User talk:DrFleischman

Fyi

[1]

Collabera Wikipedia Page

Thanks so much for your help with the Collabera page! The original was very out of date, and all over the place - I did my best to get it up to speed. It was great to have someone with more experience to help improve on what I did. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. What's your connection with LaesaMajestas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We know each other. MushuNeak (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How? I hope you aren't coordinating your edits. Also, please review our guideline on conflicts of interest.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty aggressive (and personal) line of questioning; I'm sure I'm not the only one here who knows another Wikipedian. Was there something that suggests I'm not working towards Wikipedia's best interests? I'm happy to learn from your advice, if I'm not doing something right. In the meantime, I'll ask LaesaMajestas to avoid pages that I've contributed to, and do the same on my side. MushuNeak (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that I was really struck by the similarities between your user pages in combination with the overlap between your editing interests. If you're aware of our guidelines on such matters and you stick to your promise then I won't bring it up again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated. I hadn't read through that guideline, so this has been helpful. MushuNeak (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, on to more pleasant things. If you're interested in further improving Collabera, I'd suggest refactoring the History and Recognition sections to be less chronological and listy. E.g. for the History section create a section called "Organization" (for leadership, headquarters, etc.) and another called "Acquisitions." For recognition, lump the related stuff together (e.g. both American Banker items, both KellyOCG items). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And remove items for which you can't find sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Collabera page was a disaster when I got there -- I was probably a little too ambitious to start with that as my first overhaul. Give me a few days to take your advice and see what I can do with it; formatting the recognition section will be an interesting challenge in particular -- perhaps you have an example in mind that I can model from? If not, I'll poke around and see what I can find. I definitely appreciate the help and advice. :-) MushuNeak (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in particular to model from. Most articles are written in a prose style rather than bullet point style. No problem about the evolution of the article, everything is a work in progress. Your contributions thus far are appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I made updates to the page finally - sorry to take forever to get to it. It's in a more narrative form, and I added some details to flesh out the style. I used a few articles from PR newswire, as I had trouble in some cases finding any other strong sources. Otherwise, there'd be some pretty big gaps in the company history. As it stands, I wish I'd been able to find more news about GCI, to fill in gaps between 1991 and 1997, and between 1997 and 2006. I'll try to hit this again sometime in the next couple months and see what I can find. For now, though, do you feel this is OK and an improvement? MushuNeak (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was an improvement. I cut some of the less noteworthy material that wasn't supported by independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- I checked out your changes, and I agree on most. I was reluctant to remove the part about Oak Investment Partners, as it seemed to explain all the acquisitions and company restructuring that came afterwards -- seemed to me like the injection of funds may have led to that. It was also there before I started working on the article -- do you think if I found a better source to talk about it (not sure I can) it'd be worth building back in? The guidance and help has been very appreciated either way. MushuNeak (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! I fixed a couple citations that were marked on the Collabera page, and I think they're ok. However, there's two "dead link" citations and one that says a citation is needed. For all three, I did a good-faith search for citations that would support them, but came up emptyhanded. The dead links point to Information Week articles that may exist in print form, so I could stop by my local library library maybe and see if I can find them and try to cite from there -- I'm going there in a day or so anyways. The one on "CMMI LEVEL 5" seems to be only reported by a press release from Collabera itself. Should we just remove that? Thanks so much for all your help over the past few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Same with Planet Asia - There's nothing outside of the company's stuff that claims that. It predates my work/improvements on the page. Should it go? MushuNeak (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump University as 2016 primary topic

Could you further explain why this should not be a part of the article? Because, it seems obvious to me that these events should be. If it is citations; they will be added. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Would like some further explanation on your removal of contributions, before undoing or formally contesting. Eliminating cited content as you have done seems, to me, biased. I would like other editors to weigh in on the matter. As mentioned on your page, I do suspect a bit of bias. There have been several contributors to the article with worthy credentials and the contribution was left intact. This issue, Trump University, is a fast moving one and placing factual, citable content for the wikipedia encyclopedia is valid. You seem to want to supress the record as being recorded in citable media channels over minor incidentals or deficiencies. Respectfully, I undid your undo and would hope to see some others weigh in. Wikipietime (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipietime. I do not pretend I have no bias; everyone here does. However I do try to follow all policies and guidelines, and generally when I delete content it is to enforce them. Of course, different deletions are to enforce different rules. However every deletion I've done is accompanied by an edit summary that explains in at least a bit of detail why I did it. I urge you to review those edit summaries. Please remember that just because content is factual and citable does not necessarily make it fit for inclusion in any particular article, or in Wikipedia at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipietime, I'd like to add something else. One of the basic premises of our editing policy is that everyone should make an effort to assume good faith. This means, for example, please try to avoid accusing your fellow editors of vandalism (or suppression) unless the evidence is compelling. If you look through the edit history of Trump University you'll see that I've tried to explain all of my edits in their summaries. Deletion does not equal vandalism. None of these edits have anything to do with vandalism (except deleting vandalism, of course). Please try harder to engage in friendly, substantive discussion without antagonizing the rest of the community. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Backing away and will watch to see how the article evolves. Some folks in this world are sticklers of formality and protocol; myself, I like to through stuff on the wall and see what sticks. If a person just arrived to this planet and read the article as it now is, they would be clueless of what is actually transpiring by the hour. It has one sentence on the events of the past several weeks and months. The idea that someone will go back and fill in these morbid, messy details at a later date is just not realistic. Discouraged and Respectfully--Wikipietime (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well at least being called a "stickler of formality and protocol" is better than being called a vandal. In fact, following our policies and guidelines isn't about formality and protocol; it's about abiding by the consensus views of the community. In any case, if you want a place to read about the events of the past several weeks and months, Wikipedia has generally never been a good option. You're much better off reading a magazine like Time or The Economist. I personally like the New York Times' Week in Review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia that almost nobody can successfully edit.

