User talk:DrFleischman

Carter Page

Why did you remove the reference to Carter Page working on the Clinton transition team in 1993? It's well documented and was properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.21.154.83 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. And don't believe everything you read in the Gateway Pundit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman wrote: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)We need a reliable source. That Bard source isn't one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The change to be made is to include the information that Mr. Carter Page worked with the Clinton administration, as part of his early career.

How is "The Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program in New York City" website not a reliable source? This website provides 16 years of archived speakers' names, biographies and outlines, which are all unreliable?

How would anyone find a reliable source for what speakers gave speeches then? So you have decided that http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.2.93 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it reliable. Please read our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

National Policy Institute

See WP:RPP#National Policy Institute. You might want to add your two bits. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erikson: Caroline456

Caroline456 definitely seems to have a bias. I gave my opinion on the talk page, and I completely agree with you. I suggest we may need to take this further if the need arises. If you have any ideas or want to contact me, just message me at my talk page. Thanks, XXCooksterXx (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson (activist)

I've seen that you edited the article since I last posted to the Talk page. Would you still like me to comment on individual issues listed there? I'd be happy to, but I wonder if the matters might have been resolved. It's been a few days since a certain editor was active on the page, so perhaps things will die down. Please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I think it would be helpful, as I wouldn't be surprised if Caroline reverts me and we really need to develop a talk page consensus on these issues to end these disputes for good. If you're going to pick one issue, I'd propose the one marked "Fraud" since only Caroline and I have weighed in on it in any meaningful way. You can compare Caroline's version to the current version. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the situation has somewhat stabilised, so I'm going to remove it from my watch list. Please feel free to ping me for any additional issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Academi

Are you willing to take on ACADEMI's request for changes on article's talk page?

I know I'm way out of my depth on this, and will probably go to one of the noticeboards to get admin attention on the issue. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I went ahead and asked for help on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_needed_on_Academi_article . Tarl N. (discuss) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that was unnecessary, but no worries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits

Why should I stop marking most of my edits as minor? My edits are generally not major edits (save for adding references and whatnot), mainly just grammatical corrections or adding a – to someone who died. I generally do not do major edits, save for adding resources or adding major sections or creating new pages. --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't go through all of your edits, but this one was definitely not minor. You added a sentence of substantive content and a supporting reference. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There can be edits here and there where I could have not marked it as minor, sure, but on the whole, I usually do things like removing unnecessary spaces, fixing small grammatical errors, and so on, all things that are generally considered minor. I don't know why I needed to be messaged about this, but I can see where your concern is. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

COI van der Linden

I have only created a few biographies of notable scientists but I do so in substantial and considerable detail to avoid a stub. The van der Linden article is neutral and factual and contains dozens of appropriate references. There's no conflict of interest. I simply know of many of the scientists in this field and have created a few biographies over the years as these were notable people as per Wikipedia's notability criteria. I don't edit or create biographies for individuals or topics I know little about. As such, my activity is selective by default, so either I would have to do more editing or perhaps you can let me know how to improve the biography but it looks pretty decent to me. User:Science_contributor101 —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Science_contributor101, which biographies have you created? Your edit history suggests you've only created one (Van der Linden himself). Not that there's anything wrong with that, but SmartSE and I are trying to make sense of your contributions. As for the content of the Van der Linden article, I'd prefer we discuss at Talk:Sander van der Linden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I added some questions in the talk section on how to improve the article. I lost my login info once but I created Edward Maibach for example. I asked for some help and the user Jytdog has effectively removed 80% of the content of the article, most of which were just facts, such as notable awards and achievements, media coverage, and notable academic work. I have read many academic Wikipedia biographies and followed the same format when I created this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You've been quoted

Hello Dr. Fleischman, it's been quite a while! In case you hadn't seen it already, I thought I'd point out that your comments on Talk:Breitbart News were recently quoted in a news article: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-breitbart-declares-war-on-wikipedia-in-facebook-s-fight-against-fake-news-1.5991915 Hope all is well! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Violation & Edit Wars

