This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Archive 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This person.I’m new but get a feeling this person is some political person who watches lots and lots of tv and then reiterates comments and views from someone he watches. I don’t do either, personally. He’s sent a new comer like 2 or more weird kinda rude messages already which seem to reflect a politically and or personally driven Personality. Too bad people like this seem to perhaps mostly run this website- for Wikipedia can never be fact based if everyone is like this- AND if everyone has the exact same opinion substituted for facts? Anyone else agree? Is anyone who’s “allowed” to contribute here NOT political and NOT watching too much television? Maybe going for walks or something instead? Getting an education? Jpodesta1 ( talk) 03:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
My test of DS alerts and templatesThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. {{subst:Ds/alert|ap}}
Please learn what vandalism is and isnt.Please refrain from leaving BS warnings. I slightly changed the tone of a sentence and you dare accuse me of vandalism. Clearly you have a personal attachment to that sentence so I'll leave it be despite the BS warning. That is all. AEWFanboy talk 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Good to see you...still waste-deep in the muck here. I hope you are well. You are one of the most collegial of editors that I recall from my time here. If I recall correctly, you did a fair bit of bare URL-filling, among other tasks (and are sorely missed there to the extent we do not see your hand in that). Be well, stay safe. Perhaps our paths will cross again. [a former prof., no longer logging] 2601:246:C700:19D:2407:C1A4:F98:C8FE ( talk) 07:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Don't jump, don't lay down, just sit back and enjoy...
Anyway, your mileage may vary, but they've helped me through some bumpy roads. Keep your chin tucked, your eyes on the prize and your own favourite guilty pleasures of old from falling into disused atrophy, confused entropy or enthused apathy through a simple revisiting now and again. And don't fear the reaper, the wolves nor the vastness of space, try to see things from their perspectives, maybe find a good book from one of those less "problematic" topics' proponents, I know I will. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). ![]()
Sent by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Just stopping by to start an arguementI haven't asked how you are doing recently so I thought I would. I also thought we should start a left vs right argument. I'll start. I really don't get why people like eggnog. If you like eggnog there is clearly something wrong with you and your politics! Happy holidays! Springee ( talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"Barriers to entry?"CONTEXT Newslinger, thanks for such a good analysis of the situation. You really get it. It is a frequent daily occurrence that clearly right-wing editors and visitors complain about the left-wing bias here, and mistakenly conclude that our choice of sources is because of personal bias, and not because most right-wing sources are not reliable, as noted above by Newslinger. Some editors are well aware of the article at The Critic and actually believe its mistaken premises. That's sad. One editor recently resorted to accusing other editors of creating "barriers of entry" as a means to "own the topic" and "control the narrative," [1] rather than recognizing that their own favorite sources were so extreme that they were not reliable enough for us to use. Does Wikipedia have "barriers to entry?" Yes, we do have them. They are called RS, and source reliability is judged by accuracy, not by any particular bias, be it left or right. As is always the case with politically relevant facts (IOW not all facts) and how sources relate to them, there are those sources which agree with those in power, and those sources that do not. This is a factor in what's known as "disinformation laundering": "The U.S. media ecosystem features several spheres that partially overlap and constantly interact with each other....The mainstream media... The conspiratorial media... and Disclosers." Currently, with few exceptions, the right-wing media has become (especially since Trump) so extreme that it is the described "conspiratorial media," with some extreme left-wing sources also in that group. At some other point in history, the roles might be reversed. It all depends on which narratives, true or false, are favorable to those in power. With Trump and the GOP, they have clearly chosen disinformation and conspiracy theories to stoke Trump's base, and he often gets those narratives from sources like Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, RT, Sputnik, and Russian intelligence efforts to plant propaganda and fake news, which he then repeats. He literally "launders" that disinformation. My points:
Valjean ( talk) 22:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC) George Floyd'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for. Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC) In regards to your most recent edit on Stop the StealHello! I've been patrolling Stop the Steal for vandalism for a while, and while checking the edit history of the page, I saw your edit, which changed the description of Parler from being a self-described free speech haven to a place which appeals to supporters of the conspiracy theory. While this was clearly in good faith, I don't believe this to be a fitting edit; instead of reverting it, I decided to come leave a note on your talk page, giving an option to discuss it and possibly come to a compromise. In your edit summary, you note that it's to relate the source to the content; however, the fact that Parler markets itself as a free speech haven is already included in the source; "Facebook and Twitter are banning hashtags, individuals and groups — including President Trump’s former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and groups affiliated with him — altering search results, labeling posts, down-ranking problematic content and implementing a host of measures to ward off misinformation. That is driving millions of new users to Parler, an alternate social media platform where conspiracy theories can thrive. The app, which has a free-speech doctrine, became the top new app download over the weekend on Apple’s App Store." Furthermore, the fact that it appeals to supporters of the conspiracy theory is already implied by the context of the sentence, with a direct correlation between outrage against Facebook's censorship of the conspiracy and Parler's rise in popularity among supporters being stated in the sentence. I believe this is sufficient for the content to be relevant to the source in its original state. Should the changes be kept however, I believe the sentence should be rewritten, as it reads awkwardly in its current form with the new addition. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to working together to improve the state of the article! Builder018 ( talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Why did the Russians know, before Americans, that Trump would run for president in 2016?Why were Russians, right after Trump's November 8–10, 2013, Moscow visit, publicly saying they would support his candidacy before Americans knew he had such plans? Trump and Russia planned all this very early, and Russian intelligence started their hacking and helping him in early 2014. An example of the early Russian support is still online and discussed here:
The Steele dossier seems to have been right about such early exchanges of information. The sources for the dossier alleged:
Valjean ( talk) 07:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Steele dossier and contacts between Trump campaigners and RussiansHere is the content and sources we have in the Steele dossier article that mention "contact":
CompetenceHi Valjean. Hope you are safe and well. I saw some of the discussions on competence. Ah, the problems of working in a collaborative environment where the value of the work is high and the compensation for honest work is nothing. Dishonest work (paid editing, coi, promotion, strong personal bias, etc) thrives, and they're going to do their best to not let anyone or anything (including policy) get in the way. I'm glad you're still with us. Glad you're willing to take on the political articles. Sorry you're still getting harassed for putting the work of improving this encyclopedia first. Competence is required, but some will take great offense at any suggestion that they are less than competent, looking for a way to invalidate any criticisms that are a result of that incompetence. Could you do me a favor? Please don't respond there (I'm requesting this of lurkers as well), as editors are already trying anything they can to attack me so they can avoid the basic policy question, but at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Grace_VanderWaal there is what I'd hoped was a very simple WP:V question, does this ref verify "She received mostly favorable reviews"? There are some partial responses, but they're drowning in the "flood the zone" disruptions. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything content-policy-wise. Also, suggestions on next steps would be appreciated. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day!
Durham investigation "a trolling exercise?"John Brennan: "What was the predication of this Durham investigation? Was it just a trolling exercise? I think that's what it was. And they look at a lot of documents. They talk to a lot of people and, again, interviewed me, and, clearly, they couldn't find anything that had any type of wrongdoing associated with it." CNN Cite Unseen updateHello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.
If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC) You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.
