User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 4

AE question
In this your edit (edit summary) you canvass and encourage other contributors to reinsert "content challenged by reversion" on the page, something they gladly did, just a minute after your edit. How come? That does not seem to be consistent with your current AE complaint. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. What rule did I violate, and how? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You ask someone else to restore a tag that was previously removed by another contributor (challenged through reversion). Moreover, you tell that you have already exhausted your limits of reverts, so you are asking someone else to continue edit warring for you. This is WP:Canvassing, as blatant as it can possibly be. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Restoring a tag that reflects an existing dispute and then self-reverting isn't edit warring, and requesting that someone restore a legitimate tag isn't canvassing. Canvassing is improper notification. There was no notification here, let alone an improper one. Anyone who saw the edit summary was already aware of the dispute. I could just have easily posted the same request at Talk:Donald Trump and it would have fallen explicitly into WP:APPNOTE. I am disturbed that you've been consistently avoiding discussion about your edits, and now you seem to be trying to stifle it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain why did you single me out for reporting on WP:AE and comments like this? This info was not originally included by me, but by other contributors. It was reinserted, with various modifications, multiple times by other contributors. It still remains on the page because of edits by other contributors. I stopped editing this page. The fact that it still remains on the page is an indication that my last edit actually reflected consensus on the page, in addition to the RfC comments. I only happened to agree with others, and I do believe that the content of the paragraph in question should generally remain the same as it was at the beginning of the RfC, regardless to the page and the question. I even agreed to leave this subject area until after the elections. What else do you want from me and why? My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You weren't the only offender, but I believe you were the biggest one. I want both you and other editors who are battle-grounding at Donald Trump to knock it off and edit more collaboratively. There has been an uptick in this kind of behavior from one side of the political debate since AYW's ban started taking shape, and I think that should stop immediately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you telling that your WP:AE request was a kind of retaliation for the topic ban received by AYW? But regardless to your reasons, reporting someone on WP:AE is never the way to force him to work more collaboratively. To the contrary, this is the way to force him to stop working in certain subject area(s) or stop interacting with certain users. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I'm telling you at all. I thought AYW's ban was reasonable. But with AYW gone there was no one policing his opponents, and some folks took advantage of that. And of course I'd rather have you editing collaboratively than not editing at all, but you didn't show much willingness to do that, and neither did several other editors. So yes, the sledgehammer known as AE became necessary. Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So, you just admitted that you submitted this WP:AE request to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. But unfortunately I can not help you because these contributors are not my buddies and because it is you who continue edit warring on very same page . My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and since you deliberately used my user talk to fish for responses for you to distort, I am banishing you from this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not see any problems with your reply. I only see a problem with your AE report. You said what you think. I too would be happy to tell what I think (I even wrote a little poem telling what one of the candidates would do with "Miss America" meaning the country), and that would be a normal social conversation. However, one can not have normal social conversations in this environment, even on user talk pages, because others are watching. Perhaps you noticed, but three people suggested some sanctions on WP:AE because ... I do not like Putin, although this has noting to do with your request. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @DrFleischman: So you are using the AE case deliberately to force content out of an WP article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand your langauge correct? --SI 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Please re-read my comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I re-read and re-read it over and over again, perhaps you could re-write it in other words what you want to say instead of what you wrote? has also stated he understood your words just like they are written. Thanks for posting, but your link here doesn't help me to better understand your words either. (And Yes, I do appreciate collaborative and constructive and deescalating communication a lot. I just don't like writing long texts, especially not long talkpage texts, I favour focussing on article content. :) --SI 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I wrote expressly in the comment you were reacting to, I brought the AE complaint to reduce battlegrounding behavior. So I actually don't believe that you "re-read and re-read it over and over again." As for most recent comment in reaction to your absurd Jimbo's page, I fought and fought, ultimately successfully, for the inclusion of the words "or false" in the lead section. If you bothered to look through my contributions you'd see that most of them have been either to add material that reflected poorly on Trump, or to remove or change material that reflected well on Trump. But you didn't. Instead you badmouth me and baselessly accuse me of wrongdoing here, there, and everywhere. This might be called "friendly fire" among those who treat Wikipedia as a battleground. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you for your answer on my talk page! 2) You also expressly wrote " if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint. " and never relativised that; although you can clearly see that other Wikipedians regard this sentence as very aggressive at least. I did nothing than citing this sentence literally, while you even "banished" another editor for factually questioning it. Is that the kind of collaboration you are looking for, or is it "freindly fire" how you like to call it? I for my side will not repeat that sentence again - promised. Perhaps you could find a way how to get along with [My very best wishes], too. 3) Nice to learn that you have some criticism on DT, too, it really didn't look like that to me. Perhaps you could help to improve and save the new article or at least it's content, the sources are plenty. (I don't enjoy talk pages and Enlisch is not my paternal language) To put it in your kind words: Let's work together, shall we? :-) --SI 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and let's. The thing is that I don't see Wikipedia as a political battleground and I'm willing to fight against disruption on both sides of the aisle. As for Donald Trump email controversy, I've already cast my !vote for deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the compliment!

