User talk:DrFleischman

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



Collabera Wikipedia Page[edit]

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 The original was very out of date, and all over the place - I did my best to get it up to speed.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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

The Encyclopedia that almost nobody can successfully edit.[edit]

Yes, Joel, I am already well of things like the following article: [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 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This complaint is not directed at you, yet.[edit]

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

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
@Mandruss: Sorry for the confusion, my signature was always there (original), but the header seemed too busy, so I moved my Proposer comment to the head of the comment section later. I was informed of my mistake and corrected the problem. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on tagging essay[edit]

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

Health effects of eating breakfast[edit]

Thanks for the message. Your text is below and I'd be happy to discuss here as you wish. --Zefr (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your improvements to Breakfast#Effect on health! Are you done, at least for now? When you are, if you don't mind I have some questions for you about both the science (since by now you've dug into this more deeply than I have) as well as how we write about medical subjects, which is something I've done very little of so far.

"I can't win an argument on the merits so I'll run and go request page protection to prevent importamt, unsealed testimony from being added to theencylopedia"[edit]


-You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want others to play ball, then you have to play ball too. You can start by cutting out the edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Einstein, here's a SECONDARY source . Do not tell me rudely to "write a blog" when I am quoting froma secondary source, mmkay? Thanks. Again, note that this is a secondary source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that, but I'm not engaging on the merits while you edit war against consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

'I'm not engaging in the merits" = 'I am not arguing in good faith." We're finished here. That's exactly what I thought.

Your loss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are an intellectually dishonest fraud. Enjoy your editing, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, I'm worse than Trump! Gotta love that guy! Did you read that article about how he treats women, or the one about the Hong Kong investors? What a bunch of garbage. I guarantee you it's all a massive smear campaign. And I'm proud to be on the front lines, fighting back. Make America great again! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you basically admit below that you were wrong, and "we're getting awfully close" to that material belonging in the lead (as if the dozens of sources I gave you didnt already show that) , why not just put it where it belongs- in the lead, and not mentioned as a casual aside that the jusge has unsealed testimony by Trump's employees that the business was a "total lie" and essentially fraudulent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My boss never admits that he was wrong, so neither do I. Hey... were you one of those protesters I had tossed from the April 6 campaign rally on Long Island? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
since we've already learned that reading is not your forte, I'll help you out: "at some point the damaging revelations may become sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lead. We're getting close, in my view."-- fleishman admits the view he has been vehemently opposing all evening on procedural grounds is ultimately correct and will come soon enough, whether he likes it or not

Cheers!2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. No more edits on this page, of any sort. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for requesting the semi-protection. I think that will allow us to develop and defend a proper article. --MelanieN (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW I moved your sentence about the ex-employees' testimony to the paragraph about the document release - and I added the "playbooks" which have gotten at least as much reporting as the ex-employee's testimony. --MelanieN (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I like your changes. Though at some point the damaging revelations may become sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lead. We're getting close, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's possible. Let's see how the story develops over the next few days. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help updating TechSoup Global page[edit]

Hello DrFleischman, I am updating the TechSoup Global entry to address the issues raised in the banner that has been on the page for more than a year. I am seeking input from more experienced editors to ensure that I’m abiding by Wikipedia standards, in particular on COI when editing. You took an interest in the page about a year and a half ago when a different person was making updates, so I’d like to invite your input as to whether my current updates have been in line with community standards and any areas where I can continue to improve. I have spent time reading Wikipedia contributor guidelines and looking at other pages to see models of neutral contributions from other editors. I would welcome your feedback and any suggestions before I continue.Bajeckabean (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Becky. I'll respond on your user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, I added some better citations to the TechSoup Global page. I am searching for reliable sources for the NetSquared section. I would appreciate your review of the citations and thank you for continuing to improve the page. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input[edit]

Thanks for your input on my talk page re: the links to Climate change denial. I've replied there. User_talk:Frappyjohn#Climate_change_skepticism --Frappyjohn (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Trump University had "classes"?[edit]

A class requires more than one student sharing a common instructor and some coordinated activity for all. It also must have a physical location to meet, or a Web platform serving that purpose. Tutoring or isolated lectures are not classes. deisenbe (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Take your pick from any number of reliable sources:
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Greater Washington Society of Association Executives proposed deletion[edit]

Concerning the proposed deletion, I would be favor of doing that and just listing the section in the American Society of Association Executives. Chris (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Connected contributor at Talk:Russ Baker[edit]

