contradicting me was Politifact (which I am familiar with and often read). I believe I found the article in Politifact which you are referring to and would point out that there are different implications in the different statements Scott Walker made in 2013 (which it evaluated in that article) and Judicial Watch in 2011.

Specifically the 2013 statement was that FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."

The Politifact article that rated this as true noted FDR's feelings on public unions may be debated this is more in terms of the range of things a public union could do (not on if they existed) and at the time there was not much of a public sector union tradition while private sector unions already had been building for several years.

While the 2011 Judicial Watch statement said FDR "opposed" public unions. This is on if they may exist and therefor advocate for public workers on any of the issues unions typically do.

Additionally Large numbers of public workers had not yet been unionized so that was a decision of someone before this time.

Moreover his administration's actions (as mentioned in the Politifact article) did not "oppose" the formation of public unions or public worker membership within them. The article referred to unions of workers associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also it noted FDR said that federal workers were "free to join 'any union they want'" and that "managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not".

Since Governor Walker refused to even meet with union members or representatives during the time Act 10 was being debated and protested this arguably was a violation of the spirit of FDR's views on how public workers and their treatment.

Judicial Watch exaggerated, at best, FDR's views on public workers and their unions and did so during a time of political unease over an unexpected change in several decades of traditional and legal recognition of public sector unions in Wisconsin. This was misleading.

What was also misleading in the Judicial watch statement was the claim that this was done for fiscal reasons when statewide unions had offered to take every fiscal cut he requested-meaning this was not over fiscal matters.

Perhaps I should have added that to my explanation of how the Judicial Watch commentary was misleading but this does qualify as misleading commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pplr, thanks for writing. I'm happy to respond, but could you please post at Talk:Judicial Watch so that we can discuss this there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk?

Quick question. What I am to click on when responding to a specific comment you made? I noticed when I clicked on "talk" after you commented on the article that we were discussing I came here and you were able to specifically respond to my comment-as indicated by the indentation of your comment following mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors have varying levels of tolerance for content discussions on their own user talk pages, but in general article talk pages are the most appropriate place to discuss article content. If you wish to respond to my comment on the article talk page, you go to the top of that specific section and click the "Edit" link. As you've already done. A helpful guide to indentation can be found at WP:INDENT. To indent you just precede your comment by one or more colons (:). You can always see a preview of how your comment will look before you post it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DrFleischman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks

I reviewed his extensive history at ANI and didn't find anything relevant to the pattern of editing evidenced in Lion Guard. I'll poke around some more and see if there's more evidence in his edit history and complaints by other editors on article talk pages. Thanks for the heads up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Also nice to know I have fans! -O.R.^Comms 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, no worries about OberRanks' history. If you really want to dig into this, the ArbCom warning can be found here. But I'm not trying to get them into trouble. Rather, my goal is to let you know that if you can't verify content added by this user then it should probably be removed. Don't rely on unsubstantiated verifiability claims by this user. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review ..

.. this [3]. I nearly reverted you for deliberately introducing a typo .. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately? Tell me, have you ever heard of AGF? Nice to meet you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor

User:TheTimesAreAChanging has been repeatedly edit-warring. This is his 3rd revert in less than 24 hours. I reverted him for his unintelligible reason of "Random/IP editors are not WP:RS". What that means, I cannot understand. I suggest you warn him from edit-warring, because if he reverts for the fourth time then I'm not reverting, I will be forced to complain him. I had warned him to make him aware, but he removed my warning. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If they violated 3RR then you're free to report them. Personally I think their position is justified and I don't think you should have reverted them--twice. You have provided no justification for your reverts. Go to the talk page now and provide a content-based argument for your reversion, or go away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

If one person is doing something, and a bunch of people start reverting that person and complaining, then that person knows consensus is against them. If that person then starts making WP:POINTy edits (in an attempt to game the system) and insulting those who politely disagree then they probably do not have the patience and wisdom required for adminship. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus for deleting a category is not the same thing as consensus to edit all pages that contain wikicode that include that page in that category. In the mainspace, if a category is deleted then it makes total sense to delete the wikicode that includes pages in that category. Userspace is different. MediaWiki's categories are a bit weird in the sense that a deleted category can contain pages.

The idea that having a userpage in a category is somehow disruptive is demonstrably false. Editing people's userpages repeatedly against their wishes after being told not to is disruptive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I do not like talking about people behind their back. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If a small group of people oppose encyclopedic maintenance and the implementation of consensus decisions, then it is up to them to demonstrate a consensus for their view. Over the last year they have repeatedly failed to do so.

Instead they are reduced to silly sniping, like this demonstrably bogus allegations of pointiness and gaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No offense to either of you, but I'm not interested in getting further involved in this dispute. I just wanted to voice my support for Potato and others who have opposed BHG's user talk page edits. Please keep the dispute over disruption, admin privileges, talking behind people's backs, silly sniping, bogus allocations, gaming, etc. off my user talk. That goes for both of you. I have better things to do with my time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The fact which Quixotic Potato and others repeatedly refuse to acknowledge is that a page (of any type) in a non-existent category is treated by the software as an error, and creates an entry in a cleanup list (Special:WantedCategories). The disrupts the maintenance task of fixing miscategorisations and creating needed categories, because these "jokes" become permanent entries in a list which should be capable of being cleared.

There are non-disruptive ways to display these redlinks, but sadly a small group of vocal editors refuse to use the non-disruptive alternatives. Those editors are gaming WP:USERPAGE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, you are banned from my user talk for a period of 1 month starting today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

E-mail

Turned e-mail on temporarily. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holidays to you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	umm, not really...just doing the same thing were all here to do. stop being so negative.. Katherinehurley (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I’m not here to make money. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Wikipedia noob. Would you mind explaining more about why you reverted my Gavin McInnes edit here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&oldid=prev&diff=810359833 I looked at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources; here are some parts that seemed relevant: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ... "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, the Proud Boys website is not objective... but it still seems like a great source for supporting information about a viewpoint that's being held on a particular subject here. And I don't think I did any original research here. Just provided a specific fact.--Clevera (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)