I just noticed that you reverted my edit per your comment on my talk page, and I appreciate your revision (since it was potentially a violation of WP:BLP even though I was unaware of it). However, I do want to note that I had not met the requirements for an edit war. I can refer you to my talk page or to the talk page of the other editor involved to note that my second revision was made in good faith. Thanks again!  :) zfJames (chat page) 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I understand that perfectly. Thanks for the note. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Discussed on talk"

FYI, saying "I think X and will put it in the article" is not the same as "discussed on Talk". Guy (Help!) 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Just last month you participated in the discussion directly on point in which Snooganssnoogans and I both thought we should include the "watchdog group" descriptor. The discussion cannot be reasonably summarized as "I think X and will put it in the article." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement

You have been mentioned regarding an issue in which you are involved here Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement.– Lionel^(talk) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Bizarro. Permanent link here. Whatever happened to getting along? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch Page

Sir, what you are doing is intellectually dishonest and it is against the terms of Wikipedia. You are not the sole arbiter of what happens on that page. This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's page on reliable sources, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Note the "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" part. That paragraph can not be sourced to be true from a reliable source, nor can a reliable source prove it to be untrue. Therefore, it shouldn't be there. If we get passed that rule, I'd have to question why it is even relevant to the page in the first place. That should be the next conversation on this. I'd like to assume good faith, but seeing your comments in the talk section, it seems as if you are deliberately trying to deceive new editors by sharing so many links, none of which included a link to Wiki's stance on biographies of living people. I also find the tag you added to the top to be inaccurate. There was no call for partisanship. There was a call for an error to be corrected. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a long time, and I rarely see someone try to act like you and portray himself in a position of authority, in a community that is supposed to be civil. From an outside perspective, it would seem as though you do not like Ms. Loesch very much. I would suggest sitting this one out, in order to air on the side of caution, so we can keep Wikipedia as accurate and non partisan as possible. Thank you. Mikist4 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No offense, but it seems you forgot the "terms of Wikipedia" during your 4-year absence. You can start by assuming good faith and communicating with editors in a civil fashion before you end up getting blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You are free to report any of us because we were simply "inactive". Plus you lost good faith when you accused me of meat puppetry. The fact is you are pushing "Contentious Material" despite being disputed by a well-known reporter that disputes this vs someone is quite obvoius biased against the Loesch. https://twitter.com/timelfrinkmia/status/967039274385362945. The editor in question also in bad faith misconstrued what the both of Loesch said. Did the Loesch say that they were attacked? No. Did the Editor claim that the Loesch said this? Yes. Did the video corroborate what the Loesch said? Yes. Did the video corroborate what the author claimed the Loesch said despite no evidence of them saying so? No. ViriiK (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave the content arguments on the article talk page so everyone can read them. I'm talking about conduct, and if that's your threshold for abandoning AGF then you clearly haven't been around the block here, my friend. In fact, I didn't accuse you of meat puppetry, I merely suggested that you and the others review the policy. If any of you were coordinating then that would be bad. Apparently you're not so it's a non-issue. I wasn't planning on raising it again. I understand you think I'm some sort of Loesch hater, but I've actually defended her article from attacks on numerous occasions. R-E-L-A-X and try to make your arguments as concise and persuasive and possible. The vitriol and ad hominems only hurt you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Then falsely needs to be removed because that's Elfrink's own interpretation, NOT REPORTING, and Jake Tapper's confirmation on the event in question MUST be included. ViriiK (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also you're also injecting something that I didn't say by assuming that I supposedly think you hate Loesch. The problem is that you went straight to warning me with a 3RR when you KNEW it was flat out wrong and extremely contentious based on the observation of one person which WP:BLP protects me from 3RR. ViriiK (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be consistent with our community standards... As an aside, do you have a faulty caps lock key? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

