Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 27 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.

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, petrarchan47tc 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)

Well, you've obviously backtracked on this quite a bit. Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment, most especially your conniving with Geogene about your "common interest". Please use the coat rack of my wrongdoings being collected in your sandbox asap or remove it per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is not possible for me to work with you and pretend to believe you act on good faith while you are doing these things, so there is no reason for you to continue to weigh in at Snowden about my edits because you obviously have a bias against me (to say the least). petrarchan47tc 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm preparing an WP:RFC/U to address our ongoing issues. It's taking some time because I've been having connectivity problems lately. This is not harassment; it's a good faith attempt to resolve our problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been two weeks. What's up? petrarchan47tc 23:26, 27 March 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)

IRWolfie, I would appreciate if you would quite following discussions about me. Much more important things await you, I am sure. Thanks and best, petrarchan47tc 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you stopped the problematic behaviour I observe and have documented. I'd really be much obliged, but I don't see that occurring. Second Quantization (talk) 12:57, 15 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)

a case study in RS

You've been making an issue out of what you believe to be my stubbornness to follow what RS say. It was after Petrarchan declared "LA Times puts it pretty succinctly. Are editors OK with telling the story as it appears in RS?" that you jumped in to agree with her. She quoted from a LAT story by one Sergei L. Loiko.

My question here, Doc, is why are you giving me a hard time here when @Petrarchan47 selectively ignores the fact that the exact same newspaper in a story by the exact same author, Sergei L. Loiko, says? "The United States cancelled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23" (note that there is no attribution here; the LA Times uses its own voice) to delete RS indicating that Snowden's passport was cancelled prior to Snowden leaving Hong Kong ? Are you going to instruct Petrachan to respect the sources here, including the source saying "ABC News later reported Snowden’s U.S. passport was revoked Saturday, one day before his Hong Kong departure" and the (NYT) source saying "...U.S. officials who have been seeking Snowden’s extradition and had annulled his passport a day before he left Hong Kong...")?

I suggest looking through all the spin going on here. The Guardian notes that "American authorities announced they had revoked his passport before he had got on the flight from Hong Kong" and then titles the story in which that appears "Whistleblower Snowden escapes arrest in Hong Kong thanks to US errors". How is it that the U.S. is at fault here for the "escape" to Russia if "American authorities" revoked his passport before Snowden left? The State Department officially goes on record the next day to call the allegations against it BS yet you still stick to the notion that the U.S. "stranded" Snowden in the airport, do you?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens or reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)