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.

[1]

Hello DrFleischman, I am updating the TechSoup Global entry to address the issues raised in the banner that has been on the page for more than a year. I am seeking input from more experienced editors to ensure that I’m abiding by Wikipedia standards, in particular on COI when editing. You took an interest in the page about a year and a half ago when a different person was making updates, so I’d like to invite your input as to whether my current updates have been in line with community standards and any areas where I can continue to improve. I have spent time reading Wikipedia contributor guidelines and looking at other pages to see models of neutral contributions from other editors. I would welcome your feedback and any suggestions before I continue.Bajeckabean (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Becky. I'll respond on your user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I added some better citations to the TechSoup Global page. I am searching for reliable sources for the NetSquared section. I would appreciate your review of the citations and thank you for continuing to improve the page. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on my talk page re: the links to Climate change denial. I've replied there. User_talk:Frappyjohn#Climate_change_skepticism --Frappyjohn (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A class requires more than one student sharing a common instructor and some coordinated activity for all. It also must have a physical location to meet, or a Web platform serving that purpose. Tutoring or isolated lectures are not classes. deisenbe (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick from any number of reliable sources:

• Cohan, William D. "Big Hair on Campus: Did Donald Trump Defraud Thousands of Real-Estate Students?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2016-03-06. Describing courses various enrollees took.
• Cassidy, John (June 2, 2016). "Trump University: It's Worse Than You Think". The New Yorker. "When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend."
• Caldwell, Patrick (July 12, 2016). "Trump University Taught Students How to Exploit Disabled Homeowners". Mother Jones. Describing one of the courses offered.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the proposed deletion, I would be favor of doing that and just listing the section in the American Society of Association Executives. Chris (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you added a "connected contributor" template to the talk page and I was wondering what the basis for that was. Just by coincidence I've been involved in discussions at COI/N over the proper time that can be added when there is no declaration of COI, which I don't see here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to the discussions at COI/N please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion, which as you can see hasn't gone very far. As for Bn, while a connection would not surprise me I'm not seeing an direct evidence thereof or an admission. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A {{COI}} tag on an article page is a lot more extreme of a step than an {{connected contributor}} tag on an article talk page. Regardless, I've been frequently struck by Bn's knowledge of unverifiable details of Baker's life. Bn's last comment at Talk:Russ Baker pushed it over the top in my view. He claims to know that Baker received an award from the Northern California chapter of the SPJ while acknowledging that he hasn't been able to find this information online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is more extreme but the connected contributor tag is more specific. As for your point, perhaps Bn can elaborate so I'll ping him.

@Bn: can you please address here or on the article talk page whether the connected contributor tag is justified? I believe you've edited after it was placed on the talk page so I assume you are cognizant of it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. F, if you are quite certain that there is an undisclosed COI, then this needs to be pursued. I've invited Bn to address whether indeed he is a connected contributor, but if he is then the template you placed is not the sole way of addressing such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Bn denied having a connection to WhoWhatWhy back in October 2014, and said he had contacted Russ Baker directly. However I'm having trouble taking that position seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It's an interesting coincidence that this is the second potential undisclosed COI situation I've encountered in the space of a week. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of the tag. No, it is not warranted. I have met Russ Baker several times when he was here giving talks, and I am able to contact him directly by email. I admire investigative journalism in general, and Russ's work as an example of it, but I do not work for him, for WhoWhatWhy, or for The Real News Project, nor do I receive any substantive or intangible benefit of any kind from them or from Russ, other than as a consumer (reader). I'm a linguist whose main concern these days is in helping the Pit River Indians get their (Achumawi) language back, work that I began in 1970. (You can look up my 1998 dissertation at Penn.) I currently have NSF/NEH funding to complete my linguistic database and train tribe members. You can probably find a list of current grants on the website for the Documenting Endangered Languages program. Some other academic interests are in Zellig Harris's theory of language and information and in a certain broad theory of behavior. No COI. Is there something else that I need to do to restore an assumption of good faith? Bn (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be conflating having a close connection with the subject, as defined in broad terms by WP:COI, with being a paid editor. You do appear to have a close connection but no one has said that you are paid. My concern was not COI but POV and the slanting of this article over a prolonged period of time. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns regarding this account's editing extends to Family of Secrets. Sorry, but I do not believe that this editor's summation of reviews that are offline or partially offline, such as the Time review, can be accepted in good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that was just a one paragraph "skimmer" review. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better advised to stick to NPOV, which applies to individual edits and improves the article, whereas COI and Stonewall target an editor and stifle discussion. Bn (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of NPOV, I just took a look at the original version of Family of Secrets, which you wrote and which was unambiguous promotion.[2]. The review section alone, with its obfuscation of the fact that the book received simply terrible reviews, pushes the assumption of good faith to the breaking point and beyond. Remember that AGF is not some kind of unconditional suicide pact. COI notwithstanding, you have utilized your account for purposes of promotion. COI is not taken very seriously in the project but promotional editing is viewed very dimly. I'd strongly urge you to desist. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected, and the edit you recently reverted has been inputted again, can you revert this back please? 172.58.40.117 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did start a discussion on the talk page. See WP:BRD --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.59.186.103&redirect=no

• I got your message here, where you said:

Greetings. Some of your recent edits do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am not perfect, all of my comments - with the exception of a derogatory comment about another unregistered editor - were polite. And even that comment was clearly humourous, and I was respectful after I cracked that bad joke about him/her being an unregistered editor.

