User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 2

Parallel Construction
Hi again, I have rewritten the sections I hope I didn't insert any speculation. I try to focus on the facts which is easily ignored / missed by people who don't read the full article and jump to conclusions. &mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Barrett Brown WP:ABOUTSELF
Can you explain why you added that notice to the top of the article? What's wrong with that citation or source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theta00 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to respond but I'm traveling for a few days. I'll put something on the article talk page later this week. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts
Hey Dr. Fleischman, been a while. I hope things are going well in your neck of Wikipedia—or at least not as full of craziness as the good old days were. As I respect your contributions to PPACA and your work as an editor in general, I was wondering if you might have some time to look at another U.S. legislation article, Voting Rights Act of 1965. I requested a peer review of the article at Peer review/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1, and I would be greatly appreciative if you could make suggestions there on how the article (or any small part of it) could be improved. No pressure though; I know your busy with your own projects (and that thing called "real life"), so I understand if you haven't time. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you! I will, though not right away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NP. Oh, and my wiki-life is much crazier than it was in my PPACA days, if you can imagine that. I guess that's what I get for working on subjects that are fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fun. I did see your recent creation of Panetta Review; I imagine conspiracy theorists could have a field day with that. Should you ever need a break from it all, PPACA is always there ;) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many pings constitute hounding
Please resist the urge to ping Petrarchan47 multiple times when discussing issues which are clearly being watched by her. A flurry of such pings can be considered WP:HOUNDING. Here are your pings from the past seven days:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

All of these are on two article talk pages that Petra is closely involved with. The pings are unnecessary needlings which do not help calm the heated discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No hounding here. I'm simply trying to get her attention so she can respond to comments that are directed her way. I'd do the same thing to anyone. P.S. Please stop editing my talk page comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you think she needs her attention directed to the talk pages of these two articles? She's obviously already there. Save your pings for when you mention her on some page that you know she is not watching closely. Needling an editor is hounding. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Her attention is needed because she often doesn't respond to my comments. I need to make sure she is actually reading them. Again, there is no intent to needle. If she feels needled (I have no idea if she does), that's unfortunate but I won't refrain from discussion simply because of someone's sensitivities. And I challenge you to back up your assertion about hounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824 you can see a discussion wherein excessive notifications were perceived as harassment. That case of five "thank" notifications in one day was clearly more disruptive than five ping notifications in one week. Nevertheless, your pings are not needed. If Petra does not reply to you on a talk page she frequents, you should accept that she does not want to reply. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice in that ANI thread: "His response is now to simply keep "thanking" me for edits for which there is no rational basis for his "thanks" whatsoever..." (emphasis mine) and ES&L's comment: "There's no salient human who thinks it's appropriate to randomly thank someone 5 times in one day" Here, on the other hand, it's quite rational to alert one's fellow editor to discussions in which that editor's responses are requested, and I didn't do it 5 times in one day. And there was no allusion to hounding. Between you and me the only one of us who has broken any rules is you (WP:TPO). Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that your "alerts" have been aimed at someone who is already alert. That's all. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But how do you know she's already alert? How are you so sure if I, say, start a new discussion thread at Talk:Edward Snowden that she'll actually read it? (Isn't that the point of the ping feature?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding. Every argument I've seen from you on Wikipedia has been brighter than this. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Compliment accepted, but in this case I suppose I'm not feeling particularly bright. I really just want to increase the likelihood that Petrarchan reads comments directed toward her. No more, no less. I don't think it's correct to assume she reads everything that shows up on the pages she edits. I certainly don't. Besides, if what you're saying is so obvious, then why did you feel the need to tell me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To prevent you from getting into trouble for harassment. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're back to that again. You think my pings are harassment, I don't, let's leave it at that. As Mr. Carson says in Downton Abbey, good day to you sir. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bink, your comments come across as hostile, so I don't think you are messaging here for Fleishchman's benefit despite what you have said. If someone is excessively highlighting someone else, that person can ask them to desist. Where no such request exists and we assume good faith, it can not constitute harassment, Second Quantization (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment from Petrarchan ("There were many comments I never saw because of [Binksternet].") demonstrates why I have to ping her when I'm seeking her response to something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A little reading comprehension brings the reader to conclude that Petrarchan47 was relieved that negative talk page comments were being removed by me. She is saying she did not want to hear from you or Bdell555 in those instances. If you choose to ping someone who does not want to hear from you, on an article talk page that the person is obviously paying attention to, then you choose to be an annoyance. Why you would choose to be an annoyance is beyond me, but it certainly will not help you gain consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, more long emotional pieces I see. Snowden is not a topic area I particularly care about, but I see the same problematic behaviour is recurring in terms of rhetoric etc. A pity. I don't know the dynamic in that topic area, so I can not offer much advice beyond suggesting a RFCU or formal arbitration. Second Quantization (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, I would appreciate if you would quite following discussions about me. Much more important things await you, I am sure. Thanks and best,   petrarchan47  t  c   21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you stopped the problematic behaviour I observe and have documented. I'd really be much obliged, but I don't see that occurring. Second Quantization (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

a case study in RS
You've been making an issue out of what you believe to be my stubbornness to follow what RS say. It was after Petrarchan declared "LA Times puts it pretty succinctly. Are editors OK with telling the story as it appears in RS?" that you jumped in to agree with her. She quoted from a LAT story by one Sergei L. Loiko.

