![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
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)
Thanks for the compliment!
About your recent comment [2], did you mean to include a link to a CJR article in your reply? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
[5] Added. Look good? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Changing ones mind in the face of evidence is a rare thing here on WP and should be appreciated and suitably lauded when it occurs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
Your response is eagerly awaited. Thank you. Kleuske ( talk) 13:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
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. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
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'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)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
thank you for your edits on wikipedia especially the one on the alt-right Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 17:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
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).
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 Barnstar of Diligence |
thank you for editing the Alt-right reddit piece i have done and your edits have the made the article better Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
With my revert, I actually meant only to revert this edit and not any of the others. I've (partially) self reverted now. Stickee (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
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. Snow let's rap 22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
please read and respond to my post on Talk:Ben_Swann#Pizzagate, 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)
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)
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)
HiDrFleischman. Please allow me to explain why I made that edit to Russ Baker, how it conforms with WP:R#PLA and therefore why I disagree with your revert:
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
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)
I work independently but with his authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbarden ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit [23] 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)
E-mail enabled for Coffee, 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)
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.
(In response to
this comment .) 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)
Thank you for your information, but I'm, ot able to find the thread. Xx236 ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Oath Keepers. 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)
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)
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)
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 [25] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your loss, bureaucrat. Enjoy your rules!
Estéban ( talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia: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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. THE DIAZ
talk •
contribs
18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay
Wikipedia: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)~
There's an AN3 discussion opened up re the
Oath Keepers fiascoarticle 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)
Hi DrFleischman. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have 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 Wikipedia: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)
![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
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)
Thanks for the compliment!
About your recent comment [2], did you mean to include a link to a CJR article in your reply? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
[5] Added. Look good? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Changing ones mind in the face of evidence is a rare thing here on WP and should be appreciated and suitably lauded when it occurs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
Your response is eagerly awaited. Thank you. Kleuske ( talk) 13:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
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. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
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'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)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
thank you for your edits on wikipedia especially the one on the alt-right Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 17:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
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).
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 Barnstar of Diligence |
thank you for editing the Alt-right reddit piece i have done and your edits have the made the article better Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
With my revert, I actually meant only to revert this edit and not any of the others. I've (partially) self reverted now. Stickee (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
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. Snow let's rap 22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
please read and respond to my post on Talk:Ben_Swann#Pizzagate, 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)
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)
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)
HiDrFleischman. Please allow me to explain why I made that edit to Russ Baker, how it conforms with WP:R#PLA and therefore why I disagree with your revert:
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
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)
I work independently but with his authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbarden ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit [23] 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)
E-mail enabled for Coffee, 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)
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.
(In response to
this comment .) 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)
Thank you for your information, but I'm, ot able to find the thread. Xx236 ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Oath Keepers. 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)
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)
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)
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 [25] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your loss, bureaucrat. Enjoy your rules!
Estéban ( talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia: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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. THE DIAZ
talk •
contribs
18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay
Wikipedia: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)~
There's an AN3 discussion opened up re the
Oath Keepers fiascoarticle 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)
Hi DrFleischman. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have 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 Wikipedia: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)