Avoid removing references of primary source
To be clearI don't really disagree with the substance of your statement, I just think it's important for us not to write such things on article talk pages (esp. high profile controversial BLPs). If you want to delete your comment and my responses (including this one), that would be OK with me. I think that would be best for the Project but it's your call. Levivich harass/ hound 20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
From Talk:Sidney Powell#The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete:
Is this a coup?Hi, BR. This headline today in NYT: Is this a coup? Experts say no, but that it could be just as dangerous. As I said to you at Talk:Donald Trump#Coup d'etat attempt, "...you can't report one side of what RS is saying, ignore the other side, and claim that you're complying with RS." Please change your !vote there, or cease going around lecturing other experienced editors on the importance of sticking to sources, which is frankly becoming tiresome. If you want to claim the high ground, earn it. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Free speechThanks. I keep a link to that XKCD comic on my page so I can always find it. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC). DoubtHello, @ Valjean: I am writing to you because your edit summary caught my attention in a section that I expanded in Dua Lipa article which is "Early life". I would like to know what you mean by "copy edits" (English is not my mother tongue). Alexismata7 ( talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
HopeHURRAY! :) starship .paint ( exalt) 23:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Good commentWorth keeping:
My essay follows this thinking: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CapsWell, then all the other templates are in error, aren't they? Expressions within parentheses (like this one), isn't capitalized. (That is, unlike they're complete sentences, like this one.) Agree? So, which other templates are you referring to? HandsomeFella ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit on Steele DossierThe the edit you thanked me for on the Steele Dossier actually produces a grammatically incorrect sentence. I will look at it again when I have time. -- Youngrubby ( talk) 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it looks OK now, personally I would go with "The declassification order" instead of "His declassification order" -- Youngrubby ( talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Precious anniversary
See also: User talk:Valjean/Archive 25#Precious Sidney Powell articleI’m not a fan of Sidney Powell, but it looks wrong for her article to label her “Racist” in the first sentence. 2603:8001:A400:EF:51F6:7D48:6B26:F90A ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus" is not a standalone policy - drafting proposed textHere is a first draft:
Your thoughts, improvements, etc.? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
How about this then:
More improvements? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 00:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC) What to do?So we've been round and round with this for a few weeks now, and we need to settle it so I can continue to make improvements to the Steele Dossier article. With some more editorial improvements (namely trimming excessive detail) I think it could be a candidate for promotion but I don't want to go through that effort just for you to blanket revert all the trims. Should we have an RFC? Something along the lines of - "Would this article benefit from editorial trimming of UNDUE content?" I don't know how else to communicate to you the things that I and many others have said numerous times now, but I point you to Awilley's comment here, which mirrors closely what I said here. None of the trims have anything to do with sourcing; indeed the article is impeccably sourced. The article now stands as an aggregation of just about every time an RS news or opinion article mentioned the Steele Dossier, which gives UNDUE prominence to such opinions, speculations, and things that did not come to pass. I know that you think I am the one running afoul of policy, so I'm hoping that the results of a neutral RFC with uninvolved participation could settle the issue. If the consensus is that the article would not benefit from trimming UNDUE content I'm happy to respect that too. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
FYIA discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Unimportant ANI
Disambiguation link notification for August 10Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Into the Forest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apocalyptic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Please fix duplicate entryValjean, there are now TWO "Jayden Belle Henderson" deaths in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Someone added a second/duplicate entry today under a different date, I removed it, you added it back. Please fix that. Platonk ( talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC) You need to be REALLY careful on thisThese DailyWire sources ARE reliable for the statements made, in this case, the opinions of the author. "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." statements CLEARLY meet the criteria. Please revert. Buffs ( talk) 01:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
12 hours
ToBeFree and Floquenbeam, please identify my uncivil remarks. Bear in mind that Buffs is falsely claiming that I called them a skunk, etc. I did not. I clearly note "My point?", right in the middle of the paragraph. Buffs ignores that, and apparently you do too. Don't get fooled by Buffs. (Pinging Bishonen) Now I'm being addressed on AN/I and can't respond. Unlike Buffs, I am TOTALLY blocked. Mentioning that I find them an unpleasant editor is not a PA or uncivil, and far from as serious as how they treated me. I was treated uncivilly and with bad faith, so it's entirely reasonable to expect that I tell how that made me feel. Unfortunately, this block will tarnish my block log, and the log cannot be altered. This loss of face can never be removed. It's an attack on my honor and will haunt me for what's left of my life. My life force and will to live is literally diminished. (Japanese culture is a curse in this case.) A simple warning would have sufficed. Please be more careful in the future. -- Valjean ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange and Guccifer 2.0
References
Russian support for Trump1) @ Valjean I am a bit confused about your statement below: "Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources." If "some Russians then publicly" supported Trump then how it could be that no Americans "knew of such plans from public sources"? At least since 1988 and for sure from 1999 Trump mentioned his intent to run. See here and more at Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Background.
The contacts with foreign figures are troublesome, but not illegal...unless of course there is funding of the candidates involved. Kolma8 ( talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Kolma8, as I see it, and this is my opinion, this is about loyalties, not just about legalities. There is nothing wrong with expressions of support from one's allies. I am not disputing that. I'm also well aware of Trump's historical presidential ambitions and attempts. OTOH, it is worrying when the enemies of your country think you'd be a great leader they would rather have in power. It is problematic when an American candidate first plans with the enemies of America, long before he publicly announces his coming candidacy to Americans, and the Russians then start supporting him with illegal hacking, military cyberattacks (an act of war), etc. America is the only place where he should be getting actual support (not just expressions of approval). It shows poor judgment, or in the case of Trump, lack of concern for national security, to think that when Putin, an avowed enemy of America, says Trump would be his preferred leader for America, to then think that's a good thing. That's a horrible thing. That signals that Trump is more of an asset for Russia than an asset for America, and that Putin knows it and Trump doesn't care. He's more concerned with sucking up to his hero and getting Trump Tower Moscow built. He wants to be like Putin, and rule America in exactly the same way. As far as foreign funding goes, the GOP and Trump campaign did receive illegal Russian funds. The illegality of the many forms of aid offered to Trump by Russia applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations, and the Trump campaign did receive cash from Russians. Remember that, while eight allied foreign intelligence agencies were surveilling Russian agents/spies all over Europe who were secretly meeting with Trump campaigners, in April 2016, the CIA received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". [1] That was a conversation about the Trump campaign. There is also the NRA-GOP pipeline of money where Russian money was given to the NRA and then whitewashed into campaign contributions to the GOP and Trump campaigns. The evidence is there, based on Trump's proven ties to Russia, his campaign's myriad secret and lied about contacts with Russians, their declarations that they would support him, their hacking to support him, etc. etc. etc., that Trump valued Russian help more than America's national security, and he threw American intelligence agencies under the bus in order to keep that Russian help in place. The interference has never stopped. That's treasonous behavior. There are two main conflicting Trump–Russia narratives regarding the Russian election interference in 2016, subsequent Trump–Russia investigation and Special Counsel investigation, and the Trump–Russia relationship. The standard narrative from American and allied foreign intelligence agencies is that there was a widespread, systematic, and successful effort by the Russians to disrupt American democracy and the 2016 presidential election. This involved efforts to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump win. There were investigations into that interference and the degree to which Donald Trump, his campaign, and his associates may have colluded with the Russians in those efforts. They also posit that Trump has engaged in actions which sought to impede investigations into these matters and that many of the actions by Trump, his associates, and Republican allies have amounted to a cover-up. The alternative/false narrative from Trump, Vladimir Putin, Fox News, and other right-wing media is that Russian interference did not happen, or it was minimal and had no positive effect on Trump's election. They claim there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, but rather that there was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians. They also posit that the Obama administration, backed by the FBI, sought to spy on and undermine Trump's campaign and presidency using illegal surveillance and investigations of the Trump campaign that were for political purposes and not for national security reasons. They also call the investigations a witch hunt, fake, hoax, bogus, etc. They allege that there was no collusion, or that, if there was, it was not illegal. Trump has often disputed that Russia interfered in the election [2] and, at the 2018 Helsinki summit, even endorsed Putin's denial of Russian interference. [3] Trump's remarks on the interference have often been self-contradictory, and he and his allies allege that, if there was any Russian interference at all, it did not help him win the election. [2] Rudy Giuliani conceded there was collusion by Trump campaign members, but not by Trump. [4] Needless to say, I see Trump as a continued threat to national security. If he is elected again, that will be the end of American democracy, and that's not hyperbole. That is the determination of most national security and intelligence experts and leaders, including among our allies. They are seriously worried. We'll become a kleptocratic plutocracy, a one-party state, and a Trump family dictatorship, with American assets and its treasury being treated like a part of the Trump Organization, ready for plundering. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Reliably sourcedPlease note that "reliably sourced" does not only mean left-wing articles. If I wanted I could find any kind of descriptors I wanted mentioned by Fox news or a related outlet, and used it to make a similar change, but I didn't as I had to sense to know it would be biased. It is obvious to me you would like to control the speech related to those who hold opposing views. This harms the neutrality of Wikipedia. And instead of a crowdsourced website for general information, it becomes yet another space for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost66 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Interesting new articleI thought this Daily Beast piece was interesting. I think we would agree that Hill is a noted expert on Russia, so what do you think of her "dismissing" claims that Putin had anything on Trump? Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Mr Ernie, we're back from Ferndale, a very charming little town, and Avenue of the Giants, where some of the redwoods are over 100 meters tall: "the Founder's Tree (346.1. ft. tall) and the Dyerville Giant (c. 370 ft. tall) which fell down in 1991." Majestic! Now it's drizzling. The article isn't very long, but it's damning, yet not on a par with other things she's written:
That she dismisses the kompromat idea is at odds with things she has said before, and at odds with the beliefs of a number of the leaders of US intelligence agencies, who believe Putin does have kompromat on him, or that he acts like Putin has such kompromat. She has previously testified otherwise. Amy Siskind summarized Hill's testimony before the House impeachment investigators:
Her original source is WaPo, where Hill made it clear that the Russians gathered kompromat on everyone, including Hillary Clinton. It would be remarkable that they wouldn't gather kompromat on Trump, whom they had groomed since the 1980s. They always gather such information on notable foreigners, especially someone who had presidential ambitions, and who had a well-known taste for beautiful Russian women and was delighted at the sight of urine sex at a club in Las Vegas. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Collusion? The obvious answer.‘Eureka moment’ On the page, Schiff records an airport exchange with a Republican stranger, who said: “You can tell me – there’s nothing to this ‘collusion stuff’, is there?” It is a conversation which should put that question permanently to rest. Schiff said: “What if I was to tell you that we had evidence in black and white that the Russians approached the Clinton campaign and offered dirt on Donald Trump, then met secretly with Chelsea Clinton, John Podesta and Robby Mook in the Brooklyn headquarters of the campaign … then Hillary lied about it to cover it up. Would you call that collusion? “Now what If I also told you that after the election, former national security adviser Susan Rice secretly talked with the Russian ambassador in an effort to undermine US sanctions on Russia after they interfered to help Hillary win. Would you call that collusion?” The Republican was convinced: “You know, I probably would.” For Schiff, it was a “eureka moment”. “Now,” he thought, “if I can only speak to a couple hundred million people.” Schiff’s book should convince a few million more that everything he said about Trump was true – and that the country was exceptionally lucky to have him ready and willing to defend the tattered concept of “truth”. [1]
Mr Ernie, I think Mueller tried to be thorough, but the Mueller report makes clear that much evidence was not obtained because of various devious actions by Trump and his allies, things like destruction of evidence, use of burner phones and encrypted communication, refusal to testify, lies, etc. That's part of the obstruction of the investigation that occurred very openly. Trump didn't even try to hide that he was doing it. That's part of why Mueller "did not clear Trump of improper behavior". I'm a bit uncertain about what you mean with some of your statements:
There is no possible outcome of the Durham/Sussmann/Clinesmith stories that undoes all of Trump's and his campaign's proven wrongdoings, especially his pushing of the Big lie that he won the election and that it was stolen from him. He's pushing an insurrection to steal the election and destroy democracy. Nothing can forgive such behavior. Trump's problems are largely caused by him shooting himself in the foot, so don't blame RS for documenting it and us using those RS here. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Your reference to dossier on Links articleI don't dispute that the dossier relates to Links, but I am not persuaded that Danchenko's indictment, simply because it relates to the dossier, is also relevant to Links. Am I missing something? soibangla ( talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Ambro23Would you care to revisit your warnings at User talk:Ambro23 about Candace Owens from two years ago? Doing the same thing. -- 21:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Help edit the Osteopathic Medicine page by going to dispute pageI filed a dispute case based on our discussion; please go ahead and click here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States ; once in the page, edit your section in the Osteopathic section confirming our points. ORdeDocsaab ( talk) 23:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Concerns raised by DeicasBackground found HERE. Deicas, both Acroterion and Johnuniq, two highly-respected admins (who are very level-headed and sensible people), have warned you about how your constant relitigating of this issue ad nauseum is disruptive. It is badgering that borders on harassment. Why are you still doing it after being warned many times and even blocked? Do you really want to be blocked again, and this time certainly an indefinite block? I am now convinced that an indefinite block and a block of access to your talk page are necessary, with no need for further evidence or abuse of dramaboards. Your behavior is that egregious. Once blocked, your talk page will just be used for more of what we've seen. Stop focusing on editors. Article talk pages are not to be used for that purpose, at least not to the degree (obsessive much?) you're doing it. You are treating ordinary differences of opinion as legalistic matters of great importance that should result in the censure and punishment of those you see as your adversaries. That's battlefield mentality, and I'm really tired of it. You are really making editing here a nuisance. This is all a huge timesink. I am willing to answer your question AGAIN, and only here on my talk page (and likely only once because I have already explained this to you), but that's only because I'm generally a friendly guy who hates to leave any possible misunderstanding laying around. Unfortunately, because you haven't accepted my previous explanation, I'm not sure this is a misunderstanding (on your part) anymore. If you want to pursue this, copy your request to this thread, but, before doing so, please note the comment I just left on your talk page about the formatting of your comments and follow that advice/comment. Pinging Doniago as he has also tried to advise you. -- Valjean ( talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Valjean, just an FYI that you linked me but didn't ping me about this. However, as evidenced by my posting this message, I've seen this. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC) BLP Noticeboard Filing on Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source"Please note that your are mentioned here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Brookings Institution Deicas ( talk) 22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Is there a reason I should review that discussion, or a reason you emailed it rather than left me a message on my talk page? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Your false claims of "consensus"
CNN RfCYou seem to be a very experienced editor so I figured I'd ask you about this. The CNN Controversies RfC is going to close in about a week, I don't see much use in extending it and there isn't likely to be a consensus. This content dispute has turned into a policy matter; I suspect efforts to make the article compliant with policy will produce more edit disputes, and even tagging the article will likely produce the same(it should probably be tagged currently tbh). How does this play out? If the (lack of) consensus produces a policy violation, does the issue get escalated somehow? Thanks in advance. SmolBrane ( talk) 19:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, my brain is small. What is !vote and how does it work? SmolBrane ( talk) 04:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Reference formatting advice for sourcesAccording to {{
cite news/doc}}, the you should be banned from editing wikipediayou obviously are biased and like to wear your politics on your page. this is the problem as only independents should be allowed to edit wikipedia to avoid bias. you know im telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.176.163 ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF and use of unreliable sourcesWP:ABOUTSELF also applies to unreliable people and sources, as well as anything written in an unreliable source or a primary source. Unreliable sources must never be used because, with the exception of ABOUTSELF, all content here is based on RS. An unreliable person or idea should not be mentioned unless discussed in a RS. For example, we document conspiracy theories by using what RS say about them and their promoters, not by using the unreliable sources of the promoters of the theories. The only exception is in the biography of the subject, and then subject to the limitations mentioned in ABOUTSELF. More info here (older content): Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#Dealing with fringe subjects. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
First sentence in Chiropractic articleEven for me, a chiroskeptic, the immediate mention of pseudoscience at the beginning of the first sentence is unnecessarily jarring, and we frequently get objections from readers, including from other chiroskeptics. I view their concerns as worthy of consideration, so I want to develop a less jarring version that still mentions pseudoscience in the first paragraph. Current first sentence:
As two sentences:
The pseudoscientific details are explained further down in the lead and body. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