My question here, Doc, is why are you giving me a hard time here when @Petrarchan47 selectively ignores the fact that the exact same newspaper in a story by the exact same author, Sergei L. Loiko, says? "The United States cancelled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23" (note that there is no attribution here; the LA Times uses its own voice) to delete RS indicating that Snowden's passport was cancelled prior to Snowden leaving Hong Kong ? Are you going to instruct Petrachan to respect the sources here, including the source saying "ABC News later reported Snowden’s U.S. passport was revoked Saturday, one day before his Hong Kong departure" and the (NYT) source saying "...U.S. officials who have been seeking Snowden’s extradition and had annulled his passport a day before he left Hong Kong...")?

I suggest looking through all the spin going on here. The Guardian notes that "American authorities announced they had revoked his passport before he had got on the flight from Hong Kong" and then titles the story in which that appears "Whistleblower Snowden escapes arrest in Hong Kong thanks to US errors". How is it that the U.S. is at fault here for the "escape" to Russia if "American authorities" revoked his passport before Snowden left? The State Department officially goes on record the next day to call the allegations against it BS yet you still stick to the notion that the U.S. "stranded" Snowden in the airport, do you?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens or reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "the headlines of Russian news agencies were rather misleading" isn't my words, Doc. They are in a RS.  And all of those "dozens and dozens" all rely on said Russian news agencies or interviews with Kucherena.  There has been zero, nil, zip investigative research independent of the Kremlin that has verified the claim. When you're pretending there aren't SUPERIOR sources calling that account into question, I have to start asking myself, you think the problems with the account are going to go away by ignoring those sources that cannot be reconciled with the account?  I just asked you, here, how you would resolve the direct conflict I presented to you here, and you continue to pretend there aren't any conflicts.  How does one promote a theory of one's own when what one is doing is pointing to all the doubt about a theory?  You see the Talk:Edward_Snowden discussion where it is noted how the NYT conflicts with Interfax when Interfax tries to spin the account you prefer?  JohnValeron agrees with me and Petrarchan demands "to know where BDell555 is, and why John Valeron appears to be speaking for him."  THAT is a conspiracy theory.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some editor here says "not reliable" and then goes on to say "the BBC citation... is just reporting what the Xinhua citation says. It is not an independent source." Apparently this doctrine is outrageous in your books because you should NEVER try to look through a BBC report like that, no? Another editor says "If a reporter saw it with his own eyes, then it can be used and this is a good source for facts (but to be reliable, it has to come from a reliable media, and probably has to name the reporter). Ideally two independent witnesses are needed. If a reporter is just repeating a press release/statement, then this is pure hearsay..." Yet more error here, no? OR maybe the editing community is acting more prudently than you presume.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not broken
Believe it or not, I think we can edit together peacefully. I hold no grudge against you. I know at one point you were beginning a collection of diffs for a potential RfC about me. The guidelines state that unless you are planning to use the list of wrongdoings within a few days, it must be removed (from your sandbox and Wikipedia). If you haven't already, Please do that, and let us drop the stick. Best,   petrarchan47  t  c   07:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-read this. That said, as a sign of good faith I've removed this material from my sandbox, as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you've obviously backtracked on this quite a bit. Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment, most especially your conniving with Geogene about your "common interest". Please use the coat rack of my wrongdoings being collected in your sandbox asap or remove it per WP:UP. It is not possible for me to work with you and pretend to believe you act on good faith while you are doing these things, so there is no reason for you to continue to weigh in at Snowden about my edits because you obviously have a bias against me (to say the least).   petrarchan47  t  c   21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm preparing an WP:RFC/U to address our ongoing issues. It's taking some time because I've been having connectivity problems lately. This is not harassment; it's a good faith attempt to resolve our problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been two weeks. What's up?  petrarchan47  t  c   23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I see you're back. Please stop ignoring this breach of policy and immediately use or delete the aforementioned list of my diffs.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, while you're here...
Read: ''Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.'' WP:POLEMIC

You can feel however you feel about me, but you don't have the right nor a valid excuse to ignore policy. You can't complain that no one alerted you to the current ANI when in fact, I have left you messages here that you have ignored. I assumed you had become unreachable. You seem to be ignoring this policy, making it difficult to AGF right now, given that you are completely aware of it and my repeated requests here.