About your recent comment, did you mean to include a link to a CJR article in your reply? Sagecandor (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Was this the right place to report these things? Is there another better location to report this kind of behavior? Sagecandor (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you sent me the wrong link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just asking for your advice. I'm confused and not sure how or where to report this sort of thing? Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, From the link you sent me I can't tell what you're trying to report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got some advice, and started individual discussions at the article talk pages. Talk:Great_Depression and Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union. Less confusing now? Sagecandor (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the way to go. Generally speaking, if you have a content dispute you start at the article talk page. If you have a conduct dispute you start at the offending user's talk page, unless it's something super-egregious like a legal threat. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, though it is most frustrating to deal with what is likely high levels incoming and . Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Added per your recommendation
Added. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And a bit more at . My fear is that there are those that may try to push the article itself away from the "narrow" definition, as defined in The New York Times. What do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those look fine for now. I suggest seeking feedback on the article talk page re this "definition" section. I think it's critical to gather a consensus whenever there are scope issues on contentious articles. Otherwise every content dispute bleeds into the broader dispute about scope and nothing gets resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I support the "narrow definition" since as a practical matter anything broader is simply unworkable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I started a new talk page section, per your suggestion . Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not feeling great
It is getting exhausting for me at Fake news website. I think I may need to step away for a while. I fear that in a short period of time the whole page will get chopped up and merged into "yellow journalism", which is being used as a pejorative and epithet rather than small piece of contextual history, on the talk page. If you want to look over the page, that would be appreciated, and good luck. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Take a break and refresh, then hopefully you'll come back if you're up for it. If what you fear comes true, then the will of the community has spoken and that's how it should be. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear it may not be the will of the community but the will of those user accounts that have actually tried to suggest the entire article be done away with or merged into "yellow journalism", or just deleted. Example by blocked user at . Compare with . Now compare that with comments by recent user accounts arriving at the page. I'm not an admin, I'm not the one that blocked the user that did this . These are just the facts of what has occurred recently. Sagecandor (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough reasonable folks with their eyes on that page to make sure that doesn't happen. If a few aggressive POV pushers try to get the page deleted then it will end up in an RfC or an AfD that will draw from a large pool of editors who have no particular interest in fake news websites, Trump, or Russia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Raging response to your edit at 2016 United States election interference by Russia
BLARGLE RUMBLE GROWL BUTTHURT GRRR TRUMPTARD GRUMBLE HATE!!!!!1!!!!!!1111!!1!1!!!1oneoneone

You can't escape the hate that comes with editing a political article. ;) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes you can. All you have to do is turn off your e-mail and logout. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah?! Well... But... That's no fair!!! MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

So in short, I disagree that we need to gut his work experience from the Career section, for him or for any business person or government figure. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are often tough questions requiring editorial discretion as to what the appropriate level of detail is. Generally, for this sort of stuff I try to be consistent with the level of detail that's seen in other biographies. I wasn't trying to remove any of Page's work experience. I was just trying to remove the comments made by his co-workers and associates that only appear to have made the cut in the Politico article because the author had a agenda, i.e. to try to get to the bottom of the foreign policy expertise of a mysterious and confounding individual. This is not our agenda; our agenda is to summarize reliable facts at an encyclopedic level. I felt that the stuff I deleted wasn't encyclopedic. In any case, I appreciate your perspective, though it probably belongs on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Sad but true. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

See also:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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


 * Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Your edit here violated this restriction. I invite you to revert your own edit and discuss this on the talk page if you would like to reinstate that tag. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is an appropriate application of DS, but if you wish to pursue this further I will seek clarification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See here. I think this is rather clearly a "prohibition on the ... removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)", which is explicitly allowed under the discretionary sanctions. Further, discretionary sanctions were placed by, who is currently a sitting arbitrator, so I would expect him to know what's within the bounds of DS. You're welcome to seek clarification at WP:ARCA, but in the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would revert yourself. I'd rather not have this turn into an edit war where another editor comes along and reverts you claiming you violated the restriction, then someone reverts them claiming your revert was valid, blah blah blah. That gets ugly fast on a page like this, and it generally ends in blocks for all involved. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you consider yourself involved in this matter? Because I'm having a hard time understanding why you haven't given a corresponding warning to VM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, I have no problem with 's imposition of the DS, I have a problem with the use of the "consensus required" prong against the reinstatement of a tag placed in good faith, the purpose of which is to flag a lack of consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sleep. I would appreciate you not taking further action at this time. I have no interest in editing against consensus or otherwise disrupting the project. Look at my revert and my comment on the talk page and you will see I am only trying to edit constructively and build consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any involvement with Breitbart, but due to my own political beliefs, I choose not to act in the American politics topic area. I haven't given a corresponding warning to VM because he reverted for the first time, and so he did not break this page restriction; he didn't revert something that was already reverted. If he had, I would have warned him. In fact, I believe I've contacted an admin willing to act in the topic area about his behavior in the past, so I'm hardly biased toward him. I understand you're acting in good-faith, but nevertheless, you've violated the page restriction. The Breitbart article has gotten well out-of-hand in the past, which is why I watch it and ensure the restrictions are abided by. ~ Rob 13 Talk 09:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't just say that I was acting in good faith. I said that I was trying to build consensus. Do you disagree with that statement? In fact, I daresay I had already obtained talk page consensus for my revert. Agree or disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that you're trying to build consensus, but I don't think reverting before doing so is helpful to building consensus. You definitely have not obtained talk page consensus; in fact, more editors disagree with you than agree. Two editors vs. one is never a consensus. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you still considering blocking me? If so, I'd like to broaden this discussion to a wider group first because I don't think a consensus of admins would support that decision. If I'm mistaken then I'd self-revert and refrain from restoring tags in DS articles in the future. Do you have a preference as to what forum we use? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved administrator I would like to offer the following comments and a request - given that the sanction is rather clear on the matter I would like to ask that you self-revert and post a separate section on the article's talk page asking comments about re-adding the tag. I understand this may seem like hoop-jumping for the sake of bureaucracy but these sanctions are put in place to aid in the smooth editing of articles, and if you believe consensus already exists for the tag's addition then I'm sure a couple of editors will make this clear and the tag will be re-added - if you're mistaken and the consensus shows the tag should not be readded then a meaningful discussion can take place and all opinions on the matter can be taken into consideration. I don't want to see anyone blocked over a good-faith tag addition, so your cooperation here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I note that your addition was reverted - I'll have a look at why this took place -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 09:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , your last comment aside, I think your proposal (self-revert and discuss the tag) doesn't take into account the very real possibility that it would lead to no consensus either way. In that case, restoration the tag would be in violation of 's overly strict interpretation of the "no consensus" rule. And yet, one of the very purposes of the tag is to flag an area where consensus is may be missing and to bring more editors to the talk page discussion, as a form of lite dispute resolution. Regardless of how you feel about tagging, that concept is built into the language of the tag itself, which links to Template:POV. Insisting that the tags be removed in circumstances like this effectively inhibits talk page discussion, encourages knee-jerk removal of tags placed in good faith and with appropriate talk page discussion, and thereby runs counter to the very purpose of DS in the first place. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a block of DrFleischman is appropriate. Their edits were (obviously, IMHO) done in good faith. In fact, I see little need for admin attention (unless they want to participate in the discussion, of course) in this thread. With one exception, everyone there has demonstrated themselves to be well capable of disagreeing civilly and working towards a consensus, and that one exception (who shall go unnamed for now, but is not the good Dr. here) has done nothing untoward in this thread, or in the last few threads I've observed their involvement in. There was a bit of a tiff over the hat, but that seems to have died down by now, and there's an ongoing discussion at the talk page.
 * Dr. Fleischman, regarding the following statement: one of the very purposes of the tag is to flag an area where consensus is may be missing and to bring more editors
 * I believe the 'knee-jerk removal' and subsequent discussion (here, on the article talk and on my talk) serves as ample evidence that the tag has already served that purpose. There remains little point to leaving it up at this juncture. Nonetheless, as I said in article talk: If we cannot arrive at a consensus quickly, I will support the re-addition of the tag. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Input
I'd like to have a second opinion about recent controversies on the article LifeZette. Notice how he didn't address ANY of the problems raised and completely ignored the concerns. This seems to be part of an ongoing coordinated effort by some specific WP editors to discredit and smear any media source that leans slightly conservative at all. Thanks. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm going to have to decline. I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing, but you should familiarize yourself with our prohibition of canvassing before leaving these sorts of notes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are only two editors involved in the discussion, it might be worth a third opinion. If more, then either an RfC or a neutrally worded notice on an appropriate WikiProject. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Another way to recruit editors to a dispute is to promote it to folks who have participated in that article in the past, or to post notices on relevant WikiProject pages. But it's critical that when you do so, you present the dispute as neutrally as possible, not how you did it here. Don't take this as a criticism, as I'm sure you didn't know. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, but I'm confused - why are you thanking me and giving me barnstars for reverting you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * There was no BLP violation. The material in question was not about a living person, it was about a company. Moreover I am not aware of any consensus anywhere on Wikipedia that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet. If you are, then please provide a link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stating that someone worked for a propaganda outlet is a BLP violation when it is poorly-sourced. Violating our due and undue weight policy constitutes poor sourcing of information. In my above notice, I provided links to the talk pages of both RT and RT America, where the consensus is that RT and RT America have been called propaganda outlets by critics, not that they are propaganda outlets outright. This is an important distinction and one that you should familiarize yourself with. --Martin Friedrichsen 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I'm not following. Which discussions at Talk:RT (TV network) and Talk:RT America do you believe demonstrate a consensus that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Essentially the entire discussion on Talk:RT (TV network) revolves around allegations that RT is a propaganda outlet. Relevant comparisons are made to reliable sources referring to the BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post as "propaganda outlets." Of course, RT, the BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post all are news media which should in most instances be treated as reliable sources (although reliability must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as each of these organizations has been known to engage in the surreptitious post-fact alteration and correction of stories, the firing of journalists who refuse to abide by a particular editorial stance, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, use of questionable sources for stories, etc.). RT is an independent, non-profit, publicly-funded TV network; much like the BBC in the U.K. and PBS in the U.S. Your particular opinion about RT is informed by your exposure to and consumption of Western (most likely Anglo-American) media, which contributes to the broader problem of Western/Anglo-American systemic bias on Wikipedia, an issue that we are actively confronting. --Martin Friedrichsen 07:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your views on RT as a propaganda outlet. You can continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia by not inconveniencing other contributors while doing so. As for your English skills, feeling sorry about something does not constitute an apology. But nice try. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * this comment is irrelevant to the discussion. Please stick to useful contributions to Wikipedia. I am not sure what your insinuation is regarding my "English skills" and frankly I do not care as it is immaterial. Dr. Fleischman said "Sorry if this sounds dumb" which under literally any definition is an apology. It is here that I would make a petulant remark about your English skills, but I refuse to take the bait. In fact I am embarrassed to even be addressing your comment at all: my tongue-in-cheek "acceptance" of DrFleischman's apology was intended to point out that even the most cursory look at RT (TV network) and Talk:RT (TV network) would reveal the consensus on the issue. I do, however, applaud you for your recognition on your user page of Aaron Swartz. I will continue contributing positively to Wikipedia, and I will continue answering users' questions asked to me in good faith when I post concerns and warnings on their talk pages in good faith. --Martin Friedrichsen 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning: edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ben Swann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Martin Friedrichsen 07:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) '''Performing more than 3 reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period is edit warring.
 * 2) Performing a fourth revert just outside of a 24-hour period is edit warring.
 * 3) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 4) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Reference errors on 9 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Tomi Lahren page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764592823 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764592823%7CTomi Lahren%5D%5D Ask for help])