PosnerI started a discussion about Posner's book on the Kennedy conspiracy article. -- Virtuus ( talk) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) OK, so what's it going to be this time?Last year we had to argue about eggnog (it's evil and we all know it). What should we argue about this holiday season? ;) Springee ( talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I want to be 100% clear, given some of your culinary discussions I would be very concerned if you were editing the BLP's of food critics or lists of most popular treats in Scandinavian countries. :D Springee ( talk) 14:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Your e-mailI'm afraid I don't agree with you. Nominating an article for deletion is not the same as tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the consensus is to delete the article, it is not deleted until at least seven days have elapsed. I don't spend a lot of time at AfD because I find the discussions to be often contentious and uncivil. However, I don't generally see articles deleted because they are not "perfect". Finally, although there is no policy requirement as to what should be done before the nomination, generally people expect some research by the nominator as to the notability of the subject ( WP:BEFORE).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Today, December 18, 2021, is this user's 16th WikiBirthday as a registered editor
That's as a registered editor. Before that, I started editing as an IP in 2003 before we had 500,000 articles. I vividly remember when we hit the first million mark. That made me realize that this project was really going somewhere. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Songs of the season
Good faithHi Valjean, remember to assume good faith in other actions. Best, Whizz40 Whizz40 ( talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Whizz40, I have discovered that you have previously tried to improve the coverage of climate change denial at the article. Why are you now opposing it? -- Valjean ( talk)
References "T***p" listed at Redirects for discussion
PingHey, just pinging to demand that you have a good day. I figure there is a better chance your day will be good if I demand it vs just hope it. Springee ( talk) 19:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Your recent edit on Peter DoocyYou give POTUS to much credit. Nerguy ( talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
Mind elaborating about this revert? I'm interested in hearing what in the talk page post you disagree with, and also – and especially – why you apparently believe that replacing a broken link to the Google translate page for a French news item with a properly formatted bibliographic entry for the actual news item is not an improvement. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
BLPNThanks for nice, civil resolution. Recognizing when you have tunnel vision is one of the hardest things to do, and I really respect that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As an FYI, you actually weren't too far off at all. I've tried to work with ScottishFinnishRadish on related behavior issues at BLPs on their talk page, but that obviously hasn't helped much. Generally if you see someone ignoring parts of BLP policy such as WP:BLPBALANCE or WP:BLPPRIMARY and blanket reverting, it's usually best just to follow the latter and look for sources citing the SPS. I fixed the article in this case, but there's also a point where it's on the person reverting the content out to improve the references (especially if relatively easy to do) rather than edit war. KoA ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank YouHi, Valjean. Thank you for helping me see the light about the things that’s going on in the world. I didn’t have a clue about 99.9% of the stuff you gave me to look through on my user talk page. I’ve even had a chance to read up about vaccines and found out that they aren’t so bad after all. I have since scheduled for my first COVID-19 vaccine on Monday. I don’t know why I didn’t know this before, but I at least do now, thanks to you. I want to completely change my ways of thinking, but I’m going to have to do it in stages. One step in the right direction at a time. Thanks, again! Cheers. - Stiabhna ( talk) 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
English variationJust as a heads up, but you seem to have inadvertently switched the variety of English from British English to American English of councillor in this edit. I've put that spelling back to the British English version. Just in case you have some kind of automated spelling corrector. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion![]() This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pit_Bull Tazdeviloo7 ( talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Lyme Disease tick range in CanadaHi...I noticed you reverted an edit I made about the range of ticks in Canada that are capable of carrying Lyme Disease in Canada. I don't want to do back and forth edits so wanted some feedback from you. I tweaked the first sentence because Climate Change is mentioned further on in the section and the present range of ticks is what is. Having "Owing to changing climate" mentioned first makes it sound like the ticks are in their range because of a changing climate when they would have been in most of the present range regardless of the changing climate. Their range will expand because of Climate Change and that is covered. I don't see why it needs to be mentioned twice and is misleading. Why can't there be a sentence on what the range is and where it is going based on Climate Change? Dbroer ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Bachelor of ArtsYou accused me of vandalism for changing RFK JR.’s Harvard degree from a BA to an AB but when it comes to Harvard, Princeton, and other institutions AB is the correct order. Crazy Jay Fox ( talk) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't do anything about the IP evasion as the range is too large. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Some usernames and IPs used by Stiabhna
Personal attacksQuestioning another editors reading comprehension and accusing them of trying to be deceptive, as you did here, is not appropriate. Stop it, this kind of behavior has come up so many times at this point. Also you could stand to cut back on the original research and forum behavior at that talk page in general but that one is just my 2 cents. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
PackMecEng, I did not say "deceptive". That's your word. You are the one in error there. Without looking at the context, you'd be right, but you are not looking at the context. You do realize that many non-English speakers edit here? They sometimes misunderstand what's written, but in this case, the editor in question missed all the mentions of far-right and conspiracy theories throughout the article (including conspiracy theories in the lead) and completely ignored a whole section discussing Trump's conspiracy theories. So their statement ("Not one sentence in this article says the Trump was a far-right politician and not one sentence says he's a conspiracy theorist."), in that context, seems to indicate (1) they didn't even bother to examine the article, or (2) they are being "tricky and extremely technical", because it's true that the exact words "far-right politician" are not found, even though far-right is found several places. The same applies to "a conspiracy theorist", even though a whole section is devoted to Trump's conspiracy theories and it's mentioned in the lead, both the conspiracy theories he has created and those he pushes. How could an editor somehow miss that? My response AGF and was merciful. My first impulse is to strike my comment, but then how should I make the point that their reading comprehension is so lacking they missed all the mentions throughout the article of both matters, and missed a whole section? "Reading comprehension" is the mildest good faith description I could think of. So are we dealing with a reading comprehension issue, or is it a "tricky and extremely technical" (straw man) issue? Please answer that question. Help me find a better way to describe it. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I just happen to come across this by clicking on Valjean's talk page, and it's disappointing that not one editor here felt it was necessary to notify me of a discussion in which I was one of the main subjects. I also don't appreciate Valjean thinking it's their place to assess my reading comprehension skills. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to draw an extra set of eyes to Frédéric Sinistra, a COVID-19 denier who died of the disease, and for which the page is seeing occasional bursts of traffic from IPs trying to erase that fact. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Kindly stay off my talk page.I'm being civil here when I say I really would appreciate if you left me alone. I'm done editing political articles and don't appreciate people coming on my Talk page to disrespect me or label me partisan or a conspiracy theorist. It was uncalled for and inappropriate and crossed a line. Have a nice life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24rhhtr7 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Precious anniversary
Reminder of BLP
The article reflects sourced informal allegations of corrupt activities by Joe Biden, Viktor Shokin and Burisma. Nobody except you apparently pushes the notion that Hunter Biden acted corruptly, or was even in a position to do so, in this matter. There is talk in RS of potential investigations into whether he failed to register as a foreign agent and pay his taxes, but these are entirely different crimes, even in theory. I ask you retract, reword or cite all your claims suggesting there ever was alleged corruption by Hunter Biden. Stick to the three entities already named as possibly corrupt by the mainstream media or conspiracy theorists, please, if insinuations must be made at all. InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC) General consensus for determining reliability of an individualHi Valjean. With all your editing in areas of politics, I thought you might be able to point me to discussions that might suggest some general consensus on when a person is unreliable for information about his/herself. It seems like it should be an important note for addressing BLPSPS situations. Thanks for any thoughts on this. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Regarding my recent revert
Not to be a botherI saw your response on the Hunter Biden thing... not trying to be a pest in that regard and I can see the level of rhetoric is heightened. I don’t know if you wanted things to be bought to your talk page or posted on the talk page of the article in question so if I’ve done that in error, apologies. My question has more to do with taking a direct editorial position when things are still in a state of flux in many ways. As a result is the wording on the article even really correct at this point because so very much is still up in the air meaning that the article is making assumptions that would not necessarily be extended to people of different political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 ( talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Lauren Boebert a far-right politicianCollecting some information here. This is also happening at Candace Owens, another extreme right-winger. From this addition, which was deleted: Other refs mentioned in this version of the lead:
but found in the body: The efforts to whitewash her extremist far-right leanings and position are worrying and unwikipedian, but, considering who is doing it, unsurprising. POV protectionism of these extremist right-wingers is a pattern. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
References