Continuing to host this list could be considered harassment.  petrarchan47  t  c   09:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing
I noticed it's been a month since you've edited, and I wanted to express that I hope you'll return to the project soon; your talents are missed. That said, I understand if you wish to move on to other endeavors, and either way I wish you well. Age quod agis. Illegitimi non carborundum. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman/sandbox
Aloha. I noticed that your user subpage at User:DrFleischman/sandbox may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Otherwise, you may add Db-userreq to the top of the sandbox page and an administrator will delete it, or you can edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:DrFleischman/sandbox
User:DrFleischman/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DrFleischman/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:DrFleischman/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Spy, etc
Raised this at User talk:CorporateM who has an interest in this sort of thing. See his user page. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi. Do you have any personal connection to the Massachusetts school system, by any chance? Also, as to providing cites, please see wp:BURDEN. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer to remain anonymous so I generally avoid answering questions about my off-wiki life. I don't have a COI w/r/t Americans for Peace and Tolerance, if that's your question. Regarding WP:BURDEN, understood, but the sentence was already supported by the reference cited for the previous two sentences. As a general matter, when I see unsourced material my preferred approach is to use cn tags unless something is obviously unverifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I read WP:CITEKILL more closely, I see that it doesn't apply since that material hadn't been cited. Sorry for the miscommunication. I could have sworn I've seen something saying that it's not necessary to cite every single sentence... Maybe somewhere in WP:CITATION... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for my query is your name was close to the name of someone in the article, the addition of which we were discussing. As to wp:burden, it's an editor choice whether to use a tag or not per editor discretion, but not to re-add challenged uncited material without the proper ref. WP:CITEKILL in any event is just an essay.  And given that sentence get moved around and inserted in between others, it's common sense to ref it -- and especially not to ref it because a ref used in a Prior sentence is what you have in mind.  Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No connection. Fleischman isn't my real name. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a coincidence, then. Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ALEC sources
Hello Doc: Rather than add my clutter to the article talk page, I'll comment here. I think you are mixing the concept of Primary/Secondary sources with how sources are cited and/or identified. Take a look at WP:RS. Note it talks about sources as being three concepts: "the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work." The "piece of work" is the Moyers show; the "creator of the work" is Farley – he said the words, Moyers did not create the words; the "publisher of the work" is Public Affairs Television. So the Moyers show & PAT remain as secondary sources, but because Farley said the words, his words about ALEC are a primary source. Those words don't change in terms of primaryness even if Moyers published them. In any event, I do appreciate the support in getting the piece removed, pared down. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The creator of the work was Moyers, not Farley. Moyers arranged the interview, set up the shot, asked the questions, and made the editorial decision to include that Farley footage in his piece. If Moyers interviewed Farley the old fashioned way and then typed Farley's words into a newspaper story it would be the same thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Take a look at WP:LINKSINACHAIN. Moyers is a secondary source, but he's using primary source material. Moyers may have asked the questions, but he did not give the answers. And it is the answer that someone wants to put into the article. When we extract that primary source material and put it into articles, it remains primary – and it remains subject to WP editing primary source guidance. In the newspaper analysis, the editing might say "According to Moyers, Farley said 'ALEC is lobbying in Arizona and I want to ...'." The Moyers newspaper article might be an acceptable and noteworthy secondary source, but it is built with primary material. We must use caution when using that primary material. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree 100% with LINKSINACHAIN. Regardless, writing something like "According to Moyers, Farley said..." is double attribution, and I can't think of any scenario when that would be necessary (let alone encyclopedic). What you're talking about is a total overhaul of every article in Wikipedia quotes individuals. Unless I'm missing something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the next section: the love-letters in the museum example. Farley's words are the love-letters and Moyer's story is the museum. (An overhaul of WP is hardly necessary, because for the most part the quotes we read from individuals are used carefully. In the ALEC article we have a non-noteworthy quote added for the sake of bad-mouthing ALEC.)  – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Farley didn't write a love letter. He said some stuff during an interview with a professional journalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then he recited a love letter. It went like this: "How do I love ALEC? Let me count the ways. I love ALEC to the depth and breadth and height My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight...." The stuff he says and the stuff he writes is Primary. This is so because he is a legislator, perhaps lobbied by ALEC, who was promoting his bill that involved ALEC. There is nothing wrong with it being Primary, we just have to be circumspect when using it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a primary source from a secondary one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Barrett Brown
I have partially undone some of your edit to Barrett Brown. Please see WP:IC and semicolon. WP:IC clearly indicates the consensus is that "Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." (Emphasis in original.) The article on semicolons is quite clear that "While terminal marks (i.e., full stops, exclamation marks, and question marks) mark the end of a sentence, the comma, semicolon and colon are normally sentence internal, making them secondary boundary marks. The semicolon falls between terminal marks and the comma; its strength is equal to that of the colon." In other words, a colon does not mark the end of a sentence, and any citations given after the a period after a semicolon are valid for information given before the semicolon. Hence, the citations to VICE and The Dallas Morning News are applicable. Those sources are clearly not WP:PRIMARY. Therefore I have partially reverted your edit. Int21h (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This really belongs at Talk:Barrett Brown. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision for Heritage Action article
Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a revised draft I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. I wanted to ask you if you might be interested in reviewing what I've prepared since you worked on the page quite a bit late last year. My work on this article has been undertaken on behalf of Heritage Action so please do take my conflict of interest into account when reviewing what I've written.