February 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Fake news (disambiguation). If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Now that you've stopped edit warring, I've reinstated the entries you removed without consensus, and have seen that the primary topic was already correctly set by User:Wbm1058 only to be removed by you, then edit warred when I came to fixing it again. I also reinstated Wbm1058's entry. I'm well aware that if the scope of fake news broadens to include those examples then they should be removed as examples of the broadconcept. Until then, please gain consensus for contended edits to that dab, and familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB before repeating such disruption.'' Widefox ; talk 01:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * I'm sorry, what edit are you referring to? Or are you just harassing me? It strikes me that you're using accusations of disruption to "win" a content dispute, which is itself disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As per the rest of us agreeing Talk:Fake_news_(disambiguation), it appears that you're conflating quality issues of the primary topic article with disambiguation, possibly bringing some consensus from the articles to here which was against consensus here. It would help if you struck bad faith accusations of content "win" when you're editing against the consensus and should have realised at the time. I only after editing saw in the history that the primary topic had already been fixed. I hope this clarifies, and appreciate your desire to keep readers from a POVfork, but that's addressable in the articles not at the dab. Widefox ; talk 19:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * : The history, for instance:
 * Wbm1058 fixed primary topic
 * "demote "fake news", this is one editor's views and has been discussed and rejected by consensus" - that appears at first look to be a misleading edit summary. Can you point to the consensus?
 * dabs never have citations (or citation needed templates)
 * arguably worse description, but edit summary isn't as the article is worded now (maybe it was then?)
 * "Faux News," a derogatory term sometimes used in reference to Fox News, an American basic cable and satellite news television channel" - not only an invalid entry per WP:DABMENTION, but as it's not in the article, such negative unsourced opinions have no place here
 * removing arguably valid entries (without consensus)
 * ditto
 * "blanks section - not appropriate for dab page" they are perfectly acceptable for a dab in the see also per WP:MOSDAB
 * "undid 2 good faith revs by Widefox - innocent perpetuation of a WP:POVFORK - we do not have consensus that that is the meaning of fake news" this is incorrect - at this point the consensus of 2 other editors agree it should be styled as such and the edit summary misleads the consensus is the opposite. At this point, your contended edit was against consensus and you should have reached consensus on the talk as all other editors of the page agree
 * repeating against consensus
 * Are you kidding me? I thought we were having a good faith discussion of what would be best for the dab page, and all you can focus on his how disruptive my arguments were. Totally out of bounds how dare you I will have you blocked!!! This strikes me as nothing more than vindictive harassment. If you don't drop the stick right now then I'll take you to ANI. Don't even get me started on your canvassing. Have a nice day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All those accusations are without diffs and should be struck as baseless and unfounded in policy/guideline, a prerequisite to good faith discussions. As we go by consensus, at the dab and above where several editors have warned you about recent edit warring, this appears to be WP:LISTEN, but not urgent for ANI unless you wish to put yourself in the spotlight per WP:BOOMERANG. I'll honor your wish and leave this now. Widefox ; talk 11:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand what's going on. Don't worry, I'm not interested in reporting you, at least for the time being. But I did ask you to drop the stick and you continue to harass me in the most unpleasant of ways. So you are banned from my user talk for a period of 30 days. Once the 30 days have elapsed the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also find it quite entertaining that in referring to editors who have recently warned me about edit warring, you have thrown your lot in with a an editor who was just blocked for trying to win a content dispute by using sockpuppetry. How apt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