May I briefly pick your brain?Full disclosure, I recently have been speaking to SPECIFICO about something completely unrelated on their TP and I noticed some references in your recent comment there [5], and I was wondering if I could possibly get a brief opinion from you on policy/guideline stuff, no accusations or allegations - just pure technical stuff about NOTNEWS RECENT etc... Again, completely unrelated to that situation AFAIK. I do apologize to you and SPECIFICO for being nosy. If I am out of line I will apologize and leave it at that, no more questions asked. I will only ask if it is welcome. Sorry for crashing your page, have a peaceful day! DN ( talk) 22:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for emailing meYou make a reasonable point, however, I am involved in private conversation with a blocked user, trying to encourage them to act civilly. Perhaps unwisely, I did not expect comments from spectators. I hoped by my edit summaries I was expressing myself clearly to those not involved: Please allow me to have some space with the user without too much side talk, which can easily distract those of us on the autism spectrum. On the merits I believe I expressed the appropriate caution that outing was a real concern. I am aware of several situations in which outing caused real pain and cost to a wikipedian and I don't wish that on anyone. Thank you for expressing your concerns. I have admired your important work for some time. Thank you for your stridency. BusterD ( talk) 21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interferenceSoibangla, I saw your edit and added another one. This reminds me that we need an article documenting Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interference. Note that is not "conspiracy" or "coordination", but "cooperation", which amounts to collusion (which is not the same as conspiracy. See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion). The Steele dossier alleged misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign. That cooperation continued into the 2020 campaign as the Russian interference has never stopped. The specific allegation was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". There are two elements there: conspiracy and cooperation (=planning to cooperate). Whether formal written or oral conspiracy happened (unproven) does not negate the fact that the cooperation did happen. (Just because the police may not be able to prove that two thieves "conspired" to steal jewels from a store, the fact they stole the jewels is the really important fact.) Steele's sources accurately reported, long before the American media or intelligence knew, the three elements of Russian interference (to disrupt America, harm Clinton, and help Trump). They did this six months before U.S. intelligence announced the same findings using other sources. Whatever other faults the dossier may have ("unproven" isn't really a fault), its central theme was accurate, and several key Trump campaigners were convicted for lying about their roles. Some of the elements of cooperation we know about are:
So what about it? Should we have such an article? Many RS touch on the factors mentioned above, so it is a notable subject. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
RollbackA heads up, this probably wasn't a good use of standard rollback. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and an edit summary would have been appropriate. agtx 01:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Re: Editing Dinesh D'SouzaI am ensuring sources from both sides of the political isle are available. I see nothing wrong with my edits. --– Brenr 14:00, May 11, 2022 (UTC) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Falsifiability
"I suspect an editor block is necessary"huh? soibangla ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC) National ReviewContext Alas, irony is hard to convey online, save by the use of semi-literacies such as emoticons. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON warningYou're reaching disruptive levels of badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior at the move discussion at Talk:Great Replacement. At my count, you've made 16 comments in the discussion. Reiterating yourself if you have felt misunderstood once or twice is fine, but at this point we know what you are voting for. Repeating it 15 more times is not useful and actually makes it more difficult to parse consensus. Please give it a break. No one is confused about what your position is at this point. -- Jayron 32 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail![]() It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template. at any time by removing the Doug Weller talk 15:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC) 2000 MulesCall it whatever you want, but you of all people are bowing to the pressure of the trolls. There is no need to waterdown undisputed fact or be diplomatic. On this subject you need not budge one inch. On the flat earth article the opening sentence clearly declared the conspiracy theory to be false and as a matter of empiricism this is NO difference! You are enabling this, even if just a little. We don’t need to bury words like “false” or “no evidence”. It should be labeled as such each and everywhere a false claim is made! You are playing right into the hands of a flaws equivalence fallacy. Don’t you know that? It isn’t a violation of Wikipedia etiquette to say Elvis really did die, that the Earth isn’t flat and that claims by a convicted felon that there was wide spread election fraud are false. The opening sentence in the flat earth page says as much, and the only difference here is a cult of bullies happen to back it, and you can’t take the heat. Do as you will. I’m done, man. 2601:280:CB02:52A2:F033:60BC:9DE:6CEE ( talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your email.If you have a matter that needs admin attention, WP:ANI is the appropriate way to request it. -- Jayron 32 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) On a slow-motion edit war where I think you made a good call. Place close attention
Comment about imageconfused by your remarks the image came from a zoom chat and I did not alter it. News to me AGF Makofakeoh ( talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thanksfor adding the judge's paragraph in a text box, nicely illustrates that section. However, FYI, I was uncomfortable including the last line in the text box, for reasons in my EditSum when I took it out. [10] FYI, I'm collecting RSs and quotes for "Trump" "Coup".... including any analysis (not just hand waving) that says it was not coup (which so far is zero).... at my Sandbox2 (note the 2 on the end). Feel free to add similarly formatted suggested additions via the associated talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thanks for help with copy editing, that is MOST welcome. So are content changes, though please put those ideas on the associated talk page. Keep 'em coming! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC) markup for line breaks in text boxesHi, I don't need (or want) to discuss this...... I only know enough about Adaptive web design to ask a question, but I don't really want to learn the answer..... if you're happy after I ask it, I'm happy. I noticed you used wikimarkup in the textbox to force line breaks. They look fine on my fullsize desktop. Do you already know how that will display on a wide range of devices using both the web and app versions of the en.wiki? Or how it gets crunched when other platforms echo our articles? I was just wondering if maybe such things are reasons to let the text line returns and box length-width change automatically to fit the users technology for best viewing? But like I said, I'm not really interested in learning the tech side of our markup magic, so I'll just leave you to wonder if the line breakmarkup should be reevaluated, or if its good as is. Thanks for caring. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I messed around some organizing my userspace and its possible that sandbox2 fell out of your watchlist. I had it deleted then started a fresh copy, so if you still want to watch things there, you might need to re add it. I haven't added to the bibliography, yet. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) Your thread has been archived
So I'm a troll?(from editor's edit summary) [13] I attempted to reach out this editor and this is what they wrote about me in their edit summary...- (from Dixiecrat article)"Rather than tagging specific admins, I would suggest you read WP:SYNTH. It would be a more productive use of your time. And no, I'm not talking about hatting the discussion - I'm talking about hatting your sections of random, unrelated citations below." So, Toa would you concede WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with the 2 EXPLICIT citations I have already provided? I think assuming that I tagged 2 "specific" admins, as opposed just looking for a neutral administrative perspective, is very assuming on your part, and in the spirit of AGF, I do not feel comfortable putting this on the article talk page, so it's going here for the moment. I am going to take some time to step back and let Val OR ANY ADMIN AVAILABLE respond... DN ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
TrumpI agree, the inclusion of False makes more sense, I am not sure why it didn't say it before, and I only removed it procedurally due to my mistaken revert. Thanks for restoring it. Fbifriday ( talk) 01:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commentary on imagesHi Valjean, I wanted to follow-up on something that stuck with me about Talk:Molly White (writer)/Archive 1 § Image change. It struck me that we would not similarly discuss which portrait of, say, Noam Chomsky is most "attractive" or "aged well" for his infobox, and that it would be especially uncouth to talk about his photos that way in his known presence, for example if his attention had specifically been called to the question like it had been in this case. I would think we'd want to extend that same courtesy to our colleague. I didn't feel comfortable participating in particular because of those comments, which had little to do with the question of best representation. I imagine this wasn't your intention so I wanted to bring it to your attention in the event that you would agree and want to know that your words had that effect. czar 06:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Archive 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This person.I’m new but get a feeling this person is some political person who watches lots and lots of tv and then reiterates comments and views from someone he watches. I don’t do either, personally. He’s sent a new comer like 2 or more weird kinda rude messages already which seem to reflect a politically and or personally driven Personality. Too bad people like this seem to perhaps mostly run this website- for Wikipedia can never be fact based if everyone is like this- AND if everyone has the exact same opinion substituted for facts? Anyone else agree? Is anyone who’s “allowed” to contribute here NOT political and NOT watching too much television? Maybe going for walks or something instead? Getting an education? Jpodesta1 ( talk) 03:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
My test of DS alerts and templatesThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. {{subst:Ds/alert|ap}}
Please learn what vandalism is and isnt.Please refrain from leaving BS warnings. I slightly changed the tone of a sentence and you dare accuse me of vandalism. Clearly you have a personal attachment to that sentence so I'll leave it be despite the BS warning. That is all. AEWFanboy talk 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Good to see you...still waste-deep in the muck here. I hope you are well. You are one of the most collegial of editors that I recall from my time here. If I recall correctly, you did a fair bit of bare URL-filling, among other tasks (and are sorely missed there to the extent we do not see your hand in that). Be well, stay safe. Perhaps our paths will cross again. [a former prof., no longer logging] 2601:246:C700:19D:2407:C1A4:F98:C8FE ( talk) 07:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Don't jump, don't lay down, just sit back and enjoy...