OKAY JUST TO PROVE THAT MY CAPS LOCK IS FAULTY, YES, IT IS FAULTY. Now that we can skip over your snide remark, you seem to be selectively cherry picking what you want to read. Why was it "falsely" as per your own interpretation based off of another person's interpretation, not reporting who has no connection to the event in question. Elfrink disregarded Jake Tapper completely. ViriiK (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the source says it was false. That's it, end of analysis. If you or the others or the Loesches have a problem with that, you/they can write to the New Times and complain, ask that the article be corrected. I wasn't avoiding any cherry picking anything. I politely asked you to continue the content discussion at the article talk page, not here. Do you understand? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times? The article in question is the Miami New Times which it's an editorial based on the "reporter's" own observation of a video he watched. There's no reporting in it. He made his own biases known when he made the gaslighting comment. ViriiK (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Times? Huh? I said New Times. As in the Miami New Times. This was not an editorial. It was a news article. Now, if you don't stop talking content here despite multiple polite requests then I will ban you from this page. Got it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A news article you say? Are you sure? So her statement which appears to contradict the byline doesn't seem to faze you at all and that being corroborated by Tapper? It's also a big issue when he states "Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch". That's editorializing. This editorializing article came on the 23rd right after Jake Tapper's confirmation which was on the 22nd which they completely disregarded Jake Tapper, the person who wanted to ensure safety of everyone involved. Why skip over Tapper then? Right, because you can easily find articles that attacks the Loesch. Twitchy unfortunately highlights the tweets from Jake Tapper in question but we know you are not going to accept that as a source. ViriiK (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are banned from this talk page for a period of 30 days. If you violate the ban I will report you, and I assure you that the admins take these sorts of userpage bans very seriously. After the 30 days has expired the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

You have been mentioned at AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW.– Lionel^(talk) 02:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, that makes 3 totally baseless AN reports against me in 4 days. I'll count these last two as a single episode. One more like this and I'll request a boomerang for harassment. You're fortunate I haven't done that already, as I have plenty of evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Answer to accusation of "baseless AN reports" My dear Fleischman, I strive for nothing less than to foster a collegial environment. If you have found my deportment otherwise that is regrettable. You have accused me of filing "baseless AN reports." The facts of the two incidents do not support your accusation. I. Irregular conduct at AFD Sharon Statement (WP:AN) Here are the fact of the matter: On 4/10/18 you filed an AFD regarding Sharon Statement [1] Four editors cast !votes On 4/18/18 you changed the deletion rationale [2] On 4/22/18 I filed a request at WP:AN to close the AFD as Keep. Straw poll guidelines #6 states: "Once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing or options of the poll are likely to result in disagreement over whether these changes are fair or if they unfairly "move the goalposts". Because of this, every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll." When changing the deletion rationale, the supplement clearly anticipates "disagreement" and proscribes against changing the rationale. Because of your act, and based on Straw poll, filing the report at WP:AN was fully within our established polices and procedures. II. Edit warring at Dana Loesch (WP:ANI/WP:ANEW) The facts: 1. On 4/26/18 you were a combatant in an edit war at Dana Loesch with 5 other editors. Loesch is under DS. (a) 1st revert [3] (b) 2nd revert [4] 2. I filed an edit warring reprot at WP:ANEW 3. This resulted in 72 hour full protection [5] It is ludicrous to suggest that filing a report at WP:ANEW regarding a raging edit war is "baseless." The fact that the article was placed under protection with the edit sum "Edit warring" proves that the report was not "baseless." – Lionel(talk) 06:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you have better things to do than to clutter up my user talk like that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not canvassing

I let him know about the discussion because the behavior by a particular editor he was seeing at another article was occurring at the Diamond and Silk article, as well. If you notice, the wording in the notification I left on Lionelt's talk page was not about taking part in the discussion, but about being aware of it. I don't care if he comments there, just that he sees what's going on. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike or remove your assumptive and inaccurate comment there. Honestly, you should have asked me what my purpose was, first. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the definition of canvassing. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Only to someone who needs to see it that way. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the article. O3000 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Then there's no need for you to comment on this. See WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WV, thanks for the note and I believe you. However I will say that regardless of your intention, you’re experienced enough to know that your note to Lionel would likely be interpreted as canvassing. I’m not striking my comment since your note is open to interpretation, and each editor is free to make their own assessment, just as O3000 did. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Those not exercising WP:AGF will "interpret" in the negative, that's for certain. Or comment in such a way that makes it something it's not in order to further an agenda. Thanks for the response and acknowledging that I had no mal-intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tone down the battlegrounding, at least on my user talk. I am not your enemy. —Dr. Fleischman (talk)

I think you misunderstood my response. I was speaking in generalities, based on what I've observed over the years, nothing more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wink, you seem unable to engage constructively with other editors today. Please step back and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing administrators