Yes, Joel, I am already well of things like the following article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html [partial quote follows]

Extended content

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift. Because Wikipedia is so unprecedented, I cut it a lot of slack, but precisely for that reason, it faces unanticipated dangers and no easy solution. I recently delved into the wild and wooly realm of Wikipedia editing, which helped me appreciate just how unique and byzantine its environment is. A controversial edit of a page attributed views to me I would never hold, and when I tried to correct the misinformation, several recalcitrant editors attacked me until Wales himself stepped in and saner editors prevailed and fixed the error. (To them, I am grateful.) As it turned out, I’d run into a couple of what one Wikipedia administrator terms “The Unblockables,” a class of abrasive editors who can get away with murder because theyhave enough of a fan club within Wikipedia, so any complaint made against them would be met with hostility and opprobrium. My experience was probably worse than most, but Wikipedia remains daunting to a newcomer. Unlike pretty much every other website of note, Wikipedia really is an experiment in controlled anarchy, and its strengths and weaknesses stem largely from the fact that there is no central authority with its hand on the tiller. Every editor is in theory on a par with every other one, with only about 1,400 “administrators” with the power to sanction and block editors and an overbooked Arbitration Committee for extreme cases of discord. The current governance of Wikipedia is a legalistic anarchy, in which complicated rules, frequently invoked only through arcane acronyms like BLP, AGF, NOR, and even IAR (ignore all rules), are selectively deployed by experienced editors in order to prevail in debates. I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting “boomeranged” onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare “Ignore all rules!” when faced with the same rules used against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.105.188 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This complaint is not directed at you, yet.

However, your reaction, while partially positive, was sufficiently wishy-washy so as to raise doubts.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 174.25.48.161 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you had left off the "yet" in the section heading here I would have been more charitable to you at ANI. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

COI: A bit of help

Hello DrFleischman.

In my editing I avoid topics related to my work - which is my only source of income, so I also don't have to worry about paid editing. However, after seeing your comment on COI I realized that I might still be in some amount of trouble. The thing is that for about 20 years I have operated a non-commerical web-service for hobby genealogists (such as myself), and about a dozen years ago I gave a phone interview to a journalist who subsequently wrote a small piece in the NYT about my service and volunteerism in genealogy in general. So in 2007, not long after having created my Wikipedia account, I added my own genealogy service to List of genealogy databases. That article is subject to quite a bit of link-spam, so in 2009 an editor removed it and (many) other non-notable entries. Some time after I readded it, this time citing the NYT source. It is still there (as one of few entries with a WP:RS). However, after having actually read WP:COI, I think my edits can be seen as COI, as a kind of self-promotion although not financial in nature. So I wanted to ask, is there a place (apart from right here), where I can properly declare this COI? It is my understanding that even if my contribution is deemed COI it will not have to be removed per se, just that it should probably be reviewed by someone else, who would then decide on whether to keep or remove (or rewrite) it. At one point, another editor did make a change to the entry regarding my service, but nevertheless I think it would be best if the entry was reviewed with the knowledge that I originally created it. If you can provide some guidance on this, I would be grateful. Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, most of us acted like newbies in one way or another before we became familiar with how things work here. Since your contribution to that page was already reviewed by other editors I personally don't think additional action is warranted; however if you want to be truly conscientious you could post a note at Talk:List of genealogy databases. If you want to go even further than that you could post a disclosure at User:Lklundin, but that strikes me as overkill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for your advice. After a bit of thinking, I added an entry to the Talk page. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC note

The RfC automation process will copy the RfC text up to the first signature to the RfC listing page, in this case Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:RFC specifies that you state the concise, neutral proposal or question, followed by your signature; that is what will be copied. Following that first signature, you can provide more detail or background about the proposal, followed by another signature.

As it stands now, everything up to and including your !vote will be listed. That's not only far from concise, but it is not neutral.

I'd suggest you add your signature following your initial "Subject" line. If it's too late and it has already been listed, I believe changing it on the VPP page will eventually cause the bot to update the listing page; that's what message says when you edit the listing page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't start that RFC, I merely commented on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand because the proposer failed to sign until much later. Sigh. Apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on tagging essay

Just FYI, I made these 2 changes after you !voted. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)