Anyway, your mileage may vary, but they've helped me through some bumpy roads. Keep your chin tucked, your eyes on the prize and your own favourite guilty pleasures of old from falling into disused atrophy, confused entropy or enthused apathy through a simple revisiting now and again. And don't fear the reaper, the wolves nor the vastness of space, try to see things from their perspectives, maybe find a good book from one of those less "problematic" topics' proponents, I know I will. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). ![]()
Sent by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Just stopping by to start an arguementI haven't asked how you are doing recently so I thought I would. I also thought we should start a left vs right argument. I'll start. I really don't get why people like eggnog. If you like eggnog there is clearly something wrong with you and your politics! Happy holidays! Springee ( talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"Barriers to entry?"CONTEXT Newslinger, thanks for such a good analysis of the situation. You really get it. It is a frequent daily occurrence that clearly right-wing editors and visitors complain about the left-wing bias here, and mistakenly conclude that our choice of sources is because of personal bias, and not because most right-wing sources are not reliable, as noted above by Newslinger. Some editors are well aware of the article at The Critic and actually believe its mistaken premises. That's sad. One editor recently resorted to accusing other editors of creating "barriers of entry" as a means to "own the topic" and "control the narrative," [1] rather than recognizing that their own favorite sources were so extreme that they were not reliable enough for us to use. Does Wikipedia have "barriers to entry?" Yes, we do have them. They are called RS, and source reliability is judged by accuracy, not by any particular bias, be it left or right. As is always the case with politically relevant facts (IOW not all facts) and how sources relate to them, there are those sources which agree with those in power, and those sources that do not. This is a factor in what's known as "disinformation laundering": "The U.S. media ecosystem features several spheres that partially overlap and constantly interact with each other....The mainstream media... The conspiratorial media... and Disclosers." Currently, with few exceptions, the right-wing media has become (especially since Trump) so extreme that it is the described "conspiratorial media," with some extreme left-wing sources also in that group. At some other point in history, the roles might be reversed. It all depends on which narratives, true or false, are favorable to those in power. With Trump and the GOP, they have clearly chosen disinformation and conspiracy theories to stoke Trump's base, and he often gets those narratives from sources like Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, RT, Sputnik, and Russian intelligence efforts to plant propaganda and fake news, which he then repeats. He literally "launders" that disinformation. My points:
Valjean ( talk) 22:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC) George Floyd'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for. Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC) In regards to your most recent edit on Stop the StealHello! I've been patrolling Stop the Steal for vandalism for a while, and while checking the edit history of the page, I saw your edit, which changed the description of Parler from being a self-described free speech haven to a place which appeals to supporters of the conspiracy theory. While this was clearly in good faith, I don't believe this to be a fitting edit; instead of reverting it, I decided to come leave a note on your talk page, giving an option to discuss it and possibly come to a compromise. In your edit summary, you note that it's to relate the source to the content; however, the fact that Parler markets itself as a free speech haven is already included in the source; "Facebook and Twitter are banning hashtags, individuals and groups — including President Trump’s former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and groups affiliated with him — altering search results, labeling posts, down-ranking problematic content and implementing a host of measures to ward off misinformation. That is driving millions of new users to Parler, an alternate social media platform where conspiracy theories can thrive. The app, which has a free-speech doctrine, became the top new app download over the weekend on Apple’s App Store." Furthermore, the fact that it appeals to supporters of the conspiracy theory is already implied by the context of the sentence, with a direct correlation between outrage against Facebook's censorship of the conspiracy and Parler's rise in popularity among supporters being stated in the sentence. I believe this is sufficient for the content to be relevant to the source in its original state. Should the changes be kept however, I believe the sentence should be rewritten, as it reads awkwardly in its current form with the new addition. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to working together to improve the state of the article! Builder018 ( talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Why did the Russians know, before Americans, that Trump would run for president in 2016?Why were Russians, right after Trump's November 8–10, 2013, Moscow visit, publicly saying they would support his candidacy before Americans knew he had such plans? Trump and Russia planned all this very early, and Russian intelligence started their hacking and helping him in early 2014. An example of the early Russian support is still online and discussed here:
The Steele dossier seems to have been right about such early exchanges of information. The sources for the dossier alleged:
Valjean ( talk) 07:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Steele dossier and contacts between Trump campaigners and RussiansHere is the content and sources we have in the Steele dossier article that mention "contact":
CompetenceHi Valjean. Hope you are safe and well. I saw some of the discussions on competence. Ah, the problems of working in a collaborative environment where the value of the work is high and the compensation for honest work is nothing. Dishonest work (paid editing, coi, promotion, strong personal bias, etc) thrives, and they're going to do their best to not let anyone or anything (including policy) get in the way. I'm glad you're still with us. Glad you're willing to take on the political articles. Sorry you're still getting harassed for putting the work of improving this encyclopedia first. Competence is required, but some will take great offense at any suggestion that they are less than competent, looking for a way to invalidate any criticisms that are a result of that incompetence. Could you do me a favor? Please don't respond there (I'm requesting this of lurkers as well), as editors are already trying anything they can to attack me so they can avoid the basic policy question, but at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Grace_VanderWaal there is what I'd hoped was a very simple WP:V question, does this ref verify "She received mostly favorable reviews"? There are some partial responses, but they're drowning in the "flood the zone" disruptions. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything content-policy-wise. Also, suggestions on next steps would be appreciated. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day!
Durham investigation "a trolling exercise?"John Brennan: "What was the predication of this Durham investigation? Was it just a trolling exercise? I think that's what it was. And they look at a lot of documents. They talk to a lot of people and, again, interviewed me, and, clearly, they couldn't find anything that had any type of wrongdoing associated with it." CNN Cite Unseen updateHello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.
If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC) You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.
Avoid removing references of primary source
To be clearI don't really disagree with the substance of your statement, I just think it's important for us not to write such things on article talk pages (esp. high profile controversial BLPs). If you want to delete your comment and my responses (including this one), that would be OK with me. I think that would be best for the Project but it's your call. Levivich harass/ hound 20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
From Talk:Sidney Powell#The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete:
Is this a coup?Hi, BR. This headline today in NYT: Is this a coup? Experts say no, but that it could be just as dangerous. As I said to you at Talk:Donald Trump#Coup d'etat attempt, "...you can't report one side of what RS is saying, ignore the other side, and claim that you're complying with RS." Please change your !vote there, or cease going around lecturing other experienced editors on the importance of sticking to sources, which is frankly becoming tiresome. If you want to claim the high ground, earn it. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Free speechThanks. I keep a link to that XKCD comic on my page so I can always find it. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC). DoubtHello, @ Valjean: I am writing to you because your edit summary caught my attention in a section that I expanded in Dua Lipa article which is "Early life". I would like to know what you mean by "copy edits" (English is not my mother tongue). Alexismata7 ( talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
HopeHURRAY! :) starship .paint ( exalt) 23:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Good commentWorth keeping:
My essay follows this thinking: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CapsWell, then all the other templates are in error, aren't they? Expressions within parentheses (like this one), isn't capitalized. (That is, unlike they're complete sentences, like this one.) Agree? So, which other templates are you referring to? HandsomeFella ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit on Steele DossierThe the edit you thanked me for on the Steele Dossier actually produces a grammatically incorrect sentence. I will look at it again when I have time. -- Youngrubby ( talk) 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it looks OK now, personally I would go with "The declassification order" instead of "His declassification order" -- Youngrubby ( talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Precious anniversary
See also: User talk:Valjean/Archive 25#Precious Sidney Powell articleI’m not a fan of Sidney Powell, but it looks wrong for her article to label her “Racist” in the first sentence. 2603:8001:A400:EF:51F6:7D48:6B26:F90A ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus" is not a standalone policy - drafting proposed textHere is a first draft:
Your thoughts, improvements, etc.? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
How about this then:
More improvements? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 00:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC) What to do?So we've been round and round with this for a few weeks now, and we need to settle it so I can continue to make improvements to the Steele Dossier article. With some more editorial improvements (namely trimming excessive detail) I think it could be a candidate for promotion but I don't want to go through that effort just for you to blanket revert all the trims. Should we have an RFC? Something along the lines of - "Would this article benefit from editorial trimming of UNDUE content?" I don't know how else to communicate to you the things that I and many others have said numerous times now, but I point you to Awilley's comment here, which mirrors closely what I said here. None of the trims have anything to do with sourcing; indeed the article is impeccably sourced. The article now stands as an aggregation of just about every time an RS news or opinion article mentioned the Steele Dossier, which gives UNDUE prominence to such opinions, speculations, and things that did not come to pass. I know that you think I am the one running afoul of policy, so I'm hoping that the results of a neutral RFC with uninvolved participation could settle the issue. If the consensus is that the article would not benefit from trimming UNDUE content I'm happy to respect that too. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
FYIA discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Unimportant ANI
Disambiguation link notification for August 10Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Into the Forest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apocalyptic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Please fix duplicate entryValjean, there are now TWO "Jayden Belle Henderson" deaths in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Someone added a second/duplicate entry today under a different date, I removed it, you added it back. Please fix that. Platonk ( talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC) You need to be REALLY careful on thisThese DailyWire sources ARE reliable for the statements made, in this case, the opinions of the author. "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." statements CLEARLY meet the criteria. Please revert. Buffs ( talk) 01:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
12 hours
ToBeFree and Floquenbeam, please identify my uncivil remarks. Bear in mind that Buffs is falsely claiming that I called them a skunk, etc. I did not. I clearly note "My point?", right in the middle of the paragraph. Buffs ignores that, and apparently you do too. Don't get fooled by Buffs. (Pinging Bishonen) Now I'm being addressed on AN/I and can't respond. Unlike Buffs, I am TOTALLY blocked. Mentioning that I find them an unpleasant editor is not a PA or uncivil, and far from as serious as how they treated me. I was treated uncivilly and with bad faith, so it's entirely reasonable to expect that I tell how that made me feel. Unfortunately, this block will tarnish my block log, and the log cannot be altered. This loss of face can never be removed. It's an attack on my honor and will haunt me for what's left of my life. My life force and will to live is literally diminished. (Japanese culture is a curse in this case.) A simple warning would have sufficed. Please be more careful in the future. -- Valjean ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange and Guccifer 2.0
References
Russian support for Trump1) @ Valjean I am a bit confused about your statement below: "Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources." If "some Russians then publicly" supported Trump then how it could be that no Americans "knew of such plans from public sources"? At least since 1988 and for sure from 1999 Trump mentioned his intent to run. See here and more at Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Background.