Dr. F., you need to stop doing this [6], monitoring my talk page, and "warning" other editors about me. The dispute on Lion Guard was over months ago and (I feel) was adequately explained here. You have now canvassed DGG, two other administrators, and one completely un-involoved editor trying to keep this dispute alive. [7] [8] [9]. What you are doing constitutes harassment, is a form of wiki-hounding, and violates WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. I took your talk page off my watch-list long ago, I strongly suggest you do the same with mine. The chances of us interacting on any articles together is now close to zero, since I don't edit political articles and you don't edit military history. I suggest we go our separate ways. I have also asked you to stop editing on my talk page [10], which you technically violated here [11], although perhaps since it was administrative only it may be overlooked. Please make no further edits to my talk page and I will make no further to yours. -O.R.^Comms 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Talking about other editors in good faith isn't harassment, and it certainly wasn't canvassing because there was no dispute. Like I said, I support your unblock. Best of luck and I hope I will never have any reason to discuss our past disputes ever again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard B. Spencer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

I reverted your good faith, BOLD edits on Intellectual dark web because they appeared unwarranted. I suggest starting a talk page section about this matter if you feel otherwise. Thanks, --IDW5605 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use the Template:Better source on citations you feel are inadequate, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water by deleting everything connected to those sources. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Feel free to restore the content if you find reliable sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - I've deliberately refrained from mentioning any names in the ANI post, as I don't think any sanctions are necessary yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter

Hey, Dr. Fleischman! It's a pleasure to see that you're still doing good work on Wikipedia (that wasn't sarcastic—it really is). I have a couple of questions regarding the Blue Lives Matter revert. I perfectly agree that if there is no link between the 'Thin Blue Line' and the 'Blue Lives Matter' movement, then the flag should not be included. That being said, I do have a few further concerns. First, the file itself is closely linked in both the title (of the file) and the file description to the Blue Lives Matter movement. If the link between the flag and the 'Blue Lives Matter' movement is inaccurate, then there will need to be some alterations in that direction. Second, the talk page discusses discretionary sanctions including (but not limited to) "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." If my interpretation of this statement is correct, you and I would need to hash out the issue on the talk page of the article before you reverted my edit. I don't really feel like doing that (I am more concerned about reverting vandalism), but if that's what the directions on the card say, then that is what I am willing to do for the sake of good form. ;) Thoughts? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts? We should leave as is. There's no basis for restoring the logo, and what an editor wrote when they uploaded the file doesn't matter. And if you honestly agree with the edit and you don't like enforcing discretionary sanctions, then don't mention them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pizzagate GA nomination

I'm going to nominate the article for GA. Seeing as you've put work into the article before, I'm informing you of this.💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification

I opened a discussion section at the noticeboard here. Pinged you, but thought I'd make sure you're aware. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rt talk

Thanks for deleting some comments I added to the RT Talk page under the funding section. I must have copied them into my comment by mistake and certainly didn’t intend to make them public. Hope they didn’t cause any offence. They were some notes I had made on various pages in which I was interested. Burrobert 03:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Don't do that again, and don't take notes like that on Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You sound like my dad when I broke the bedroom window. It didn’t stop me playing cricket but I did stop playing in the backyard. Burrobert 07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Except that I'm not your dad. I can't stop you from taking those sorts of notes, but they reflect a battleground mentality don't lend themselves well to assuming good faith. I suggest you focus more on understanding our content policies and guidelines (especially WP:V and WP:RS) and less on tracking your fellow contributors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When the Philip Cross affair hit the news it made me curious about the dynamics of Wikipedia editing so I started paying attention to who was doing what to whom and how often. I hope any edits I have made (and there aren’t that many) have abided by the various protocols you mentioned. Let me know if this isn’t the case as I do admit that I am fairly new to serious editing. Burrobert 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Hey Doc!

I added a bunch of RS calling Spencer a neo-Nazi and I'm sure you can find more!

INstead of spinning for Spencer, perhaps you should try to educate him about the history of race, including the make-believe "white race" (made up a few hundred years ago, and it wasn't even widely accepted in Europe until after WWII!).

