User talk:DrFleischman

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

Fyi[edit]

[1]

Stoking the fires of battle.[edit]

Yes, I agree. It was getting under my skin and I let it. What really gets me annoyed is continually defining the obvious. Things like; "The Chicago Tribune, a US newspaper based in Chicago." or "appeared on Frontline (U.S. TV series), a documentary series airing on PBS the US public television network." It turns what should just be a ref or link into a verbose sentence. The whole reason to wikilink is to take care of those sorts of things. I shouldn't let it bother me, eventually everything gets improved. Ah, well. Thanks for the note. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you. To be honest, and weirdly enough, I find him to be more tolerable when edit warring than when "discussing" in the talk namespace. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Me too. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that the editor was blocked for socking. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
?? Who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry there were two editors doing that. One was Spearmind. He's been blocked for two weeks. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, the disruption is getting out of hand at the AFP article. Please know that if you take this to the boards I'd support you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bamidele A. Ojo & David Rosen[edit]

I noticed that you have raised several issues with two of my instructors in my undergraduate days. What is the actual problem with the sources used, They are all verifiable on the internet and the information provided for these scholars are consistent with other scholars (similar articles). Any suggestions please ? since you seem to revisit these issues often without offering any help to make the articles better. Your suggestion and help will be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)~

By the way what is your particular problem with David M Rosen articles please? Do help or make suggestions too. All the sources are valid too05:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)05:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del2003 (talkcontribs)

I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm sorry, I need more information in order to understand them. Which specific edits and/or sources are you referring to? Please provide links. If you need help linking to specific edits, see Help:Diff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Q at RSN[edit]

Re: this. I somehow had the impression that you were active in the med. area and therefore directed the question to you by name. Mea culpa; should have done better due diligence. Hope it didn't come across as a personalized challenge. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It didn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Franklin Center question[edit]

Dr. Fleischman: Trying to correct misstatements on the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity entry -- an entry that seems to have been written entirely by activists associated with one anti-Franklin Center organization. (Full disclosure: I work at the Franklin Center.) How does one go about pointing out so many errors that their corruption would rewrite the entry? Will Swaim (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"corruption" = "correction," though any real doctor would understand the Freudian slip. Will Swaim (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

handled. Will Swaim (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Will. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for disclosing your affiliation. My suggestion is to review WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI, and WP:NPV if you haven't already. Re-writing the entire Franklin Center article is perfectly appropriate, articles get re-written all the time -- but it's not something that should be attempted by an employee such as yourself. That said, your input is appreciated. Please put your feedback at Talk:Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity so that it can be considered by the community. The more specific you can be the better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: This is terribly embarrassing, but the truth is that I confused for Wikipedia an activist page designed to look just like Wikipedia. I was wrong. Sorry to waste your time. Thanks for the generous response. Here's the activist page: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Franklin_Center_for_Government_and_Public_Integrity.

Will Swaim (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I was wondering what you meant by "handled." Sourcewatch is a useful research tool but I agree it's not particularly reliable as it tends to reflect the progressive blogosphere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Justice - Links, etc.[edit]

Hey! Question for you - the recent edit, "IJ opposes many kinds of business licensing" is certainly true, and may not need a reference given the context and the other references in this section. But if it does, should we be using editorials for this purpose? In the editorial used as a reference for this, the phrase "opposes many kinds of business licensing" is from the author. For an organization like this one, it's inevitable that a lot of coverage is going to be editorial, but I think that we should avoid using opinion pieces as references for statements that could be taken as a matter of opinion. If an editorial quoted someone as saying something, then I think it would be a fine reference for that statement. But beyond that, how far should we go? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Upshot is neither editorial nor opinion. It's analysis. I think most of its content is reliable and can be cited without attribution. It's fact-checked by David Leonhardt and heavily cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider "analysis" to be closer to opinion that to real news. What worries me here is that this reference only confirms that this is a statement made by the author. The author in this case, Josh Barro, is a sometimes MSNBC host and a former employee of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. So anyone with a political ax to grind anywhere on the political spectrum has something to hate, and can seize on this as a reason to impugn the article. But again, it is certainly true, so maybe I'm splitting hairs here. Thanks James Cage (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Barro's background impugns the reliability of the source in the slightest. So he hosts a show at an often liberal but generally reliable news station, and he used to work at a conservative think tank. So what - see WP:BIASED. Anyway, I was surprised to see that the Upshot hasn't appeared at WP:RSN yet. If I were a betting man I'd wager that it will come up sometime soon, and that there will be rough consensus that it can be usually be used as a reliable source with caution, depending on the specifics of the case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that Barro's opinion is the source. Your opinion about Barrow is certainly valid, but others could reasonably disagree. I agree that caution is warranted. James Cage (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not Barro's opinion. It's Barro's factual statement, reviewed by Leonhardt. This is not in the Opinion section where contributors can write pretty much whatever they want. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

