User talk:DrFleischman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:05, 10 March 2014 editPrototime (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,440 editsm →Penny for your thoughts ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:50, 11 March 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,974 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 1) (botNext edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	\|indexhere=yes		\|indexhere=yes
	}}__TOC__{{clear}}		}}__TOC__{{clear}}

	== In the spirit of camaraderie ==

	I apologize for upsetting you. Please feel free to delete or archive (I don't care which) any of my comments on the talk page. You can point to this discussion as permission to do so. ] (]) 04:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:You're definitely a character, I'll give you that. --] (]) 05:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	::And you have a good sense of humor. (Re: ''Gotta run, I've got a Verax meeting at Langley with the other intel boys.'') ] (]) 02:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::I doubt Petrarchan found it funny. (Though that doesn't mean others can't have a chuckle at his/her expense.) --] (]) 06:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::Well, let's try and show more compassion to our fellow editors. You definitely showed me that I can do better a job of that, so let's do onto others, etc... BTW, have you thought about linking to the ] in your user page explanation of your name? ] (]) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::For the record, I don't think that Dr F is intel, or working for the government. I didn't think it funny because I didn't get the reference. Now I do, and I don't blame Dr F for making fun of me for that, in hindsight. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Uh huh. --] (])
	:::::::I meant that. Let's drop the witch hunt, yes? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::What witch hunt are you referring to? --] (]) 21:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::You're involved in more than one? I'm speaking about your sandbox list and the invite from Sandy for an RfC about me. Truthfully, I shouldn't ask you to cease, it's completely your right. But it's a bit over the top to stalk my talk page looking for things I might be doing wrong, so it can be added to your list. The researcher I have invited to help with the cannabis articles is no surprise to anyone, I've told them at the talk page of Medical Cannabis. I learned during my days at the BP article that it is not only acceptable and legal, but it is considered a boon to the Pedia for editors to call in experts from the outside. With regard to this subject, it is quite new and unsurprisingly, there is no one at Wiki thus far with good knowledge of the subject, which leaves all the related articles open to anyone's POV, since we tend to find proof for what we already believe. I also think that it would serve to get very clear on how editors can ask for help from others, in a way that is legal and won't get a person in trouble. Your comment today at my talk page shows you aren't very clear on the distinction between good, responsible editing behaviour and malfeasance. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} I appreciate you explaining yourself; that's exactly what I was asking for, and it's somewhat reassuring. I can understand your concern about my sandbox but it's not what you think it is. Based on our recent interactions I decided to start making a list of all of the controversial things people have said about me. So far I've only gotten around to the things you said. Others have called me a libtard, a fascist, a hero worshiper (w/r/t Snowden), etc. Eventually once I've collected enough of these I'm planning to put them on my user page so that editors like you can see my biases aren't so easy to characterize.

	As for your comment about how editors can ask for help from others, I very much agree it's not perfectly clear, and I myself have had similar concerns in the past. That has an unfortunate chilling effect. However I feel that in this case you crossed over the line, and I stand by my admonishment about your contact with MastCell. --] (]) 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 01:50, 11 March 2014

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Don Lusk

Since I missed it before it was archived, just leaving a quick note to say thanks for your comments on my RSN thread on Don Lusk! I'll see if I/the author can dig up any better sources before I nominate it for deletion. Thanks again! Canadian Paul 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Misplaced Pages about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm cutting down on my editing activities, and one of the casualties is Wiki-PR. Best of luck to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not broken

Believe it or not, I think we can edit together peacefully. I hold no grudge against you. I know at one point you were beginning a collection of diffs for a potential RfC about me. The guidelines state that unless you are planning to use the list of wrongdoings within a few days, it must be removed (from your sandbox and Misplaced Pages). If you haven't already, Please do that, and let us drop the stick. Best, petrarchan47 t c 07:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read this. That said, as a sign of good faith I've removed this material from my sandbox, as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Parallel Construction

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

Barrett Brown WP:ABOUTSELF

Can you explain why you added that notice to the top of the article? What's wrong with that citation or source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theta00 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond but I'm traveling for a few days. I'll put something on the article talk page later this week. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Too many pings constitute hounding