List of fake new websites - oops
With, I actually meant only to revert and not any of the others. I've (partially) self reverted now. Stickee (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not collapse the on-topic !votes of other editors, whatever you think of the long-windedness
Respectfully, Fleischman (sorry, could not resist channeling Maggie for a moment there ;) it is not appropriate to collapse the comments of other editors simply because you think they are on the long side. There are no prescribed limits on the level of commentary one can supply and mine only lengthened to longer side of things because I altered my position some after my initial !vote. Regardless, the template you used is generally only employed in consensus discussions where conversation has wandered into tangential issues that do not go to the heart of the inquiry. My comments, while a little lengthy, I will grant, all directly engage with the RfC matter and inform upon it meaningfully. Also, having responded to hundreds of RfC's over the years, I can ask you to trust me that comments get muuuuch larger than my post was there. ;) No offense or ill-will intended in this message, but the integrity of another editors comments are not meant to be infringed, and we make exceptions only for a small class of blatantly vandalism-oriented or disruptive behaviours.  S n o w  let's rap 22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I wasn't intending to infringe the integrity of your comments in any way, and I won't collapse yours like that in the future. I was only trying to make the RfC a little more approachable to newcomers. Sometimes when people see walls of text they roll their eyes and move on. As an aside, you're awesome for not only recognizing my username but also demonstrating an intimate knowledge of the subject matter. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes me so nostalgic--I don't know if it was a product of where I was in my life at that time or what, but few things ever took me away like the escapism of that show. :)  S n o w  let's rap 07:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I bought bootlegged VHS tapes of the entire series after it ended. It was excellent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a second
You're reverting stuff while I'm adding the source. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time to hate Erik Prince. Give me a minute to add the source. Sheesh. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No hate here. But I will say, you've made much stronger arguments in the past than the ones you've made recently on Erik Prince and Academi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears you have a strong interest in trying to cast Prince in a negative light. Regardless, you keep ignoring the book source because you are claiming that it is talking about Edgar. It's not. You really need to read 79-81 in it's entirety. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop making such false accusations, as they don't help the situation. Regardless, I think some of the confusion might be based on my lack of complete access to the source. I have access to page 80, but not to pages 78-79. The top of page 80 refers to various donations by "Prince". I had perhaps mistakenly thought this "Prince" was Edgar Prince because the last references to "Prince" on page 77 were to Edgar Prince. Do you have access to those pages? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read the pages I cited. They are clearly about Erik, not Edgar, yet you have repeatedly made the incorrect claim that it is about Edgar. You're telling me what "isn't helpful", well falsely characterizing the source and then getting others to buy into it isn't helpful either my friend. Expecting me to type out a couple of pages of text for you is not a reasonable request. You claim you want the article to be neutral, yet you have campaigned to exclude what the source says, based on your guess about text you haven't read. How that is neutral is beyond me. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you are expecting me to take you at your word when you write, "I have read the pages I cited. They are clearly about Erik, not Edgar," something I'm not comfortable doing. I'm not asking you to type out two pages of text--I'm only asking you to type out enough of the bottom of page 79 to prove that the paragraph at the top of page 80 is about Erik, not Edgar. If this bears out then I'm happy to change my position in the RfC as appropriate, and perhaps even add content about Prince's donations to various churches. I have no interest in excluding content on verifiability grounds if it is in fact verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have the source info. We're all supposed to take your word for this false claim that it's about Edgar. You trust me to type it verbatim, but not to tell you it is about Erik? How does that even make sense? I've already quoted some of it for you. And to be honest, I struggle with believing that you'd change your vote. Even if you did, your false claim has already generated too many votes to gain consensus to include. You've made an error and are excluding verifiable information based on your guessing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This dispute has been resolved. Please drop the stick. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since that was posted after my response here, the "drop the stick" sarcasm was uncalled for. While I appreciate you admitting it is about Erik, do you not believe you've poisoned the well? Several exclude votes are based on your claim that the source wasn't talking about Erik, thus there was no source. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please re-check that link. I made those comments four days ago. There was nothing sarcastic about my last comment. And no, I don't think I poisoned the well, but of course you're entitled to your belief. I really have very little interest in continuing this discussion, sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't want to discuss it. You swayed a number of votes with incorrect (false) information, then get to slip in an "ooops" give the appearance of being innocent while leaving the damage. Sort of like spilling a drink, leaving the mess on the floor, but saying "well, I threw the cup away". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you're apparently incapable of having a constructive discussion, I'm banning you from my talk page for a period of 30 days. Once the 30 days have elapsed the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

help me with Ben Swann page
please read and respond to my post on Talk:Ben_Swann, at the bottom, with how I could change the page's wording in a way that satisfies you. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

please respond to the last post I made on the talk page. your objections were 1. "are you suggesting that we not say anything describing Pizzagate beyond that it was a debunked conspiracy theory? That would strike me as not right at all." and 2. "We can't leave "pedophilia" out of it." I responded to both. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

what does consensus mean on wikipedia? I thought that me disagreeing with that word mean there is no consensus. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Read WP:Consensus. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Nor does it mean majority rules; although in practice, that's how it often falls out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * you didn't even ask me about that word, which I don't agree with. there was no effort to incorporate my concerns. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You explained your concerns. Objective3000 and I thought "purported evidence" addressed them better than "conjecture." Then you said you preferred "circumstantial evidence" but you didn't really explain why or what was wrong with "purported evidence." And at the end of the day, not all concerns can be incorporated. You make an effort to, but sometimes you have to choose between A and B. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * its not clear? I was talking to the other guy in the talk page.  making a compromise with him.  he came up with the term, and then backed away from it.  then you came up with another term that biases the page, and he agreed with it, and you put that on the page before I could put in a word.  you did not have to make a choice between A and B; the choice wasn't circumstantial (A) vs purported (B), the choice was no change (A) vs purported (B), and you made that decision.  any time someone but you makes a decision to change the page you veto, but you claim consensus when it is you making a change.  recognize that purported should be removed. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless I've misunderstood something, there was consensus for "purported" because Objective3000 agreed with it. If they hadn't then I wouldn't have made the change. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * well, I'm stating in the talk page now that adding that word made the page less accurate. Please answer my questions at the bottom of the Evidence part. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while
Over the years I learnt a few tactics to employ when dealing with editors with views that strongly oppose my own. Not least grinding them down in the hope they will go away, something I first encountered at a couple of years ago on the Edward Snowden article. And FWIW I am relaxed about your edits at RT, but I had to revert that one because I've just argued for it in one of the many currently active discussions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, and good to see you again. I disagree about that revert but I'm not going to fight it. I disagree with your comment about the virtue of grinding down your fellow editors. And regardless of whether you call it "grinding" or not, comments like, "I find it hard to believe that someone with 71646 edits over 11 years is this shitty at finding sources," "I think we have already established that quality of sources is not your strong suit," and "Good for you Keith-264 you (almost) found a reliable source" do not appear to advance the project and could end up being used against you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A fair point but I'm writing critical content about large media company supported by a government known to be a little unfriendly to its opponents. Administrative sanctions, while undesirable, don't seem all that scary at this point --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Ok. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems it is my comments here rather than at RT, that have caused an issue. To make things clear I was not admitting to, implying or bragging about, tactics I'm currently employing. I was referring to my perception of DrF's approach back then on the Snowden article. At the time, given our differing views on Snowden, I was actually (slightly) concerned that the edits at RT were a prelude to an increase in the drama. However, thus far, my concern seems to be completely unfounded (on your part at least), and I now see no reason for further discussion about it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You stand condemned out of your own mouth but you can keep digging if you want.Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