I would appreciate feedback I can use to improve my draft if you have concerns. Ultimately I am looking for an editor who will replace the current version of the article with what I have prepared. I do not want to make any edits to the article because of my COI.

I've left a detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action explaining the differences between my draft and the current version. The message also links to the draft in my userspace. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for disclosing. My WP time has been very limited lately. I'll think about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. I completely understand if you're busy elsewhere. Please let me know if you know of any other editors who might be willing to offer assistance. Morzabeth (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding
It appears to me as if you are WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. It is making me uncomfortable that you appear to be "following me around" and making edits on pages just after I've made edits on those same pages. For example, you've recently made these ten edits, , , , , , , , , on pages just after I've made an edit, and you haven't made prior edits to any of those articles. Is there a reason you are doing this? I'm embarked on a massive re-categorization project for Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States, and it's not clear to me why you are following me around. Schematica (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but if you review WP:WIKIHOUNDING you'll see that it only applies to efforts to confront the "target" editor or inhibit their work. I'm not trying to get in the way of your re-categorization project at all; in fact, I applaud it. We're both trying to improve these articles in different ways. I see no reason for either of us to stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucy Burns Institute article and AFD
Hi DrFleischman. I am having some trouble seeing some of your edits at Lucy Burns Institute and in the associated AFD, as helpful. I see you and perhaps others have made a lot of edits removing material and sources from the Lucy Burns Institute article, including while this AFD is running. I see mention at the article's Talk page of removal of Guidestar as a source in one diff, and I notice this diff removing other sources. The extent of this seems unproductive during an AFD. Yes, I understand that "self-published" sources and sources from related entities are not independent, and, yes I understand that the organization might perhaps report fraudulently to Guidestar and to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, however much I doubt that. Dismiss all these sources in discussion at AFD, as regards whether they contribute to establishing notability or not. However, use of self-published and associated sources is allowed, is helpful in articles. We can use PRIMARY sources, with care, and it is especially appropriate to use the organization's own materials expressing their goals, to say what the organization expresses as their goals. And factual matters like whether or not they opened a webpage covering school district elections or not, can probably be determined by seeing the webpage itself. It is okay to use a "self-published" source as source that they did that, when it is not disputed and can probably easily be verified. It is not necessary and it hurts the article to remove good sources on the organization's aims, accomplishments, etc., as long as those are not seriously in doubt.

Also, if you are contesting a source, I believe it would be much more courteous to question it at the article talk page, with or without removing it from the article, and if you remove it from the article it would definitely be more courteous to copy it to the Talk page for discussion. Brief edit summaries do not suffice, and I disagree with judgment reflected in some of the edit summaries, too. For example I disagree with edit, and the edit summary, of this diff which introduced misstatement in fact. I believe i should probably comment on this as a problem within the AFD, as it necessary for any closer to know that there has been active contention in the article itself, and the current article does not reflect the full availability of material and sources to develop the topic. However i'll watch for a reply here first, for a bit.