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

All of these are on two article talk pages that Petra is closely involved with. The pings are unnecessary needlings which do not help calm the heated discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No hounding here. I'm simply trying to get her attention so she can respond to comments that are directed her way. I'd do the same thing to anyone. P.S. Please stop editing my talk page comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think she needs her attention directed to the talk pages of these two articles? She's obviously already there. Save your pings for when you mention her on some page that you know she is not watching closely. Needling an editor is hounding. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Her attention is needed because she often doesn't respond to my comments. I need to make sure she is actually reading them. Again, there is no intent to needle. If she feels needled (I have no idea if she does), that's unfortunate but I won't refrain from discussion simply because of someone's sensitivities. And I challenge you to back up your assertion about hounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Editor_who_was_disinvited_from_my_user_talk_page_... you can see a discussion wherein excessive notifications were perceived as harassment. That case of five "thank" notifications in one day was clearly more disruptive than five ping notifications in one week. Nevertheless, your pings are not needed. If Petra does not reply to you on a talk page she frequents, you should accept that she does not want to reply. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice in that ANI thread: "His response is now to simply keep "thanking" me for edits for which there is no rational basis for his "thanks" whatsoever..." (emphasis mine) and ES&L's comment: "There's no salient human who thinks it's appropriate to randomly thank someone 5 times in one day" Here, on the other hand, it's quite rational to alert one's fellow editor to discussions in which that editor's responses are requested, and I didn't do it 5 times in one day. And there was no allusion to hounding. Between you and me the only one of us who has broken any rules is you (WP:TPO). Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that your "alerts" have been aimed at someone who is already alert. That's all. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But how do you know she's already alert? How are you so sure if I, say, start a new discussion thread at Talk:Edward Snowden that she'll actually read it? (Isn't that the point of the ping feature?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Every argument I've seen from you on Misplaced Pages has been brighter than this. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Compliment accepted, but in this case I suppose I'm not feeling particularly bright. I really just want to increase the likelihood that Petrarchan reads comments directed toward her. No more, no less. I don't think it's correct to assume she reads everything that shows up on the pages she edits. I certainly don't. Besides, if what you're saying is so obvious, then why did you feel the need to tell me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To prevent you from getting into trouble for harassment. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So we're back to that again. You think my pings are harassment, I don't, let's leave it at that. As Mr. Carson says in Downton Abbey, good day to you sir. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bink, your comments come across as hostile, so I don't think you are messaging here for Fleishchman's benefit despite what you have said. If someone is excessively highlighting someone else, that person can ask them to desist. Where no such request exists and we assume good faith, it can not constitute harassment, Second Quantization (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This comment from Petrarchan ("There were many comments I never saw because of .") demonstrates why I have to ping her when I'm seeking her response to something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A little reading comprehension brings the reader to conclude that Petrarchan47 was relieved that negative talk page comments were being removed by me. She is saying she did not want to hear from you or Bdell555 in those instances. If you choose to ping someone who does not want to hear from you, on an article talk page that the person is obviously paying attention to, then you choose to be an annoyance. Why you would choose to be an annoyance is beyond me, but it certainly will not help you gain consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, more long emotional pieces I see. Snowden is not a topic area I particularly care about, but I see the same problematic behaviour is recurring in terms of rhetoric etc. A pity. I don't know the dynamic in that topic area, so I can not offer much advice beyond suggesting a RFCU or formal arbitration. Second Quantization (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

Hey Dr. Fleischman, been a while. I hope things are going well in your neck of Misplaced Pages—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 Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1, and I would be greatly appreciative if you could make suggestions there on how the article (or any small part of it) could be improved. No pressure though; I know your busy with your own projects (and that thing called "real life"), so I understand if you haven't time. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I will, though not right away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

NP. Oh, and my wiki-life is much crazier than it was in my PPACA days, if you can imagine that. I guess that's what I get for working on subjects that are fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fun. I did see your recent creation of Panetta Review; I imagine conspiracy theorists could have a field day with that. Should you ever need a break from it all, PPACA is always there ;) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)