DrFleischman put See Also and King v Burrwell A NON-Constitutional challenge then all of the following should be part of the page and more. Why are you trying to limit user information. Who is paying you???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.164.113 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here and starting a new dialog. No one's paying me. I'm merely trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Among them is the requirement that you avoid edit warring and try to obtain consensus through discussion before attempting to ram your preferred version through. There has been a discussion at Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since September 9, 2014 on this subject and instead of weighing in, you edit warred (and continue to edit war), which has already led to one of your IP addresses being blocked and the page being protected for months. When are you going to stop raging and start collaborating? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't let this crap get you down - you can't talk sense to a troll. Hang in there - James Cage (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he's a troll. Just a true believer with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't get how Wikipedia works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Then for his or her benefit: Almost every Wikipedia editor gets frustrated and spouts off. I'm sorry to say that I've done it myself. But accusing another Wikipedian of being a paid editor is especially insulting. When the accused is very clearly an honest volunteer (as is the case here), the accuser's credibility drops to zero. As your has. For all I know, you may have a legitimate case to make. (I stopped reading after 'Who is paying you?') If so, make your case on the facts, and take some time to learn about Wikipedia. James Cage (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg

Mentioned you on another complaint against me[edit]

Hi, Dr. Fleischman. Sorry for taking your time. But I had to mention you on a recurring charge against me in the admin noticeboard. I think the charges are untrue and unfair. I'd be glad to have your input as well here. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TPIA[edit]

Hi, Dr. Fleischman. Please take a glance at the Talk:Take Pride in America page when you have a chance. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Meitiv family for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meitiv family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

comment about ani[edit]

about your comment here. Good to hear the feedback that it was too ax-grindy sounding. That was helpful. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that constructively. Mainly it was way too long. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
i can respond to the length thing, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
ok. there is a long answer that deals with bigger stuff, and a short answer. the short answer, is that it was primarily a long-term POV pushing case, and in my view if that is what you bring, you have to really prove it. it would be too easy to cherry-pick a few diffs and make a claim.. and that would not be fair. i had my doubts about bringing it to ANI at that length, but that is length it needed to be- ethically. i was not at all surprised it was closed with no action and expected it. (not what i hoped for, but i expected it) and i had to go to ANI first anyway... you cannot jump right to Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A number of responses come to mind but I'll boil them down to two:
  • If you really had to include that much info, which I'm not so sure about, you could have made extensive use of {{collapse}}, which would have made your complaint much more approachable. For example, you could have listed all of the conduct policies and guidelines you believed Doors22 violated and then had a collapsed summary of diffs for each one.
  • If POV pushing was the thrust of your complaint, then I think RFC/U is the more appropriate forum than ANI/Arbcom. Obviously there are a lot of (non-admin) editors who agreed with you, so I'd think your chances of prevailing at RFC/U would be quite high. It's not too late to go that route.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh... er... never mind about RFC/U. I didn't realize it was shut down. A shame. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
right. that is a nice suggestion about collapse, btw. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Jusdafax has replied to you on his Talk page, and i'll note, Jusdafax, that if you have anything you'd like to say to me, my talk page is open to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Justice Litigation Section[edit]

Hey Doc,

This has dragged on for a while. Why don't we resolve this? Do you have a preferred method to get more involvement in the question? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)