User talk:DrFleischman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Nstrauss)
Jump to: navigation, search



Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the compliment!

About your recent comment [2], did you mean to include a link to a CJR article in your reply? Sagecandor (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Was this the right place to report these things? Is there another better location to report this kind of behavior? Sagecandor (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you sent me the wrong link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was just asking for your advice. I'm confused and not sure how or where to report this sort of thing? Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, From the link you sent me I can't tell what you're trying to report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I got some advice, and started individual discussions at the article talk pages. Talk:Great_Depression#Primary_source_added_to_this_article_-_Joseph_Stalin and Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union#Three_major_parts_of_history_being_removed_from_this_page. Less confusing now? Sagecandor (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the way to go. Generally speaking, if you have a content dispute you start at the article talk page. If you have a conduct dispute you start at the offending user's talk page, unless it's something super-egregious like a legal threat. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you, though it is most frustrating to deal with what is likely high levels incoming [3] and [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed a personal attack[edit]

Hi DrFleischman, just to let you know I removed a personal attack directed towards you, "credulous and biased idiot".

Didn't seem like the most helpful way to have a civil tone on that talk page.

Not sure what step to take next with that. Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please self-revert. That comment was a bit nasty but it was meant in good faith and had some real arguments in it. I also think it's bad policy to remove personal attacks in general when they don't amount to harassment. Better to keep the offending remarks visible as they hurt the writer's credibility. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
He already reverted to add it back. I won't remove it a 2nd time. But I can't self-revert after he added it back, can I ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No, but that's fine. You might want to apologize, but that's your call. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I still think it doesn't really encourage civility among other editors, in response, to use that phrase like that the way he did. But yeah I won't revert it back or anything like that. I like your idea of hoping other people see the offending remarks and draw their own conclusions from there. Sagecandor (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The more you edit on Wikipedia the more you'll learn that effective dispute resolution is much less about convincing entrenched opponents and more about convincing open-minded newcomers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Added per your recommendation[edit]

[5] Added. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And a bit more at [6]. My fear is that there are those that may try to push the article itself away from the "narrow" definition, as defined in The New York Times. What do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Those look fine for now. I suggest seeking feedback on the article talk page re this "definition" section. I think it's critical to gather a consensus whenever there are scope issues on contentious articles. Otherwise every content dispute bleeds into the broader dispute about scope and nothing gets resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I support the "narrow definition" since as a practical matter anything broader is simply unworkable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay I started a new talk page section, per your suggestion [7]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not feeling great[edit]

It is getting exhausting for me at Fake news website. I think I may need to step away for a while. I fear that in a short period of time the whole page will get chopped up and merged into "yellow journalism", which is being used as a pejorative and epithet rather than small piece of contextual history, on the talk page. If you want to look over the page, that would be appreciated, and good luck. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Take a break and refresh, then hopefully you'll come back if you're up for it. If what you fear comes true, then the will of the community has spoken and that's how it should be. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I fear it may not be the will of the community but the will of those user accounts that have actually tried to suggest the entire article be done away with or merged into "yellow journalism", or just deleted. Example by blocked user at [8]. Compare [9] with [10]. Now compare that with comments by recent user accounts arriving at the page. I'm not an admin, I'm not the one that blocked the user that did this [11]. These are just the facts of what has occurred recently. Sagecandor (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think there are enough reasonable folks with their eyes on that page to make sure that doesn't happen. If a few aggressive POV pushers try to get the page deleted then it will end up in an RfC or an AfD that will draw from a large pool of editors who have no particular interest in fake news websites, Trump, or Russia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope you're right. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Raging response to your edit at 2016 United States election interference by Russia[edit]


You can't escape the hate that comes with editing a political article. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes you can. All you have to do is turn off your e-mail and logout. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah?! Well... But... That's no fair!!! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but[edit]

Writing here, because this is a general matter of editing, although the example is the current article we are both interested in improving. Sorry, but a biography of a person in business always contains a list of their positions, both elevations within the same company. and migrations to new opportunities, along with dates and accomplishments. Your not wanting this in the article is curious, and your declaring description of his positions "excessive and non-noteworthy" are at odds with the standards of professional biography. But they are understandable if the whole of the early article is intro/background for the one section on his current political attention. Is this how you are seeing the article?

