![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
DrFleischman, about this revert: Wikipedia:Further_reading#Reliable 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's a personal attack to accuse me of harassment [22] without providing any substantiation of the alleged harassment. Either provide some evidence or retract your accusations. Schematica ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I restored the entire history, as you requested on my talk page. Bearian ( talk) 19:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you see DGG's comment at the end of this section? Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
I fixed the links to my user page. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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, [23] 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)
Fleishman, I'm confused about your nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21#Atlas Network. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the WP:ORG link. – S. Rich ( talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 =
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:)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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???
Extended content
|
---|
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] [6] 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 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 [13]). 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". [14] [15] [16] 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. [17] [18] 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. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 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. [24] [25] [26] 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. [27] [28]
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.164.113 ( talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meitiv family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RichardOSmith ( talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
Capitalismojo, the disruption is getting out of hand at the AFP article. Please know that if you take this to the boards I'd support you. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
DrFleischman, about this revert: Wikipedia:Further_reading#Reliable 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's a personal attack to accuse me of harassment [22] without providing any substantiation of the alleged harassment. Either provide some evidence or retract your accusations. Schematica ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I restored the entire history, as you requested on my talk page. Bearian ( talk) 19:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you see DGG's comment at the end of this section? Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
I fixed the links to my user page. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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, [23] 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)
Fleishman, I'm confused about your nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21#Atlas Network. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the WP:ORG link. – S. Rich ( talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 =
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:)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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???
Extended content
|
---|
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] [6] 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 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 [13]). 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". [14] [15] [16] 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. [17] [18] 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. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 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. [24] [25] [26] 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. [27] [28]
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.164.113 ( talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meitiv family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RichardOSmith ( talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
Capitalismojo, the disruption is getting out of hand at the AFP article. Please know that if you take this to the boards I'd support you. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
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)