re revert, I beg to differ
HiDrFleischman. Please allow me to explain why I made that edit to Russ Baker, how it conforms with WP:R and therefore why I disagree with your revert:
 * WhoWhatWhy already redirects to Russ Baker since it was merged in Aug 2015-see WhoWhatWhy: Revision history. Someone arriving at Russ Baker having expected WhoWhatWhy might wonder what happened so by the "principle of least astonishment" handily quoted in WP:R, by bolding WhoWhatWhy on the Russ Baker page, that surprise can be alleviated. I've done literally thousands of such redirects on WP (14,053 last count), making something of a speciality of it. I noticed that the bolding had been omitted, or perhaps reverted, so I installed it. DadaNeem (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the concept, but as WP:R#PLA suggests not every redirect merits a bolding. How do you distinguish between those that do and those that don't? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing of the Wikipedia Page - Generation Joshua
I wanted to discuss the editing and re-formatting of the wikipedia page "Generation Joshua" with you. I notice that you are quite on top of many of the changes that occur on the page, so on that note, I'd like to let you know what's happening with it.

I am currently discussing the complete rework of the wikipedia page with the deputy director of Generation Joshua (So don't worry, the authority and accuracy of the page will not be a problem). However, due to the excessively outdated nature of the current wikipedia page combined with my limited availability to be able to work on it, the project will likely take awhile.

I appreciate and understand the desire to keep the page properly formatted with accurate information, I just hoped to relay my perspective on the situation. Please understand that many updates to the page are just a small portion of the total amount of work that must be done before the page can be trusted as fully "accurate."

Thank you for your help,

Mtbarden (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mtbarden


 * Thanks for reaching out,, and happy to help. What's your connection to GenJ? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In this instance, strictly volunteer based. But I have been involved in the organization for the past several years including helping with the summer programs both on a student and volunteer basis. I volunteered to assist with the editing of the wikipedia page due to the fact that it was severely out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbarden (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is Mr. Lorrig directing your edits, or are you working independently? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I work independently but with his authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbarden (talk • contribs) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
This edit is a violation of the active arbitration remedies in place at Erik Prince. The RfC you claimed to be editing in response to is not closed and there's no consensus at this point. Please self-revert, or I will file an AE report. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your contention that there was no consensus for my edit is laughable. Closure of an RfC isn't a prerequisite for consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This edit is also in violation of a strict reading. It was removed, restored by another editor and you removed it again. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a violation of the restriction, since I was removing different content. And I'm not sure what the first removal is you're referring to, but I believe it was well before the arbitration restriction was imposed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And I asked you not to edit this page for 30 days, yet you did so anyway. I'll give you a pass this time, but please don't do it again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Coffee
E-mail enabled for, per request. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

E-mail disabled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

For real this time. I think I forgot to click Save. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Off topic political discussion
Feel free to delete or ignore this, but it's been on my mind quite a bit lately, for obvious reasons and I wanted to say something, since you apparently see the same double-standard I see here.

There is nothing wrong with far right. That actually makes me wonder if the frequent IP and newly-registered editors raging against this description are all actually quite liberal, and are offended more by the fact that WP is saying something they see as derogatory. If so, that would make for a rather poignant argument about objectivity on either side of the political divide (the left is defending a right-wing source because they feel that source has been wronged, while the right simply doesn't care). If that were not true, then it makes a point about either self-deception or ethical integrity on either side of the political divide (the far-right knows that their ideals are unethical and that it is insulting to ascribe their ideology to others, so they're either unaware that they are themselves far-right, or unwilling to admit it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's possible that some of these "contributors" are liberals in disguise, but it seems much more likely that the raging comments are made in good faith by readers and supporters of Breitbart, etc. who believe that describing their sources as as far right deligitimizes their views. They have a point, to some extent, in that most folks in the non-extreme left-right spectrum don't trust or want to read far right sources, and so by calling them far right we imply that their ideologies are not widely accepted. But what many of them don't think about is the fact that the lack of acceptance is an objective, verifiable fact, and obliquely referring to it is not value-laden in the least. Other far-right folks embrace their position on the left-right political spectrum, and in my view that is the more enlightened position.
 * I do not think these far right folks know that their ideals are unethical, as you put it. I know some far right people personally, some quite well, and I believe that most hold their beliefs in good faith and with a set of ethics. In some cases their ethics might just be different from the rest of Western culture. (I'm reminded here of something in The Walking Dead: a band of assholes nicknamed the "Claimers" who were later described by Daryl Dixon as living by a different set of rules that "worked" even though they weren't "our rules"--or something like that.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My final thought on this is that, in my view, more likely than that these folks are liberals is that these folks are actually paid Russian trolls. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard ?
Thank you for your information, but I'm, ot able to find the thread.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I understand.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard that may interest you
This message is being sent to let you know that there is a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the article Oath Keepers. The discussion is at Dispute resolution noticeboard. You are receiving this notice because you have previously commented at that talk page. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Says/claims
See talkpage. Also, is it possible to add an archiving bot? For example, the thread about sexual orientation is now obsolete and could be archived.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

your edits
I already have stopped editing the Ben Swann page. I wrote what I wrote because it is not the words on a the page that are a problem. that people believe propaganda, and hold corrupt ideologies is a problem. don't get offended too fast, but I see your proposal, and stated purpose, on the face of it, as quintessential useful idiot work.