I notice you added a "connected contributor" template to the talk page and I was wondering what the basis for that was. Just by coincidence I've been involved in discussions at COI/N over the proper time that can be added when there is no declaration of COI, which I don't see here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the discussions at COI/N please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the discussion, which as you can see hasn't gone very far. As for Bn, while a connection would not surprise me I'm not seeing an direct evidence thereof or an admission. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
A {{COI}} tag on an article page is a lot more extreme of a step than an {{connected contributor}} tag on an article talk page. Regardless, I've been frequently struck by Bn's knowledge of unverifiable details of Baker's life. Bn's last comment at Talk:Russ Baker pushed it over the top in my view. He claims to know that Baker received an award from the Northern California chapter of the SPJ while acknowledging that he hasn't been able to find this information online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is more extreme but the connected contributor tag is more specific. As for your point, perhaps Bn can elaborate so I'll ping him.
@Bn: can you please address here or on the article talk page whether the connected contributor tag is justified? I believe you've edited after it was placed on the talk page so I assume you are cognizant of it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr. F, if you are quite certain that there is an undisclosed COI, then this needs to be pursued. I've invited Bn to address whether indeed he is a connected contributor, but if he is then the template you placed is not the sole way of addressing such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bn denied having a connection to WhoWhatWhy back in October 2014, and said he had contacted Russ Baker directly. However I'm having trouble taking that position seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. It's an interesting coincidence that this is the second potential undisclosed COI situation I've encountered in the space of a week. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of the tag. No, it is not warranted. I have met Russ Baker several times when he was here giving talks, and I am able to contact him directly by email. I admire investigative journalism in general, and Russ's work as an example of it, but I do not work for him, for WhoWhatWhy, or for The Real News Project, nor do I receive any substantive or intangible benefit of any kind from them or from Russ, other than as a consumer (reader). I'm a linguist whose main concern these days is in helping the Pit River Indians get their (Achumawi) language back, work that I began in 1970. (You can look up my 1998 dissertation at Penn.) I currently have NSF/NEH funding to complete my linguistic database and train tribe members. You can probably find a list of current grants on the website for the Documenting Endangered Languages program. Some other academic interests are in Zellig Harris's theory of language and information and in a certain broad theory of behavior. No COI. Is there something else that I need to do to restore an assumption of good faith? Bn (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating having a close connection with the subject, as defined in broad terms by WP:COI, with being a paid editor. You do appear to have a close connection but no one has said that you are paid. My concern was not COI but POV and the slanting of this article over a prolonged period of time. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My concerns regarding this account's editing extends to Family of Secrets. Sorry, but I do not believe that this editor's summation of reviews that are offline or partially offline, such as the Time review, can be accepted in good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It turns out that was just a one paragraph "skimmer" review. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You'd be better advised to stick to NPOV, which applies to individual edits and improves the article, whereas COI and Stonewall target an editor and stifle discussion. Bn (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of NPOV, I just took a look at the original version of Family of Secrets, which you wrote and which was unambiguous promotion.[2]. The review section alone, with its obfuscation of the fact that the book received simply terrible reviews, pushes the assumption of good faith to the breaking point and beyond. Remember that AGF is not some kind of unconditional suicide pact. COI notwithstanding, you have utilized your account for purposes of promotion. COI is not taken very seriously in the project but promotional editing is viewed very dimly. I'd strongly urge you to desist. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump[edit]

The page is protected, and the edit you recently reverted has been inputted again, can you revert this back please? (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, but I did start a discussion on the talk page. See WP:BRD --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In reply to your comment...[edit]

  • I got your message here, where you said:

Information icon Greetings. Some of your recent edits do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • While I am not perfect, all of my comments - with the exception of a derogatory comment about another unregistered editor - were polite. And even that comment was clearly humourous, and I was respectful after I cracked that bad joke about him/her being an unregistered editor.
  • Yes, I do think you were in error - thank you for being willing to listen to me.
  • Did you "copy and paste" this message, as knee-jerk reaction, or rather did you actually write it? Also, even if you "copied and pasted" a template, that's OK, but did you actually have a gripe? If so, please tell me what I said (comments in "talk") or did (edit and/or edit comments) that was objectionable. Thank you. (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I responded on your talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean an insult, but I was heavy-handed, and here, at this 'diff', I apologised. On my honour, I did not intent to insult you or others. (PS: I have a dynamic IP address, so it is different today than previous days.) Thank you for your feedback and advice. (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)