This is not my perspective. Page is an individual that is in the news, and so we write an encyclopedic biography of him. We will only know, when the story is over, what is relevant to what, but, there is no question of the note-worthiness of his work in Russia and New York (his appointments as VP and COO, because they counterbalance the Politio attempt to make him appear as a buffoon, and his responsibilities, because they inform what he might and might not understand about business and foreign policy that are the fodder of the current news).

So in short, I disagree that we need to gut his work experience from the Career section, for him or for any business person or government figure. Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There are often tough questions requiring editorial discretion as to what the appropriate level of detail is. Generally, for this sort of stuff I try to be consistent with the level of detail that's seen in other biographies. I wasn't trying to remove any of Page's work experience. I was just trying to remove the comments made by his co-workers and associates that only appear to have made the cut in the Politico article because the author had a agenda, i.e. to try to get to the bottom of the foreign policy expertise of a mysterious and confounding individual. This is not our agenda; our agenda is to summarize reliable facts at an encyclopedic level. I felt that the stuff I deleted wasn't encyclopedic. In any case, I appreciate your perspective, though it probably belongs on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Changing ones mind in the face of evidence is a rare thing here on WP and should be appreciated and suitably lauded when it occurs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sad but true. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus (editwarring)[edit]

Your response is eagerly awaited. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

January 2017[edit]

A ridiculous cat

Information icon Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. White separatism EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Breitbart News[edit]

Hi DrFleischman. Please note that Breitbart News is under several restrictions imposed via discretionary sanctions. In particular, the following restriction is in place, which you can find on the talk page.

  • 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.