are you familiar with Noam Chomsky's concept of manufactured consent? we have a tendency to look upwards at the people in power and media for answers, when we shouldn't. we know they lie, and lie all the time.

to be clear I want to talk to you one on one about why you edit, rather than any edit. how would you know that you have bias and groupthink without people like me who call you out on your bias? calling me bad faith for noting the bias is hubris, and ideological. it is the stuff cults employ. "don't believe the outsider." 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I appreciate your desire to red pill me but I'm going to decline your offer since I already know kung fu. Thanks though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Defend Trade Secrets Act Edits
Hi. I made edits to the Defend Trade Secrets Act article, specifically, adding a reference to a comparison of trade secrets laws. You deleted it saying, "undid 2 good faith revs - not a reliable source."

I am asking you to reconsider and undo your edit.

The comparison of laws was done by me; it is fairly mechanical, with judgment required only in determining when to summarize differences, rather than redline them. Accordingly, it's hard to understand the objection - even if I were not a reliable source. That said, to give you comfort, I have been handling trade secrets matters nationally for over 20 years and am an adjunct professor of law, teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law (which I have been doing for 8 years). (Please see my bio if you need further information, or feel free to let me know what other information you would need to evaluate whether I am a reliable source.)

The reason that I inserted the link is that I believe the comparison is a useful resource for people to easily see how the states vary from the UTSA and from each other.

Thank you for your consideration.

russellbesq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellbesq (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . This is the kind of comment that more appropriately belongs at Talk:Defend Trade Secrets Act. Please re-post there and I'll be happy to respond. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we please compromise ?
Can we please compromise and reduce the size of the mention, but have a brief mention in the lede ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll need consensus for that. Both Mjolnir and I agree it doesn't belong in there at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How many sources would discuss it before you can compromise to agree it can be a mention in the lede? 20 ? 50 ? 100 ? Sagecandor (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of sources, it's about the type of sources. I'd want to evaluate sources that mention the connection to the Seth Rich conspiracy as a prominent part of an analysis of Pizzagate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you can understand it feels a bit frustrating to have one's research summarily discounted. I'm sorry you struck out your benefit of the doubt comment. I believe we both feel these conspiracy theories are harmful to society and potentially dangerous and in one case at least, criminal. I hope you can see I am acting in good faith. I am sorry if I have upset you. I did not mean for my referenced research good faith intentions to upset you. I'm sorry. Sagecandor (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I think somehow you understood one of my edit summaries as suggesting that I would accept that content in the lead section if you just added enough sources. If that's the case I'm sorry if I miscommunicated. I don't see the concept of "importance" in WP:LEAD being mechanically tied to the number of sources that mention something. The number of sources is relevant but not dispositive in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you. How is it relevant then? Sagecandor (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a factor to consider in determining the importance of any given content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is disturbing how both conspiracy theories spread by the same people, using the same methods, so virulently and so quickly. Sagecandor (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I read that NY Times article this morning and thought it was quite interesting. Perhaps Twitter will receive some pressure to de-anonymize. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi?
How would you feel about semiprotection for Carter Page? Since June 1 there has been some nonsense. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support it. Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Its anonymous is fake news
Hi

I am Glen I am autism just want know you change back where it belong I afraid anonymous tell about government lies about North Korea War just curious its anonymous fake news website I afraid about it something going happened it's propaganda I would like you change it back where it belong GAJJR (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi GAJJR. We can put Anonymous on the list, but only if we have a reliable source describing Anonymous as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing Great America PAC
Thank you for your constructive edits. I wonder about the removal of the subhead, however. I put it in to align that section under Great America Alliance with the call-out of ad campaigns by the parent organization, Great America PAC. I realize that there is a reluctance to use but a single subhead in a section, perhaps derivative of the rules of outlining. Is that also a Wikipedia style rule? I couldn't find anything, but may have missed it. Note that this is not a significant issue to me (the subhead was indeed an afterthought), but just to add to my experience in Wikipedia editing. (As an editor in past lives, I've learned to love whatever style book they hand me.) Thank you. Joalkap (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's anything in the WP namespace about ti, but the typical practice is to avoid breaking up sections so that every paragraph has its own subsection. In fact the ad subsection headings should be removed as well, so I'll do that now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

*Chortle*
Your loss, bureaucrat. Enjoy your rules!

