Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 1 March 2018

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.

Judicial Watch

I noticed you did 2 major things to a relatively well referenced section I added. I read the reasons for each action and have to questions about that.

1. How many false statements are required to provide a section noting that this organization has generated "Controversial, False, and Misleading" statements?

2. And this is more complex so I'll go into greater depth. The only place source you cited as contradicting me was Politifact (which I am familiar with and often read). I believe I found the article in Politifact which you are referring to and would point out that there are different implications in the different statements Scott Walker made in 2013 (which it evaluated in that article) and Judicial Watch in 2011.

Specifically the 2013 statement was that FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."

The Politifact article that rated this as true noted FDR's feelings on public unions may be debated this is more in terms of the range of things a public union could do (not on if they existed) and at the time there was not much of a public sector union tradition while private sector unions already had been building for several years.

While the 2011 Judicial Watch statement said FDR "opposed" public unions. This is on if they may exist and therefor advocate for public workers on any of the issues unions typically do.

Additionally Large numbers of public workers had not yet been unionized so that was a decision of someone before this time.

Moreover his administration's actions (as mentioned in the Politifact article) did not "oppose" the formation of public unions or public worker membership within them. The article referred to unions of workers associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also it noted FDR said that federal workers were "free to join 'any union they want'" and that "managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not".

Since Governor Walker refused to even meet with union members or representatives during the time Act 10 was being debated and protested this arguably was a violation of the spirit of FDR's views on how public workers and their treatment.

Judicial Watch exaggerated, at best, FDR's views on public workers and their unions and did so during a time of political unease over an unexpected change in several decades of traditional and legal recognition of public sector unions in Wisconsin. This was misleading.

What was also misleading in the Judicial watch statement was the claim that this was done for fiscal reasons when statewide unions had offered to take every fiscal cut he requested-meaning this was not over fiscal matters.

Perhaps I should have added that to my explanation of how the Judicial Watch commentary was misleading but this does qualify as misleading commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pplr, thanks for writing. I'm happy to respond, but could you please post at Talk:Judicial Watch so that we can discuss this there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey - I'm not trying to remove negative information about Judicial Watch. I want the page to be clean, organized, and fair. I don't think it makes sense to have many random claims of falsehood (and other criticism) listed in the "major investigations and lawsuits" section. That section should explain what activity Judicial Watch does, not be merely a list of complaints about the group. Is that fair? ResearchApproach (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi ResearchApproach, thanks for writing. I'm happy to respond, but could you please post at Talk:Judicial Watch so that we can discuss this there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. Thanks. ResearchApproach (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DrFleischman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks

I reviewed his extensive history at ANI and didn't find anything relevant to the pattern of editing evidenced in Lion Guard. I'll poke around some more and see if there's more evidence in his edit history and complaints by other editors on article talk pages. Thanks for the heads up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Also nice to know I have fans! -O.R. 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, no worries about OberRanks' history. If you really want to dig into this, the ArbCom warning can be found here. But I'm not trying to get them into trouble. Rather, my goal is to let you know that if you can't verify content added by this user then it should probably be removed. Don't rely on unsubstantiated verifiability claims by this user. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review ..

.. this . I nearly reverted you for deliberately introducing a typo .. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately? Tell me, have you ever heard of AGF? Nice to meet you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor

User:TheTimesAreAChanging has been repeatedly edit-warring. This is his 3rd revert in less than 24 hours. I reverted him for his unintelligible reason of "Random/IP editors are not WP:RS". What that means, I cannot understand. I suggest you warn him from edit-warring, because if he reverts for the fourth time then I'm not reverting, I will be forced to complain him. I had warned him to make him aware, but he removed my warning. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If they violated 3RR then you're free to report them. Personally I think their position is justified and I don't think you should have reverted them--twice. You have provided no justification for your reverts. Go to the talk page now and provide a content-based argument for your reversion, or go away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

If one person is doing something, and a bunch of people start reverting that person and complaining, then that person knows consensus is against them. If that person then starts making WP:POINTy edits (in an attempt to game the system) and insulting those who politely disagree then they probably do not have the patience and wisdom required for adminship. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus for deleting a category is not the same thing as consensus to edit all pages that contain wikicode that include that page in that category. In the mainspace, if a category is deleted then it makes total sense to delete the wikicode that includes pages in that category. Userspace is different. MediaWiki's categories are a bit weird in the sense that a deleted category can contain pages.

The idea that having a userpage in a category is somehow disruptive is demonstrably false. Editing people's userpages repeatedly against their wishes after being told not to is disruptive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I do not like talking about people behind their back. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If a small group of people oppose encyclopedic maintenance and the implementation of consensus decisions, then it is up to them to demonstrate a consensus for their view. Over the last year they have repeatedly failed to do so.