Also, isn't it in general a good idea to refrain from removing sources and material from an article during an AFD? I think there is a guideline along those lines, or maybe it is just essay-level advice? It's okay to have differences of opinion about the notability of the organization, but we should agree on the fact that the process of the AFD itself should not be undermined, i hope. -- do ncr  am  20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. You've packed a lot of issues in so I apologize if I don't catch all of them. Here are some points to consider:
 * Regarding ABOUTSELF sources, I never suggested that we can't use them. Most of these sources were removed by Schematica, and I even told that editor they may have gone overboard with the deletions. That said, we must still comply with WP:ABOUTSELF, which means, among other things, that such sources can't be used in self-serving ways (such as to promote the subject). My deletions of ABOUTSELF sources were only for uses that I deemed to be self-serving. Also, as you sugggest, none of these sources should have any bearing on a notability-based AFD because notability is based on coverage in independent sources.
 * Regarding other sources I deleted, I only deleted ones that I believed were unreliable, and I did my best to identify the basis for my belief. You or anyone else is free to revert me as part of the normal WP:BRD cycle.
 * There's no guideline saying that broadly accepted editing practices such as BRD are suspended whenever there's an active AFD. Morever, I didn't even start the AFD, Schematica did. Schematica has been searching for and adding sources that he believes bolster the subject's notability. This is appropriate behavior during an AFD, and it's also equally appropriate behavior to remove sources that violate policies or guidelines so that other participants in the AFD aren't misled when they review the sources.
 * Regarding your request to contest all sources on the talk page first, the best I can do is refer you to BRD. BRD is supported for a reason, it allows the community to get stuff done without every uncontested issue getting bogged down in lengthy discussion. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to talk about building an encyclopedia.
 * Regarding LBI's 990, I saw you said something in an edit summary about me creating a misstatement but I couldn't figure out what you were referring to. What was/is the misstatement?
 * Feel free to interlineate your responses as you deem appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't ever removed any self-published sources at Lucy Burns Institute. If you take a look at the edit history, you can see I've only added sources, both self-published and secondary:, . DrFleischman has removed sources, both self-published and secondary. , , , . I've never been told that I'm going "overboard" by removing self-published sources, probably because as you can clearly see in the edit history for the article, I've never removed any. Schematica (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, my mistake. In any case I only removed sources that I thought were unreliable or that didn't appear to support the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation at Lucy Burns Intstitute
I have real and deep concerns at the recent additions at LBI talk. The assertion that there is a "husband and wife team" is echoed nowhere in the refs provided. It strikes me as paternalistic at the least. Further it is a BLP violation to take this sort of original research and assemble it via synthesis into these assertions. The talk pages are just as subject to BLP guidelines as article pages. Please consider removing this addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This material is highly relevant to the subject matter and well sourced. What you're calling "synth" is standard on talk pages. Without this sort of analysis the community would be unable to have informed discussions about these sorts of matters. If you want to pursue this then take it up at BLPN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
DrFleischman are you an employee of NBC OR the United States Government? Your edits/cuts seem to seem to push their view.173.67.158.36 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I will answer your question if you start participating in the discussion at Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The edits are right from the Federal Government Court Website!!!Who appointed you content GOD!!173.67.158.36 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. Please read Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and post a response, and then I will reply there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your speedy deletions
DrF, you mentioned you don't have a log of the pages you have recently nominated for speedy deletion. Many of them are probably in this list. Any files that were declined for speedy should still be in your contributions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

18:16, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (db-spam) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (advert, citecheck, and refimprove tags) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Tax Analysts (db-spam) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Tax Analysts (third-party tag) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . The Phoenix Project (Virginia) (db-multi) 00:10, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . The Phoenix Project (Virginia) (→‎Funding: dead link) 00:10, 16 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . The Phoenix Project (Virginia) (advert tag) 22:41, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (db-spam) 22:41, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (advert, notability, and primary tags) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Ryan Zehl (db-spam) 17:04, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Ryan Zehl (advert, undue, and notability tags. Undue tag is for overemphasis of clients' cases in which Zehl is barely even mentioned.) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Ryan Zehl (→‎Philanthropy: rm source that doesn't support content) 16:58, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Ryan Zehl (→‎Legal background: rm content supported only by unreliable source) 16:50, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley (db-spam) 16:49, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley (advert and one source tags) 16:46, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Scheiner Law Group (db-spam) 16:46, 15 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Scheiner Law Group (advert and third-party tags) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Alliance for Women in Media (db-multi (NOTE: COPYVIO FROM MULTIPLE URLs)) 18:44, 12 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Alliance for Women in Media (advert and no sources tags) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Alliance for Women in Media (→‎Foundation: dead link) 17:40, 12 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Scott Jackson (Leader in Growing Global Philanthropy) (db-multi) 17:37, 12 September 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Scott Jackson (Leader in Growing Global Philanthropy) (advert and no sources tags) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . The Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation (PenFed Foundation) (db-multiple, advert, and no sources tags) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Military Benefit Association (db-spam, advert, notability, third-party tags) 19:08, 20 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . m International BioGENEius Challenge 19:06, 20 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . International BioGENEius Challenge (db-spam, advert, notability, and third-party tags) 19:01, 20 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Amizade (db-spam, advert, notability, and third-party tags) 09:04, 20 August 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . Ashoka: Innovators for the Public (various tags) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (diff | deletion log | view). . MarketSmith (db-spam, advert, and refimprove tags)

EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks!!!! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading and external links
DrFleischman, about this revert: Further_reading states that "However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation."