Money quote:

"The concept of a unified white race did not achieve universal acceptance in Europe when it first came into use in the 17th century, or in the centuries afterwards. The strongest proponents of racialism in 20th century Europe, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, regarded some European peoples such as Slavs as racially distinct from themselves. Prior to the modern age, no European peoples regarded themselves as "white," but rather defined their race, ancestry, or ethnicity in terms of their nationality (Greek, Roman, etc). Moreover, there is no accepted standard for determining the geographic barrier between white and non-white people. Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a "white race" as socially constructed."

You might also read about the Nazi extermination of the Poles (Polish is a real heritage! unlike white), whom they called "Untermenschen," to see why the nationalist Polish government doesn't want Spencer or other Nazis there.

-- ms steele. Steeletrap (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You lost me when you accused me of spinning for Richard Spencer. I mean seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words if I say being fat is unhealthy but can't specify an exact weight above which health risks increase then "fat" is imaginary and the concept of fatness invalid. This is your brain on Rousseau. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Get off my page, sock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If I could write, I'd write a letter to my Congressman; if he could read. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. F, the stuff about Spencer being mocked by the Hungarian Press for going there in 2014 and calling for Hungarians (who have a very distinctive and strange racial identity that appeals to the Middle East and turkey) to embrace "white identity" is from this newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9pszabads%C3%A1g. THough now defunct for compelling commercial reasons, it was certainly a respected RS when it was published. Steeletrap (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. F., if you can provide specific objections to specific claims, rather than vaguely citing "BLP," (which is meaningless when it is unspecific), I will talk this out with you before reverting. The reason that people are jumping to negative conclusions about your politics is that you aren't citing specific BLP violations, but are simply making kneejerk edits (some of which involve the removal of serious RS for claims like the neo-Nazi claim and the insertion of a daily beast opinion piece). Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Calton_2 regarding your report at WP:AE.‎ --Calton | Talk 04:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hannity ranking sections

User:DrFleischman - Taking this to side conversation ... re my seeking input re ranking of Hannity sections.

I do appreciate that you went to extra effort to move my atop text and add comment below it rather than just undo-delete the text. However, please give more emphasis to the spirit and substantive or informative discussion of the question and article content over procedural criticism. It would feel more helpful if those were giving suggestions for better procedure along with the objection.

Overall, I'll suggest concern over the contributions having little or no susbtatnive or informative discussion on the topic. With the comment later added there are 8 off-topic posts (6 after you indicated disapproval and said "I'm not going to participate"), including a hatting of a section and ~5 WP guidances where 3 seem bad and 2 seem good, so it's looking a bit much. I'm inclined to feel WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are relevant. I did consider WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT and WP:Wikilawyering, but as I felt at least some content here and elsewhere is mellower, those seemed a bit off.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but yes there were certainly multiple things going on in that discussion that weren't very productive. In my view, the discussion was doomed from the start because there were too many editors who weren't on board with the idea that we should be cutting anything at all. You skipped over the question, "Should we cut?" and jumped straight to, "What should we cut?" That led a number of editors to object to the premise of the discussion and answer with "nothing." If I were you I wouldn't have been surprised by the lack of receptivity. It was (and still is) simply too early for that discussion. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with consensus building. You have to herd the cattle to the pasture before you can reasonably expect them to eat grass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about your recent section blanking, the bottom line here is that you knew or should have known from the talk page discussion that it would not be accepted by a number of editors. So you shouldn't have done it. It's that simple. Again, consensus building. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

You suggested a change. I made the change using the wording your used, and you reverted it...I don't understand... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot I had agreed with you on that change. My mistake. I self-reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarossa139 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich

Hello,

A variety of people keep reverting my update to the Mike Cernovich page whereby I am replacing his past affiliation with alt-right to reflect his new affiliation with alt-lite. You are one of the people who has reverted my change. As far as I can tell, the only reason you have reverted my change is that other people had reverted my change. One user claimed I did not provide any sources for my change, but I had included three. Now I have six. (New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker Haaretz Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy). Please undo your revert of my edit, as the reason for my change is reasonable and well-sourced, as you have pointed out that I will be banned if I try to do this update myself again. The reason behind my update is not about any sort of political reason, but rather about improving the accuracy and recency of the contents of Wikipedia articles. Thanks. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)