• Yes, I do think you were in error - thank you for being willing to listen to me.

• Did you "copy and paste" this message, as knee-jerk reaction, or rather did you actually write it? Also, even if you "copied and pasted" a template, that's OK, but did you actually have a gripe? If so, please tell me what I said (comments in "talk") or did (edit and/or edit comments) that was objectionable. Thank you.96.59.186.103 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean an insult, but I was heavy-handed, and here, at this 'diff', I apologised. On my honour, I did not intent to insult you or others. (PS: I have a dynamic IP address, so it is different today than previous days.) Thank you for your feedback and advice.96.59.147.247 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit about heel spurs and all that, the NYT article that you mention has been extensively discussed at the article talk page. Why not join that discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're beyond 1RR at the Donald Trump article. I don't want to template you, so please revert. Thanks. I have to comply with this annoying 1RR rule, so others such as yourself should have to comply as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm confused. I don't think I reverted at all, let alone twice. Can you provide me with diffs please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=733716031

17:36, 9 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=733581444

20:19, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=733568899

18:35, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=733558622

18:25, 8 August

You are factually incorrect when you say the boycott did not precede Trump's comments about the judge, but that's a separate matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reverts, are they? Aside from the restoration of the comments about Curiel, which was implementing the talk page consensus. (And I acknowledged my error about the timing of the boycott and struck the incorrect statement.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why each of the four diffs I've given is a revert. I have been avoiding making more than one such edit in any 24-hour period.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. By your logic, any deletion or modification is a revert. That's not how WP:EW works. Are you seriously thinking of reporting me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been brought to WP:EW for two reverts like these, much less the four we're discussing here. Basically, as you probably know, if the admins like you then they let you off, if they don't like you then they enforce the actual rules. In this case, the actual rule is clear. And it's the rule that I and other editors have been following.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a yes or a no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nothing personal, but if you're seriously not going to cancel the last of your four reverts, then I may well report it, if for no other reason than to make yet another futile attempt to get a narrower 1RR rule that I can actually follow without worrying about a block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for a more constructive route that's less likely to get you in trouble: how about WT:EW or WP:VPP? And, while you're responding, could you please provide a link or two to examples of administrators interpreting WP:EW the way you're suggesting? Because I could be wrong, but your accusation seems like a broken arrow -- more pointy than accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm being absolutely frank with you: I have been stuck for months in the predicament of avoiding these kinds of repeated reverts within 24 hours, and other editors have been stuck with it too. This is not being pointy, it's being fair. If you're right, then I would like to know what the real rule is; more likley they will let you off without saying what the real rule is, so they can be more strict on other occasions. The language at WP:3RR is clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If you can point to an official interpretation that differs from the plain meaning of this definition, I'm all ears, because it would be very handy for me and would free me up to make more edits. I don't take notes when I edit Wikipedia, and so cannot immediately point to a specific instance where this sentence at WP:3RR has been interpreted in any particular way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find myself often at ANEW so I'm not up on all the technicalities. Nevertheless I edit lots of contentious articles so I have a pretty good sense of community expectations. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," it is referring to actions that occurred relatively recently the edit history, not actions that occurred at some unknown time way back in the history. When it refers to "whether in whole or in part," it is not referring to good faith attempts to compromise. I make no promises, but if you follow these guidelines I suspect you'll be ok. Have you had experiences to the contrary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am submitting a 3RR report to get some clarity. I report other users extremely rarely, so I request that you please view the matter in that context; I'm not saying you're an egregious editor, just that I really need some definitive guidance on this. The rule could easily say it refers to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history, and could easily say that it does not refer to good-faith compromises. I have had experiences being sanctioned and banned when I did not violate any rule at all, much less violating the plain meaning of a rule. The 3RR report is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. You don't build consensus by turning friends into enemies over petty score-settling disputes with others. You seem bitter. Why not take a break and cool off? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a pity that you want to personalize the matter and attribute venal motives. I hope that after the matter is resolved (either way) we can go back to being friendly. I think you agree that the first diff shows a revert. The idea that the third diff doesn't because the matter has been disputed at the talk page is kind of perplexing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting my time and I am deeply offended by your behavior. I have nothing constructive to say to you. You are banished from my talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for butting in here...I don't think I've visited this page before, but I just referenced you on another user's talk page, and thought I'd check you out. To the best of my understanding, a removal of material can sometimes be counted as a technical revert, but in my book it would boil down to the intent. I would be hesitant to call any of the first 3 edits linked above "reverts", as they seem to be citation maintenance and copyediting. The strongest case for "revert" of the 3 would be