Instead they are reduced to silly sniping, like this demonstrably bogus allegations of pointiness and gaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No offense to either of you, but I'm not interested in getting further involved in this dispute. I just wanted to voice my support for Potato and others who have opposed BHG's user talk page edits. Please keep the dispute over disruption, admin privileges, talking behind people's backs, silly sniping, bogus allocations, gaming, etc. off my user talk. That goes for both of you. I have better things to do with my time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The fact which Quixotic Potato and others repeatedly refuse to acknowledge is that a page (of any type) in a non-existent category is treated by the software as an error, and creates an entry in a cleanup list (Special:WantedCategories). The disrupts the maintenance task of fixing miscategorisations and creating needed categories, because these "jokes" become permanent entries in a list which should be capable of being cleared.

There are non-disruptive ways to display these redlinks, but sadly a small group of vocal editors refuse to use the non-disruptive alternatives. Those editors are gaming WP:USERPAGE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, you are banned from my user talk for a period of 1 month starting today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

E-mail

Turned e-mail on temporarily. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Turned it off. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holidays to you too! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	umm, not really...just doing the same thing were all here to do. stop being so negative.. Katherinehurley (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I’m not here to make money. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Misplaced Pages noob. Would you mind explaining more about why you reverted my Gavin McInnes edit here? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gavin_McInnes&oldid=prev&diff=810359833 I looked at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources; here are some parts that seemed relevant: "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ... "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, the Proud Boys website is not objective... but it still seems like a great source for supporting information about a viewpoint that's being held on a particular subject here. And I don't think I did any original research here. Just provided a specific fact.--Clevera (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond but I'd prefer to do so at Talk:Gavin McInnes. Can you please repost your inquiry there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Clevera (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proud boys dubious tag

I just removed that paragraph from Proud Boys completely. It's a joke. It's obviously primary, based on the fact that while a source has repeated it, it can be sourced directly from their promotional media. At the very least wikipedia's voice shouldn't be used to parrot their promotional spiel. I put a poll on the TP - cheers. Edaham (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and message

Today, I tried to add a useful and appropriate reference for the topics that you have followed. I greatly appreciate your helpful adjustments and useful comments to improve or remove what I have tried to add to wikipedia. 67.53.214.86 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I left you a couple of messages at User talk:67.53.214.86, not sure if you saw them. If you have questions about them I'd suggest responding there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

We don't need people speculating about "the sociopoaths are the people, to protect their own left wing political party are trying to silence this" and dirty tricks teams. Thank you. --NeilN 00:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I was just about to write to you. I understand the need to tamp down on the flame wars, but most of that IP's post was definitely about the article and was quite specific about what they thought was wrong with it. It was most definitely not a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Deleting, hatting, or otherwise squelching the entire thing is censorship and feeds the accusations that Misplaced Pages is politically biased. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't care how we look to partisans (on either side). And I'm not giving a break to IPs on articles covered by discretionary sanctions that I wouldn't give to registered editors. The content is still there - editors can decide if any of it is worth pursuing in new threads. --NeilN 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Still not a NOTFORUM vio. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Marc J. Victor "politics" section

Hey, why'd you remove that section? He's mentioned on the other candidates'[REDACTED] pages and how is ballotpedia unreliable? AnaCadence (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Ana

Fly, fly, fly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Proud Boys

please watch your edits on Proud Boys. You replaced a biased source, inaccurately quoted, presenting disinformation. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take it to Talk:Proud Boys if you don't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Go where?

we surely should not be using obviously partisan websites with a poor reputation for reliability. Especially when there are clear (and intentional on their part) BLP implications. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The RSN consensus is that Fox News and National Review are by and large reliable. I'm not saying I agree with that consensus, but that is the consensus nonetheless and it has massive implications across the encyclopedia. If you wish to change that consensus, you're not going to accomplish that by edit warring. If you have specialized concerns about particular Fox News or National Review sources, then raise it at article talk and obtain consensus. If you have general concerns then I think you'd better obtain consensus at RSN. Otherwise it strikes me as reckless bomb-throwing. Just my personal view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Srsly? That is brain dead. If we have learned one thing fomr the last year and a half it is that you cannot trust partisan right-wing sources on anything relating to any political issue in the US right now. Guy (Help!)

You may have learned that, but most of your fellow editors haven't, so you have some convincing to do. In the meantime, please don't call my personal views brain dead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The Soup Nazi...

Is exactly who I had in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah well someone doesn't appreciate Seinfeld's brilliance like we do I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax cuts and jobs act of 2017

Ping Alesander (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Carter Page

Why did you remove the reference to Carter Page working on the Clinton transition team in 1993? It's well documented and was properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.21.154.83 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. And don't believe everything you read in the Gateway Pundit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for cleaning up the wikilink mess on the Council for National Policy page. Just didn't occur to me, I guess, to just use Edwin Meese's name.

Anyway, thanks again.

Javert2113 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing- Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Penguin Books editors provide oversight per wp:RS

Please engage on talk. Loesch described her ancestry in her book, published by Penguin.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops! U accidentally blanked...

Dana Loesch#Personal life

[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dana_Loesch&diff=828318100&oldid=828317908

diff] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not accidental. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The entire new section keeps disappearing.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, did you read my edit summary? The other editor simply moved stuff from another section. By re-adding it you're just adding redundant stuff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Im no longer going to visit your talk page.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)