Estéban (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting an article
If an article is deleted, can a draft of the article with its current content be accessed? Before any of the location-specific Objectivism pages are deleted, I would like to make sure I can access back ups of them, or save the information privately, in order to create an informative "International" section on the Objectivist movement page. Michipedian (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. If the article is outright deleted (e.g. through a prod), then it can only be accessed by an admin. Upon request many admins will readily restore deleted articles into your sandbox so that you can recover content. Another option is to blank and redirect ("blar") the page, which can be done by anyone without admin assistance, and then the blanked content can be recovered in the article history. So, for example, we could scrap the prods on Objectivism in Canada, Objectivism in the United States, and Objectivism in India right now, blar them to Objectivist movement, and you could still access their source without admin assistance. Would you prefer to go that route? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please blar all three pages. Michipedian (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I will likely ask you to paste the content from Objectivism by country into my sandbox at some time in the relatively near future, but right now that would be an inconvenience to me. Also, just out of curiosity, how are admin rights attained? Could you direct me to an article that explains the process through which one becomes an admin? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You should paste that content soon, since the AfD for that article could end and the page be deleted without further notice. (And then you'd have to bug an admin.) The info you seek on becoming an admin can be found at WP:GRFA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the content saved in a private document now. Thanks! Michipedian (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Oath Keepers
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, but
where's my check? Even the Borg payed (sic) me more quickly. And I got free implants:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review for Tahirih Justice Center
I have nominated Tahirih Justice Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rebel Media
Could you please specify why you said I was on "thin ice on the conduct front" on this page? As I demonstrated on the talk page there, I did not in fact add unsourced content, so I don't know why you first (1) opened a new section on that talk page claiming that I did, and (2) responded to my (somewhat lengthy) demonstration that I did not with "You're on thin ice on the conduct front, but let's focus on content please." Does WP:AGF not come naturally to you in this case, for some reason? Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are four edits in which you edit warred to add the same material over and over again saying that Robinson is a convicted criminal, each time without providing a source to support the claim:, , , . --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are literally the same four edits that I provided in the discussion on the talk page. The last of those four, in your sequence, was a response to a deletion of the whole section including the sources provided (Telegraph), and I reverted to the version that had been in place for more than three weeks. There was certainly no request in the edit I reverted for sourcing on criminality. The first was a restoration of HungarianPhrasebook's sourced material, again, where the passage dropped was significantly broader and the edit history didn't even raise any questions related to Mr. Robinson or BLP issues. The second one you mention was not me "adding material" at all, but re-phrasing the material added by HungarianPhrasebook to improve NPOV, and this was close to the wording which became stable for the next three weeks. So it should be very clear that I have not "added the same material over and over again" - I have three times over the last month restored previous versions of the text, and once rephrased the text in a more moderate encyclopedic voice. So, how about you rethink your "thin ice" stance? Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't care what you were responding to, or what your thought process was. In all four instances you re-added the same BLP content without a source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In one of them I re-worded without "adding BLP content" at all; in two of the others I restored sourced claims -- with sources fully present -- and no attention was drawn in the previous discussion to the question of the label "criminal" by any of those who deleted the sourced claims that I was restoring. All it would have taken would have been a little label, and I (or anyone else) could have sourced the criminality from the article on Robinson. Would you please stop saying that I "re-added the same BLP content without a source" when that is manifestly not what I did in three of the four edits (over the course of a month) which we are discussing. Newimpartial (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not an admin and I'm not going to report you, so you have nothing to worry about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Warren National University
Before you revert the edits on this article understand a few things. First, the term "Diploma Mill" is subjective and can be considered offensive. There is most certainly a difference between a diploma mill and an unaccredited University. Second, biased information most certainly DOES NOT belong in the opening statement.

If you have a problem with this, then I suggest taking it to a third party such as the mediation cabal.

Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. This is really a discussion for Talk:Warren National University. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on draft deletion
Hi DrFleischman, I have a quick question for you. How does one delete drafts? Can administrators only delete them? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UP --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Michipedian (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

streamline Murdock trust donations
I'm curious as to your edit to "streamline Murdock trust donations" in the ADF article. It seems to me that the name of the trust is the most important piece of information (they gave the money, not Murdock himself). If any streamlining was necessary (and I don't think it was) I would think you'd take out who founded the trust. This would place the sentence more in line with the previous part of the section. Bcostley (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. A trust is just a legal technicality. Murdock could have called his trust the Wild and Crazy Trust and it wouldn't have made a difference from an encyclopedic standpoint. The noteworthiness of this information is that it was Murdock's trust. If you wish to continue this conversation I suggest we do so at Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom so that others get a chance to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Bcostley (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Automated sanctimony
Ouch! You've used a template to send a to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It accurately reflects the importance I attach to your sanctimony. Best wishes. --13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~
 * You could have used the time you spent personalizing this "warning" instead adding a comment at Talk:James O'Keefe to try to resolve your edit war with LibertyChick1776. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

AN3
There's an AN3 discussion opened up re the Oath Keepers fiasco article in which I've mentioned your edits; nothing pejorative, but I think I mighta screwed up the ping on it. Take a look, you get a chance. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, OBE. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi DrFleischman. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADrFleischman enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Also, make sure you warn users making test/vandalism edits.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm hoping for your opinion on rollback in light of the fact that we edit in spaces that overlap so much. There's an awful lot of disruption (blatant and unexplained removal of source content, addition of unsourced POV content, etc.) that is unambiguously disruptive but that I don't think I'd describe as clear vandalism and that might be done in good faith (by editors who are very misinformed about our policies). Do you think rollback is appropriate for these sorts of editing behaviors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very good question. You identify the exact gray area that does comes up a lot: edits that are not "blatant vandalism" in the traditional sense (i.e., replacing words with gibberish, schoolyard disparagement) but are unambiguously disruptive (e.g., unexplained removals of sourced content). I would usually manually undo edits like this, at least the first time, with a brief explanation in the edit summary ("unsourced" etc.) and probably a user talk-page note; but if the edits continue to occur without explanation, then I would say rollback would be appropriate. Others may differ, but that's my general sense. I think it depends on context. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)