the removal of the citation. The last edit (Aug 9) I would count as a revert, since the Hispanic judge content had previously been removed. It is best to be careful on articles like this, though. Hopefully this clarification will save Anythingyouwant the trouble of making a 3RR report and the headache of trying to edit contentious articles without removing any words. ~Awilley (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awilley. You were too late to stop Anythingyouwant from making a 1RR report, which can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I don't think it's too late for this to be resolved amicably. It looks like Anythingyouwant is considering withdrawing the 3RR report, and that might be a good thing, since messy and contentious reports tend to be ignored by patrolling admins anyway, especially during silly season. Perhaps if you unbanned them from your talk page you two could shake hands and move on with your editing? ~Awilley (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately they withdrew their report. I'll have to cool off for a little while before considering unbanning them. Maybe I'm good at avoiding drama, or maybe I'm just lucky, but this was the lamest interaction I've had on Wikipedia in years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, I'm unbanning you. Please never, ever report me (or anyone else) on the admin boards again for the purpose of gaining clarity on our policies or guidelines, or simply because you have been reported on the admin boards for similar conduct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you for one main reason: what I thought was a clear violation of 1RR. I note that Awilley has not answered my question at his talk page about whether your "Wharton" edit was a revert, which I think it clearly was. Anyway, I hope we can be friends. Please report me any time you think I've violated 1RR, although I'd appreciate an opportunity to revert myself (like I gave you). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't report non-disruptive editors who happen to break the rules once in a while, and I would appreciate it if you didn't either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you didn't report me for what you thought was a clear violation. In your own words, you reported me to "gain some clarity" because you "really need[ed] some definitive guidance" on how WP:EW worked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've tried diligently to explain, two of the reverts were reported to gain guidance, and the other two were obvious reverts in my mind. And now that you mention it, it does so happen that my opinion is that you were being disruptive when you put me on a par with Gounc, and suggested that I might be topic-banned, and when you put his text into the article while discussion was ongoing to make it more balanced. I'm not saying that opinion of mine did or didn't have anything to do with the 1RR report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. I'm all out of patience. Good day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I will carefully study the sources you gave regarding Trump and the birther stuff. Lots going on right now, so it may be a day or so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost subscription page is appearing as blank (to me at least) since you signed up. For the life of me I can't see anything wrong with your addition. Any ideas? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, but it looks ok to me. Maybe it was a temporary blip? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it on my PC. Tried it on my phone. Slept on the problem. Logged out. Logged in again. Page still appeared blank. Hit Purge and everything appeared. Beyond weird. Thanks for having a look. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I hoped I was clearer about this point in my close, but it seemed to get lost. :( Citations are Very necessary for that claim per BLP. See WP:BLPSOURCES, which mandates the inline citation. I'm asking you to pick and add the best 2-3 sources you can find to that claim that weren't from a "Fact-checking site" to that sentence despite the fact that it is in the lede.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I was just re-reading your closing statement and realized that's what you meant just as you left me your note. That has never been my understanding of how WP:BLP interacts with WP:LEAD but I can certainly see your perspective. I'll add a couple of non-fact checker sources. Politico and probably TIME. And btw thanks for doing the deep dive, much appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sounds good. WP:CITELEAD suggests that they are necessary, but it's an interesting argument. Thank you for the kind words. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I think it's from Aetna’s CEO – Mark Bertolini, from something like here. Doesn't look like it should be included anyway to me, but just wanted to find the quote :) Arkon (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I did notice that. Glad to see that other folks are watching the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I undid your edit since it was restoring a section duplication that I did unintentionally due to some funky copy-paste. The entire Third Opinion chain is preserved in the lower block and I marked the undo summary per WP:TPO. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we have a brief side-discussion? I tried to support a modified sentence that addressed your concerns: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable." But since you still have concerns, I wonder if something like this would work: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be legally advisable for someone under audit". I've inserted the word "legally" plus the last three words. All of the tax attorneys were discussing legal ramifications of an audit. Obviously, since the tax attorneys disagree about the legal ramifications, there will be politicians and pundits urging Trump to release or not release, so do we really have to mention the latter? If so, maybe we can draft something that includes all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions still raise legal considerations above political one, which is inherently non-neutral. I believe the only way to make this content neutral is to omit it. What other folks think about Trump's refusal to release his returns isn't particularly biographically significant anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just said above that "we we can draft something that includes" the politicians and pundits, so it's hard to comprehend why you think that's non-neutral. Anyway, I assume you mean that the tax attorneys need to be omitted along with the pundits and politicians. I think that way implies that he has no legitimate legal reason to withhold the tax returns during the audit, which is simply false according to the sources I cited. How you think that's NPOV eludes me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]