Your edit here violated this restriction. I invite you to revert your own edit and discuss this on the talk page if you would like to reinstate that tag. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 08:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this is an appropriate application of DS, but if you wish to pursue this further I will seek clarification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
See here. I think this is rather clearly a "prohibition on the ... removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)", which is explicitly allowed under the discretionary sanctions. Further, discretionary sanctions were placed by Ks0stm, who is currently a sitting arbitrator, so I would expect him to know what's within the bounds of DS. You're welcome to seek clarification at WP:ARCA, but in the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would revert yourself. I'd rather not have this turn into an edit war where another editor comes along and reverts you claiming you violated the restriction, then someone reverts them claiming your revert was valid, blah blah blah. That gets ugly fast on a page like this, and it generally ends in blocks for all involved. ~ Rob13Talk 08:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you consider yourself involved in this matter? Because I'm having a hard time understanding why you haven't given a corresponding warning to VM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I have no problem with Ks0stm's imposition of the DS, I have a problem with the use of the "consensus required" prong against the reinstatement of a tag placed in good faith, the purpose of which is to flag a lack of consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to sleep. I would appreciate you not taking further action at this time. I have no interest in editing against consensus or otherwise disrupting the project. Look at my revert and my comment on the talk page and you will see I am only trying to edit constructively and build consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any involvement with Breitbart, but due to my own political beliefs, I choose not to act in the American politics topic area. I haven't given a corresponding warning to VM because he reverted for the first time, and so he did not break this page restriction; he didn't revert something that was already reverted. If he had, I would have warned him. In fact, I believe I've contacted an admin willing to act in the topic area about his behavior in the past, so I'm hardly biased toward him. I understand you're acting in good-faith, but nevertheless, you've violated the page restriction. The Breitbart article has gotten well out-of-hand in the past, which is why I watch it and ensure the restrictions are abided by. ~ Rob13Talk 09:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't just say that I was acting in good faith. I said that I was trying to build consensus. Do you disagree with that statement? In fact, I daresay I had already obtained talk page consensus for my revert. Agree or disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that you're trying to build consensus, but I don't think reverting before doing so is helpful to building consensus. You definitely have not obtained talk page consensus; in fact, more editors disagree with you than agree. Two editors vs. one is never a consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you still considering blocking me? If so, I'd like to broaden this discussion to a wider group first because I don't think a consensus of admins would support that decision. If I'm mistaken then I'd self-revert and refrain from restoring tags in DS articles in the future. Do you have a preference as to what forum we use? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator I would like to offer the following comments and a request - given that the sanction is rather clear on the matter I would like to ask that you self-revert and post a separate section on the article's talk page asking comments about re-adding the tag. I understand this may seem like hoop-jumping for the sake of bureaucracy but these sanctions are put in place to aid in the smooth editing of articles, and if you believe consensus already exists for the tag's addition then I'm sure a couple of editors will make this clear and the tag will be re-added - if you're mistaken and the consensus shows the tag should not be readded then a meaningful discussion can take place and all opinions on the matter can be taken into consideration. I don't want to see anyone blocked over a good-faith tag addition, so your cooperation here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time -- Samtar talk · contribs 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I note that your addition was reverted - I'll have a look at why this took place -- Samtar talk · contribs 09:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Samtar, your last comment aside, I think your proposal (self-revert and discuss the tag) doesn't take into account the very real possibility that it would lead to no consensus either way. In that case, restoration the tag would be in violation of BU Rob13's overly strict interpretation of the "no consensus" rule. And yet, one of the very purposes of the tag is to flag an area where consensus is may be missing and to bring more editors to the talk page discussion, as a form of lite dispute resolution. Regardless of how you feel about tagging, that concept is built into the language of the tag itself, which links to Template:POV#When to remove. Insisting that the tags be removed in circumstances like this effectively inhibits talk page discussion, encourages knee-jerk removal of tags placed in good faith and with appropriate talk page discussion, and thereby runs counter to the very purpose of DS in the first place. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't believe a block of DrFleischman is appropriate. Their edits were (obviously, IMHO) done in good faith. In fact, I see little need for admin attention (unless they want to participate in the discussion, of course) in this thread. With one exception, everyone there has demonstrated themselves to be well capable of disagreeing civilly and working towards a consensus, and that one exception (who shall go unnamed for now, but is not the good Dr. here) has done nothing untoward in this thread, or in the last few threads I've observed their involvement in. There was a bit of a tiff over the hat, but that seems to have died down by now, and there's an ongoing discussion at the talk page.
Dr. Fleischman, regarding the following statement: one of the very purposes of the tag is to flag an area where consensus is may be missing and to bring more editors
I believe the 'knee-jerk removal' and subsequent discussion (here, on the article talk and on my talk) serves as ample evidence that the tag has already served that purpose. There remains little point to leaving it up at this juncture. Nonetheless, as I said in article talk: If we cannot arrive at a consensus quickly, I will support the re-addition of the tag. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


I'd like to have a second opinion about recent controversies on the article LifeZette. Notice how he didn't address ANY of the problems raised and completely ignored the concerns. This seems to be part of an ongoing coordinated effort by some specific WP editors to discredit and smear any media source that leans slightly conservative at all. Thanks. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to decline. I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing, but you should familiarize yourself with our prohibition of canvassing before leaving these sorts of notes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) If there are only two editors involved in the discussion, it might be worth a third opinion. If more, then either an RfC or a neutrally worded notice on an appropriate WikiProject. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Right. Another way to recruit editors to a dispute is to promote it to folks who have participated in that article in the past, or to post notices on relevant WikiProject pages. But it's critical that when you do so, you present the dispute as neutrally as possible, not how you did it here. Don't take this as a criticism, as I'm sure you didn't know. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Section "Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention". Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American_Legislative_Exchange_Council.23Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22_discussion".The discussion is about the topic American Legislative Exchange Council. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Calexit (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
thank you for your edits on wikipedia especially the one on the alt-right Jonnymoon96 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm confused - why are you thanking me and giving me barnstars for reverting you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WARNING: Continued Edits and Reverts in Violation of BLP Policy May Result in Blocking of Your Account[edit]

Dr. Fleischman: you have reinserted potentially libelous material on the Wikipedia entry for Ben Swann, which is a biography of a living person and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. You must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V), and no original research (NOR).