It's an opinion piece written by Brown itself and readers may be interested in Brown's opinion on prison life. It may be treated like any other Op-Ed (cited for the opinion but not for the facts) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. There are two related problems here. First, an opinion article written by the subject of the article can hardly be described as "like any other Op-Ed." This source falls squarely into WP:ABOUTSELF, unlike independent op-eds. Second and more importantly, nothing in WP:FURTHER exempts "Further reading" sections from the general requirement that articles be written in a neutral tone. A source written by the subject of the article about his personal experiences, with the words "FREE BARRETT BROWN" written in bold red letters across the top is nothing akin to neutral, and including it in our article not only creates an appearance of bias but also might be construed as promotion of a specific political view. Not to mention that this source is merely one of 12 covering Brown's detention, which itself is only one of many parts of his biography, so inclusion of this source arguably puts undue emphasis on this aspect of his life. Hope this helps. P.S. I'm transcluding this over to the article talk page. Please respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS good to see you around, as I appreciated your many contributions to the Snowden article back when I was working on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia yourself! I fully explained why my comment to Sammy1339 was 100% justified and how I myself was simply requesting a good faith basis for asking for links which were readily available. Your aggressive admonishment was completely out of line IMO. GaiaHugger (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Global Impact
While not unambiguous advertising, I did, however, nominate it for deletion as non-notable. The discussion can be found here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I recently discovered a morass of spammy content, which can be found here. I've only scratched the surface of it. I'm so drowning in spam that I feel like I'm in that Monty Python skit, and it can be hard to tease apart what's ambiguous spam from what's unambiguous spam. If my batting average is anywhere close to 50% then I figure I'm doing all right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure why you keep marking the pages I have created. Global Impact's page has been around for years and IS NOT violating anything and neither is the Scott Jackson page that you nominated for speedy deletion. I dont understand why YOU KEEP going through these pages like this after I made the changes you marked previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charities (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm merely following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You would benefit from reading and understanding them. Please do not remove AFD and cleanup tags without first resolving them. If you feel that Global Impact should not be deleted then I urge you to read our notability guideline for organizations and then participate at WP:Articles for deletion/Global Impact. (Also, remember to sign your comments with four tildes.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks
It's a personal attack to accuse me of harassment without providing any substantiation of the alleged harassment. Either provide some evidence or retract your accusations. Schematica (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Are you sure you want to pursue this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I want to "pursue this." You're going around accusing me of harassment without any evidence. I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does either. Why don't you provide some diffs? Schematica (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have evidence but I'm not going to share it on-wiki. If you have a problem with this I suppose you could could take it to WP:ANI. Don't forget to notify me if you do. But you might want to consider WP:BOOMERANG first. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Scheiner Law Group
I restored the entire history, as you requested on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I'm curious, what had happened? ---Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After you made two minor edits, the article was deleted, and then re-created by two other people. The old history was thereby automatically erased from viewing, upon its deletion.  As an admin, I can restore one or more versions, or the entire history, by clicking on certain buttons.  Honestly, I didn't think all the minor edit changes were needed, so I only restored one or two edits.  However, since you asked for it, I gave it all back.  I restored the entire article history of all "diffs". You, too, can get fancy buttons as a sysop, but "be careful what you ask for." Bearian (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've heard that a lot recently. Thanks for the explanation. Who re-created it? (I want to make sure the appropriate people are notified of the AfD.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin access to deleted page histories
Did you see DGG's comment at the end of this section? Requests for adminship/DrFleischman would completely solve the issue of you being unable to view the deleted content, and DGG wants to create that page. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , sorry, which comment? I've been having an extended discussion on various pages about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy). Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, yes, I saw that. A couple of other admins have said the same thing, but I don't want to be put through the ringer in an effort that would probably fail. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely supportive of you going for adminship. You'd be an excellent admin. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Best Selling Author listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New York Times Best Selling Author. Since you had some involvement with the New York Times Best Selling Author redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm nevertheless baffled by your RFD and have added my view accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris Hayes quote
I think its interesting. Here's the problem I see. Hayes has made a mistake. There are indeed "dark money" groups spending money in campaigns all over the country. Citizens United has played a role in that. But that's really not ALEC. They aren't spending diddly in campaigns anywhere that I can find (or apparently ALECwatch, or Mother Jones, or the Nation). Aside from Hayes' quote (opinion) there is no evidence that ALEC does that kind of thing. That's not their niche. They put together conservative legislators to share legislative and policy ideas across state lines, or to put a sinister spin on it act as "a corporate dating service" for lonely lobbyists.