While you did correct the name of the TV network you originally referred to as Russia Today to RT, and you did add three inline citations to reliable, published sources to support your claim that RT is a "Russian propaganda outlet," you are still editing in violation of NPOV and contrary to Wikipedia consensus on the main articles for RT and RT America, therefore your edit calling RT a "Russian propaganda outlet" is still in violation of BLP policy. As a reminder, users who persistently or egregiously violate BLP policy may be blocked from editing. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material, which in this case is you.

If you believe that the current Wikipedia consensus that RT and RT America are not Russian propaganda outlets is wrong, you should join the discussion on the talk page for RT and the talk page RT America. As a reminder, you should not edit those articles to insert your claim that those media are "Russian propaganda outlets" without first establishing a new consensus on those respective talk pages. Regardless, the article on Ben Swann and its talk page are not the appropriate venues for such a discussion. As a further reminder, I would encourage you to revisit Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thanks, --Jacobwsl (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

There was no BLP violation. The material in question was not about a living person, it was about a company. Moreover I am not aware of any consensus anywhere on Wikipedia that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet. If you are, then please provide a link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Stating that someone worked for a propaganda outlet is a BLP violation when it is poorly-sourced. Violating our due and undue weight policy constitutes poor sourcing of information. In my above notice, I provided links to the talk pages of both RT and RT America, where the consensus is that RT and RT America have been called propaganda outlets by critics, not that they are propaganda outlets outright. This is an important distinction and one that you should familiarize yourself with. --Martin Friedrichsen 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I'm not following. Which discussions at Talk:RT (TV network) and Talk:RT America do you believe demonstrate a consensus that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Essentially the entire discussion on Talk:RT (TV network) revolves around allegations that RT is a propaganda outlet. Relevant comparisons are made to reliable sources referring to the BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post as "propaganda outlets." Of course, RT, the BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post all are news media which should in most instances be treated as reliable sources (although reliability must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as each of these organizations has been known to engage in the surreptitious post-fact alteration and correction of stories, the firing of journalists who refuse to abide by a particular editorial stance, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, use of questionable sources for stories, etc.). RT is an independent, non-profit, publicly-funded TV network; much like the BBC in the U.K. and PBS in the U.S. Your particular opinion about RT is informed by your exposure to and consumption of Western (most likely Anglo-American) media, which contributes to the broader problem of Western/Anglo-American systemic bias on Wikipedia, an issue that we are actively confronting. --Martin Friedrichsen 07:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martin Friedrichsen a.k.a. Jacobwsl: Thank you for sharing your views on RT as a propaganda outlet. You can continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia by not inconveniencing other contributors while doing so. As for your English skills, feeling sorry about something does not constitute an apology. But nice try. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lklundin: this comment is irrelevant to the discussion. Please stick to useful contributions to Wikipedia. I am not sure what your insinuation is regarding my "English skills" and frankly I do not care as it is immaterial. Dr. Fleischman said "Sorry if this sounds dumb" which under literally any definition is an apology. It is here that I would make a petulant remark about your English skills, but I refuse to take the bait. In fact I am embarrassed to even be addressing your comment at all: my tongue-in-cheek "acceptance" of DrFleischman's apology was intended to point out that even the most cursory look at RT (TV network) and Talk:RT (TV network) would reveal the consensus on the issue. I do, however, applaud you for your recognition on your user page of Aaron Swartz. I will continue contributing positively to Wikipedia, and I will continue answering users' questions asked to me in good faith when I post concerns and warnings on their talk pages in good faith. --Martin Friedrichsen 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning: edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Swann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Performing more than 3 reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period is edit warring.
  2. Performing a fourth revert just outside of a 24-hour period is edit warring.
  3. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  4. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Martin Friedrichsen 07:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Fake news (disambiguation).

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Now that you've stopped edit warring, I've reinstated the entries you removed without consensus, and have seen that the primary topic was already correctly set by User:Wbm1058 only to be removed by you, then edit warred when I came to fixing it again. I also reinstated Wbm1058's entry. I'm well aware that if the scope of fake news broadens to include those examples then they should be removed as examples of the broadconcept. Until then, please gain consensus for contended edits to that dab, and familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB before repeating such disruption. Widefox; talk 01:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what edit are you referring to? Or are you just harassing me? It strikes me that you're using accusations of disruption to "win" a content dispute, which is itself disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • [12]: The history, for instance:
    • [13] Wbm1058 fixed primary topic
    • [14] "demote "fake news", this is one editor's views and has been discussed and rejected by consensus" - that appears at first look to be a misleading edit summary. Can you point to the consensus?
    • [15] dabs never have citations (or citation needed templates)
    • [16] arguably worse description, but edit summary isn't as the article is worded now (maybe it was then?)
    • [17] "Faux News," a derogatory term sometimes used in reference to Fox News, an American basic cable and satellite news television channel" - not only an invalid entry per WP:DABMENTION, but as it's not in the article, such negative unsourced opinions have no place here
    • [18] removing arguably valid entries (without consensus)
    • [19] ditto
    • [20] "blanks section - not appropriate for dab page" they are perfectly acceptable for a dab in the see also per WP:MOSDAB
    • [21] "undid 2 good faith revs by Widefox - innocent perpetuation of a WP:POVFORK - we do not have consensus that that is the meaning of fake news" this is incorrect - at this point the consensus of 2 other editors agree it should be styled as such and the edit summary misleads the consensus is the opposite. At this point, your contended edit was against consensus and you should have reached consensus on the talk as all other editors of the page agree
    • [22] repeating against consensus

As per the rest of us agreeing Talk:Fake_news_(disambiguation), it appears that you're conflating quality issues of the primary topic article with disambiguation, possibly bringing some consensus from the articles to here which was against consensus here. It would help if you struck bad faith accusations of content "win" when you're editing against the consensus and should have realised at the time. I only after editing saw in the history that the primary topic had already been fixed. I hope this clarifies, and appreciate your desire to keep readers from a POVfork, but that's addressable in the articles not at the dab. Widefox; talk 19:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I thought we were having a good faith discussion of what would be best for the dab page, and all you can focus on his how disruptive my arguments were. Totally out of bounds how dare you I will have you blocked!!! This strikes me as nothing more than vindictive harassment. If you don't drop the stick right now then I'll take you to ANI. Don't even get me started on your canvassing. Have a nice day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
All those accusations are without diffs and should be struck as baseless and unfounded in policy/guideline, a prerequisite to good faith discussions. As we go by consensus, at the dab and above where several editors have warned you about recent edit warring, this appears to be WP:LISTEN, but not urgent for ANI unless you wish to put yourself in the spotlight per WP:BOOMERANG. I'll honor your wish and leave this now. Widefox; talk 11:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand what's going on. Don't worry, I'm not interested in reporting you, at least for the time being. But I did ask you to drop the stick and you continue to harass me in the most unpleasant of ways. So you are banned from my user talk for a period of 30 days. Once the 30 days have elapsed the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I also find it quite entertaining that in referring to editors who have recently warned me about edit warring, you have thrown your lot in with a an editor who was just blocked for trying to win a content dispute by using sockpuppetry. How apt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
thank you for editing the Alt-right reddit piece i have done and your edits have the made the article better Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

List of fake new websites - oops[edit]

With my revert, I actually meant only to revert this edit and not any of the others. I've (partially) self reverted now. Stickee (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)