So under the policies of Wikipedia it is perfectly OK to have that quote in the article (RS ref for an opinion), but the result is we are misinforming the general reader who will think that ALEC is out dropping money into campaigns when they are not, and apparently never have. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why I find the quote interesting. It is entirely reasonable under policy to leave it in, but it's not correct. FWIW. Anyway, sorry to clutter your talk page with thoughts, I'm sick in bed and probably feverish. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be feverish but you're thinking clearly. I agree, ALEC's activities really have nothing to do (directly) with campaign finance. I'll remove the clause about dark money. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My user page
I fixed the links to my user page. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving the Thomas Jefferson Center page
Hi. I've been tasked with updating and improving the Thomas Jefferson Center's page, on which you recently made several edits. I am admittedly inexperienced when it comes to editing pages, but your recent edits raised a couple of questions that I wanted to get your thoughts on before I dove in. First, you have called for a citation as to the Center's nonpartisan status. Why is this necessary, when a citation is not required for our nonprofit status or our stated mission? Second, can you please explain your removal of the Jefferson Muzzles content to a new page? I understand the need for secondary source coverage of the Muzzles, and can provide that information. I do not, however, understand why inclusion of a (properly cited) Muzzle section is inappropriate on the Center's main page. It was my intention to create a new section describing three of the Center's major projects, including the Muzzle Awards. The creation of this new page has left me very confused as to how I should proceed. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Tjc clay (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Clay, and thanks for writing. I'd be happy to answer your questions but we need to clear up a couple of threshold issues first:
 * From your username and the comment above it appears you have a close affiliation with the TJC. Are you familiar with our guideline on conflicts of interest and suggested best practices? I urge you to read it, particularly the section on paid advocacy. In essence, you should openly declare your COI, avoid editing the TJC article directly, and confine your contributions to TJC's talk page.
 * I generally prefer to avoid having lengthy discussions about article content on my user talk page. It's better to discuss articles on the corresponding article talk pages so anyone interested in the article can contribute. I'm therefore going to cross-post your inquiry and answer there.
 * Cheers, --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Russ Baker
I agree in general with your tagging of this article. However my sense is that it probably would squeak by the notability guidelines given that he had one major book widely reviewed. I may be wrong, but that's my sense. However, the article itself is a disaster area. You may also want to take a look at the offshoot article Family of Secrets. That would be three Wikipedia articles on a totally obscure person, his life and works. Really ghastly. If you look at the LA Times review of Family of Secrets, WP:FRINGE is plainly applicable so I wonder if an AfD actually may be warranted for that book, and also if there is need for a substantial toning down of the text devoted to that in the Baker article. My participation in the project is sporadic nowadays but I will help as much as I can. Coretheapple (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts and the heads-up about those reviews---yikes, and I thought this guy was a respectable journalist! I don't think Family of Secrets should be deleted on fringe grounds, as it's a real, widely-reviewed book, not a fringe theory. But in light of these sources I think Russ Baker should be merged into that article. (And cut way down, to perhaps a sentence or two.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually was mulling proposing that the book and WhoWhatWhy be merged into Baker. The verdict on the latter was "no consensus," and even if it was "keep" that would not bar it from being merged. I'm not clear the book makes the cut. I just know of the L.A. Times review in terms of notable reviews. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also the Washington Post review, and there may be more, I haven't looked. I could see both the book and WhoWhatWhy being merged into Baker, despite the fact that I haven't found any secondary sources on Baker himself. If we aggregate the book review sources and the WhoWhatWhy Project Censored source then at least we have an article with 3 reliable secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Atlas/ATLAS network
Fleishman, I'm confused about your nomination at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21. Atlas Network is not actually a redirect, so I'm unclear what you are trying to do here. Please clarify. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a redirect when I proposed the deletion. I was told the proper way to address the issue to request a technical move, so I did, and the latter request was granted. Problem solved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite lead.
You say here that the claim (that it is done only be the GOP) is cited elsewhere in the article, but the claim is not even claimed elsewhere in the article. It it was there in the past it is not anymore-- so the claim in the lead looks like random vandalism.

If there is a RS somewhere in the article to back-up this claim, then it does no good when it is nowhere paired-up with the claim that needs the citation. tahc chat 03:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On further review, you're right. I've added a cn tag and will look through the sources when I have a bit more time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarity
I'm reverting you because you edited Gandydancer's comments in a way that misrepresented him. He never commented on whether or not the information should appear in U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, only that it shouldn't appear in Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. Do not edit other people's comments. Dragons flight (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you for correcting me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wallace Hall
I think the article is slowly improving. One thought; the legislative influence over university admissions is the heart of the controversy. Absent that, it is clear that the legislators would not have come down on Hall so savagely. Rather than removing the section entirely I believe it would be better to find additional material and refs. With your agreement I will attempt to find proper material. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could see a very limited amount of material about the broader controversy being re-included in the article, but only with very careful sourcing and phrasing that explains the connection to Hall. We have to be careful not to include content that is there only because it implies that Hall has been vindicated. That would be non-neutral synth, unless the sources actually say that Hall was vindicated. I'll take a look at whatever you come up with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any articles about vindication. There is a longform article in Texas Monthly about all this that I haven't finished yet. TM is a little lefty for my taste (it reminds me of a western version of Washington Monthly) but it really dives deep. I am finding this interesting though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the story sounds intriguing from afar but I haven't had the bandwidth to dig into it. Do you have a link to the TM article handy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * * Is This the Most Dangerous Man in Texas? Here it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the WP:ORG link. – S. Rich (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Source failing verification at Accuracy in Media
I attemped to verify a source that was cited in the article Accuracy in Media ("Follow-Up: Interview With Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid", The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, February 8, 2005.) and found that it was not on the linked-to website. I could not find the material anywhere else. Failing verification for that reason, I removed the source. You have restored the citation without addressing that issue or explaining how a WP editor can verify the citation. Please provide on the talk page of the article a method by which editors can verify the claim.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't failed verification, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Failed verification is when you've actually reviewed the source (not just the link) and have concluded that it doesn't support the content. See the artlcle talk page, as Gamaliel and I both posted suggestions on how to resolve the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality of Editing
The best and the most important process for validating editing is to find out who the editors are. Are they realy qualify to edit or are they on a vendetta. Who is drfleischman, what qualifies you to be an authority. If the idea is to make wikipedia better, those involved must be verifiable as well. I noticed you have even been all over the place, editing and questioning the validity of qualifications, Cvs etc. What qualifies you to reach such a conclusion. Honesty should be the best policy. Provide access to a verifiable webpage yourself please14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.201.170 (talk)

I do agree with this too17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.15.211 (talk)
 * Hello, and welcome. I suggest you familiarize yourselves on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines before making these sorts of assertions. You can start by reading about our five pillars. Wikipedia is anonymous; there is no requirement that editors reveal their identities. I'm guessing you have concerns about some of my edits at Bamidele A Ojo? Could you please identify the edits you're concerned about, so that I may address your concerns? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you, Doc, ignore this rubbish. You have demonstrated nearly countless times that you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. There is an educational aspect to this sort of thing, though -- I am training not only the newbie in the ways of WP but also myself in the ways of dispute resolution (aka zen). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that spirit, I left "tilde notices" on their respective Talk pages... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bill Moyers
I enjoyed your recent comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page. Do you know how he feels about Bill Moyers? You should ask him. Just hold on while go make some popcorn... :) Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, thanks for the warning. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, just between you and me, why is an American treasure like Moyers forced to operate out of his website (not that there's anything wrong with that), while the talking heads spend their time expounding on the size of celebrity derrières, snowmageddons, the terrorists sleeping under your bed, and the latest sweater accessories for your dog? You ever get the feeling something isn't right with the media? Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Supply and demand perhaps? My impression is that not many of us actually want to be informed these days. We'd rather be titillated, or have our existing beliefs confirmed. But don't forget that network news has been pretty vacuous for a long, long time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be an alien. I want to my have my beliefs challenged every day, or I don't feel alive. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're definitely un-American not human then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello!
I just noticed that Sophie Hunter has notable relatives and this should be reflected in her infobox. All sources are in the family family section of the page. If you may be so kind to copy-paste this to the page, I would be very grateful and it would be a big improvement to her page. Thank you in advance! 93.82.123.109 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * family       = Michael Gow

(maternal grandfather)

J. E. B. Seely

(maternal great-grandfather)

Timothy Carlton

(father-in-law)

Wanda Ventham

(mother-in-law)


 * I'm sorry, I'm not adding anything to any article that cannot be verified with reliable sources. Not to mention that you haven't explained how this would be such a big improvement to the page, nor why you won't/can't add this material yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * hi Dr fleischman, another user has entered the info after receiving the same request as you and i, reason that the user couldnt do it themselves is that the Sophie Hunter article is semi protected. curious as to why the person asked me as i am a member of child lit project and ozzie project not any of sophie's projects; i think it is time for a cup of tea

 Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

while we ponder this Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)this:)
 * Indeed! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bamidele A. Ojo & David Rosen
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs)


 * 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
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
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.
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
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???

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation The  information below tries to describe the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.

On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge [Y]The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General Mike DeWine on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the “Transitional Reinsurance Program” of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary “contributions” from State and local governments.

On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed by the office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. In April the AG office of Patrick Morrisey filed a motion for a ruling on Summary Judgment.

On January 6,2014(1:14-cv-00009-WCG/14-2723), United States District Court Eastern District Of Wisconsin, Constitutional Challenge [N] Senator Ron Johnson & Brooke Ericson v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. challenged that the government violates Section 1312(d)(3)(D), which was passed so Members of Congress and their staffs would be subject to the ACA in the same way as constituents and not get extra subsidies. 38 lawmakers joined the lawsuit by the senator. The court ruled the Senator did not have standing and dismissed the case. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said Johnson also lacked legal standing by a a unanimous three-judge panel in April 2015.

On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision, “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees ). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law".

On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123}. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.

On December 4, 2012 (12-cv-06744/13-1144)United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Constitutional Challenge [N]., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case lost but was eventually combined with Hobby Lobby case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.

On September 12,2012 (12-CV-01000-HE/12-6294), United States District Court For The Western District Of Oklahoma, Constitutional Challenge [N] Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case won but was eventually combined with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.

On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the “Origination Clause” of the constitution. On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all.

— 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)

Mentioned you on another complaint against me
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
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
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 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)

Stoking the fires of battle.
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)

, 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)

comment about ani
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)
 * 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)