The contacts with foreign figures are troublesome, but not illegal...unless of course there is funding of the candidates involved. Kolma8 ( talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Kolma8, as I see it, and this is my opinion, this is about loyalties, not just about legalities. There is nothing wrong with expressions of support from one's allies. I am not disputing that. I'm also well aware of Trump's historical presidential ambitions and attempts. OTOH, it is worrying when the enemies of your country think you'd be a great leader they would rather have in power. It is problematic when an American candidate first plans with the enemies of America, long before he publicly announces his coming candidacy to Americans, and the Russians then start supporting him with illegal hacking, military cyberattacks (an act of war), etc. America is the only place where he should be getting actual support (not just expressions of approval). It shows poor judgment, or in the case of Trump, lack of concern for national security, to think that when Putin, an avowed enemy of America, says Trump would be his preferred leader for America, to then think that's a good thing. That's a horrible thing. That signals that Trump is more of an asset for Russia than an asset for America, and that Putin knows it and Trump doesn't care. He's more concerned with sucking up to his hero and getting Trump Tower Moscow built. He wants to be like Putin, and rule America in exactly the same way. As far as foreign funding goes, the GOP and Trump campaign did receive illegal Russian funds. The illegality of the many forms of aid offered to Trump by Russia applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations, and the Trump campaign did receive cash from Russians. Remember that, while eight allied foreign intelligence agencies were surveilling Russian agents/spies all over Europe who were secretly meeting with Trump campaigners, in April 2016, the CIA received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". [1] That was a conversation about the Trump campaign. There is also the NRA-GOP pipeline of money where Russian money was given to the NRA and then whitewashed into campaign contributions to the GOP and Trump campaigns. The evidence is there, based on Trump's proven ties to Russia, his campaign's myriad secret and lied about contacts with Russians, their declarations that they would support him, their hacking to support him, etc. etc. etc., that Trump valued Russian help more than America's national security, and he threw American intelligence agencies under the bus in order to keep that Russian help in place. The interference has never stopped. That's treasonous behavior. There are two main conflicting Trump–Russia narratives regarding the Russian election interference in 2016, subsequent Trump–Russia investigation and Special Counsel investigation, and the Trump–Russia relationship. The standard narrative from American and allied foreign intelligence agencies is that there was a widespread, systematic, and successful effort by the Russians to disrupt American democracy and the 2016 presidential election. This involved efforts to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump win. There were investigations into that interference and the degree to which Donald Trump, his campaign, and his associates may have colluded with the Russians in those efforts. They also posit that Trump has engaged in actions which sought to impede investigations into these matters and that many of the actions by Trump, his associates, and Republican allies have amounted to a cover-up. The alternative/false narrative from Trump, Vladimir Putin, Fox News, and other right-wing media is that Russian interference did not happen, or it was minimal and had no positive effect on Trump's election. They claim there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, but rather that there was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians. They also posit that the Obama administration, backed by the FBI, sought to spy on and undermine Trump's campaign and presidency using illegal surveillance and investigations of the Trump campaign that were for political purposes and not for national security reasons. They also call the investigations a witch hunt, fake, hoax, bogus, etc. They allege that there was no collusion, or that, if there was, it was not illegal. Trump has often disputed that Russia interfered in the election [2] and, at the 2018 Helsinki summit, even endorsed Putin's denial of Russian interference. [3] Trump's remarks on the interference have often been self-contradictory, and he and his allies allege that, if there was any Russian interference at all, it did not help him win the election. [2] Rudy Giuliani conceded there was collusion by Trump campaign members, but not by Trump. [4] Needless to say, I see Trump as a continued threat to national security. If he is elected again, that will be the end of American democracy, and that's not hyperbole. That is the determination of most national security and intelligence experts and leaders, including among our allies. They are seriously worried. We'll become a kleptocratic plutocracy, a one-party state, and a Trump family dictatorship, with American assets and its treasury being treated like a part of the Trump Organization, ready for plundering. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Reliably sourcedPlease note that "reliably sourced" does not only mean left-wing articles. If I wanted I could find any kind of descriptors I wanted mentioned by Fox news or a related outlet, and used it to make a similar change, but I didn't as I had to sense to know it would be biased. It is obvious to me you would like to control the speech related to those who hold opposing views. This harms the neutrality of Wikipedia. And instead of a crowdsourced website for general information, it becomes yet another space for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost66 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Interesting new articleI thought this Daily Beast piece was interesting. I think we would agree that Hill is a noted expert on Russia, so what do you think of her "dismissing" claims that Putin had anything on Trump? Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Mr Ernie, we're back from Ferndale, a very charming little town, and Avenue of the Giants, where some of the redwoods are over 100 meters tall: "the Founder's Tree (346.1. ft. tall) and the Dyerville Giant (c. 370 ft. tall) which fell down in 1991." Majestic! Now it's drizzling. The article isn't very long, but it's damning, yet not on a par with other things she's written:
That she dismisses the kompromat idea is at odds with things she has said before, and at odds with the beliefs of a number of the leaders of US intelligence agencies, who believe Putin does have kompromat on him, or that he acts like Putin has such kompromat. She has previously testified otherwise. Amy Siskind summarized Hill's testimony before the House impeachment investigators:
Her original source is WaPo, where Hill made it clear that the Russians gathered kompromat on everyone, including Hillary Clinton. It would be remarkable that they wouldn't gather kompromat on Trump, whom they had groomed since the 1980s. They always gather such information on notable foreigners, especially someone who had presidential ambitions, and who had a well-known taste for beautiful Russian women and was delighted at the sight of urine sex at a club in Las Vegas. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Collusion? The obvious answer.‘Eureka moment’ On the page, Schiff records an airport exchange with a Republican stranger, who said: “You can tell me – there’s nothing to this ‘collusion stuff’, is there?” It is a conversation which should put that question permanently to rest. Schiff said: “What if I was to tell you that we had evidence in black and white that the Russians approached the Clinton campaign and offered dirt on Donald Trump, then met secretly with Chelsea Clinton, John Podesta and Robby Mook in the Brooklyn headquarters of the campaign … then Hillary lied about it to cover it up. Would you call that collusion? “Now what If I also told you that after the election, former national security adviser Susan Rice secretly talked with the Russian ambassador in an effort to undermine US sanctions on Russia after they interfered to help Hillary win. Would you call that collusion?” The Republican was convinced: “You know, I probably would.” For Schiff, it was a “eureka moment”. “Now,” he thought, “if I can only speak to a couple hundred million people.” Schiff’s book should convince a few million more that everything he said about Trump was true – and that the country was exceptionally lucky to have him ready and willing to defend the tattered concept of “truth”. [1]
Mr Ernie, I think Mueller tried to be thorough, but the Mueller report makes clear that much evidence was not obtained because of various devious actions by Trump and his allies, things like destruction of evidence, use of burner phones and encrypted communication, refusal to testify, lies, etc. That's part of the obstruction of the investigation that occurred very openly. Trump didn't even try to hide that he was doing it. That's part of why Mueller "did not clear Trump of improper behavior". I'm a bit uncertain about what you mean with some of your statements:
There is no possible outcome of the Durham/Sussmann/Clinesmith stories that undoes all of Trump's and his campaign's proven wrongdoings, especially his pushing of the Big lie that he won the election and that it was stolen from him. He's pushing an insurrection to steal the election and destroy democracy. Nothing can forgive such behavior. Trump's problems are largely caused by him shooting himself in the foot, so don't blame RS for documenting it and us using those RS here. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Your reference to dossier on Links articleI don't dispute that the dossier relates to Links, but I am not persuaded that Danchenko's indictment, simply because it relates to the dossier, is also relevant to Links. Am I missing something? soibangla ( talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Ambro23Would you care to revisit your warnings at User talk:Ambro23 about Candace Owens from two years ago? Doing the same thing. -- 21:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Help edit the Osteopathic Medicine page by going to dispute pageI filed a dispute case based on our discussion; please go ahead and click here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States ; once in the page, edit your section in the Osteopathic section confirming our points. ORdeDocsaab ( talk) 23:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Concerns raised by DeicasBackground found HERE. Deicas, both Acroterion and Johnuniq, two highly-respected admins (who are very level-headed and sensible people), have warned you about how your constant relitigating of this issue ad nauseum is disruptive. It is badgering that borders on harassment. Why are you still doing it after being warned many times and even blocked? Do you really want to be blocked again, and this time certainly an indefinite block? I am now convinced that an indefinite block and a block of access to your talk page are necessary, with no need for further evidence or abuse of dramaboards. Your behavior is that egregious. Once blocked, your talk page will just be used for more of what we've seen. Stop focusing on editors. Article talk pages are not to be used for that purpose, at least not to the degree (obsessive much?) you're doing it. You are treating ordinary differences of opinion as legalistic matters of great importance that should result in the censure and punishment of those you see as your adversaries. That's battlefield mentality, and I'm really tired of it. You are really making editing here a nuisance. This is all a huge timesink. I am willing to answer your question AGAIN, and only here on my talk page (and likely only once because I have already explained this to you), but that's only because I'm generally a friendly guy who hates to leave any possible misunderstanding laying around. Unfortunately, because you haven't accepted my previous explanation, I'm not sure this is a misunderstanding (on your part) anymore. If you want to pursue this, copy your request to this thread, but, before doing so, please note the comment I just left on your talk page about the formatting of your comments and follow that advice/comment. Pinging Doniago as he has also tried to advise you. -- Valjean ( talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Valjean, just an FYI that you linked me but didn't ping me about this. However, as evidenced by my posting this message, I've seen this. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC) BLP Noticeboard Filing on Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source"Please note that your are mentioned here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Brookings Institution Deicas ( talk) 22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Is there a reason I should review that discussion, or a reason you emailed it rather than left me a message on my talk page? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Your false claims of "consensus"
CNN RfCYou seem to be a very experienced editor so I figured I'd ask you about this. The CNN Controversies RfC is going to close in about a week, I don't see much use in extending it and there isn't likely to be a consensus. This content dispute has turned into a policy matter; I suspect efforts to make the article compliant with policy will produce more edit disputes, and even tagging the article will likely produce the same(it should probably be tagged currently tbh). How does this play out? If the (lack of) consensus produces a policy violation, does the issue get escalated somehow? Thanks in advance. SmolBrane ( talk) 19:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, my brain is small. What is !vote and how does it work? SmolBrane ( talk) 04:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Reference formatting advice for sourcesAccording to {{
cite news/doc}}, the you should be banned from editing wikipediayou obviously are biased and like to wear your politics on your page. this is the problem as only independents should be allowed to edit wikipedia to avoid bias. you know im telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.176.163 ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF and use of unreliable sourcesWP:ABOUTSELF also applies to unreliable people and sources, as well as anything written in an unreliable source or a primary source. Unreliable sources must never be used because, with the exception of ABOUTSELF, all content here is based on RS. An unreliable person or idea should not be mentioned unless discussed in a RS. For example, we document conspiracy theories by using what RS say about them and their promoters, not by using the unreliable sources of the promoters of the theories. The only exception is in the biography of the subject, and then subject to the limitations mentioned in ABOUTSELF. More info here (older content): Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#Dealing with fringe subjects. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
First sentence in Chiropractic articleEven for me, a chiroskeptic, the immediate mention of pseudoscience at the beginning of the first sentence is unnecessarily jarring, and we frequently get objections from readers, including from other chiroskeptics. I view their concerns as worthy of consideration, so I want to develop a less jarring version that still mentions pseudoscience in the first paragraph. Current first sentence:
As two sentences:
The pseudoscientific details are explained further down in the lead and body. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
PosnerI started a discussion about Posner's book on the Kennedy conspiracy article. -- Virtuus ( talk) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) OK, so what's it going to be this time?Last year we had to argue about eggnog (it's evil and we all know it). What should we argue about this holiday season? ;) Springee ( talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I want to be 100% clear, given some of your culinary discussions I would be very concerned if you were editing the BLP's of food critics or lists of most popular treats in Scandinavian countries. :D Springee ( talk) 14:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Valjean ( talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Your e-mailI'm afraid I don't agree with you. Nominating an article for deletion is not the same as tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the consensus is to delete the article, it is not deleted until at least seven days have elapsed. I don't spend a lot of time at AfD because I find the discussions to be often contentious and uncivil. However, I don't generally see articles deleted because they are not "perfect". Finally, although there is no policy requirement as to what should be done before the nomination, generally people expect some research by the nominator as to the notability of the subject ( WP:BEFORE).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Today, December 18, 2021, is this user's 16th WikiBirthday as a registered editor
That's as a registered editor. Before that, I started editing as an IP in 2003 before we had 500,000 articles. I vividly remember when we hit the first million mark. That made me realize that this project was really going somewhere. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Songs of the season
Good faithHi Valjean, remember to assume good faith in other actions. Best, Whizz40 Whizz40 ( talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Whizz40, I have discovered that you have previously tried to improve the coverage of climate change denial at the article. Why are you now opposing it? -- Valjean ( talk)
References "T***p" listed at Redirects for discussion
PingHey, just pinging to demand that you have a good day. I figure there is a better chance your day will be good if I demand it vs just hope it. Springee ( talk) 19:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Your recent edit on Peter DoocyYou give POTUS to much credit. Nerguy ( talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
Mind elaborating about this revert? I'm interested in hearing what in the talk page post you disagree with, and also – and especially – why you apparently believe that replacing a broken link to the Google translate page for a French news item with a properly formatted bibliographic entry for the actual news item is not an improvement. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
BLPNThanks for nice, civil resolution. Recognizing when you have tunnel vision is one of the hardest things to do, and I really respect that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As an FYI, you actually weren't too far off at all. I've tried to work with ScottishFinnishRadish on related behavior issues at BLPs on their talk page, but that obviously hasn't helped much. Generally if you see someone ignoring parts of BLP policy such as WP:BLPBALANCE or WP:BLPPRIMARY and blanket reverting, it's usually best just to follow the latter and look for sources citing the SPS. I fixed the article in this case, but there's also a point where it's on the person reverting the content out to improve the references (especially if relatively easy to do) rather than edit war. KoA ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank YouHi, Valjean. Thank you for helping me see the light about the things that’s going on in the world. I didn’t have a clue about 99.9% of the stuff you gave me to look through on my user talk page. I’ve even had a chance to read up about vaccines and found out that they aren’t so bad after all. I have since scheduled for my first COVID-19 vaccine on Monday. I don’t know why I didn’t know this before, but I at least do now, thanks to you. I want to completely change my ways of thinking, but I’m going to have to do it in stages. One step in the right direction at a time. Thanks, again! Cheers. - Stiabhna ( talk) 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
English variationJust as a heads up, but you seem to have inadvertently switched the variety of English from British English to American English of councillor in this edit. I've put that spelling back to the British English version. Just in case you have some kind of automated spelling corrector. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion![]() This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pit_Bull Tazdeviloo7 ( talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Lyme Disease tick range in CanadaHi...I noticed you reverted an edit I made about the range of ticks in Canada that are capable of carrying Lyme Disease in Canada. I don't want to do back and forth edits so wanted some feedback from you. I tweaked the first sentence because Climate Change is mentioned further on in the section and the present range of ticks is what is. Having "Owing to changing climate" mentioned first makes it sound like the ticks are in their range because of a changing climate when they would have been in most of the present range regardless of the changing climate. Their range will expand because of Climate Change and that is covered. I don't see why it needs to be mentioned twice and is misleading. Why can't there be a sentence on what the range is and where it is going based on Climate Change? Dbroer ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Bachelor of ArtsYou accused me of vandalism for changing RFK JR.’s Harvard degree from a BA to an AB but when it comes to Harvard, Princeton, and other institutions AB is the correct order. Crazy Jay Fox ( talk) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't do anything about the IP evasion as the range is too large. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Some usernames and IPs used by Stiabhna
Personal attacksQuestioning another editors reading comprehension and accusing them of trying to be deceptive, as you did here, is not appropriate. Stop it, this kind of behavior has come up so many times at this point. Also you could stand to cut back on the original research and forum behavior at that talk page in general but that one is just my 2 cents. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
PackMecEng, I did not say "deceptive". That's your word. You are the one in error there. Without looking at the context, you'd be right, but you are not looking at the context. You do realize that many non-English speakers edit here? They sometimes misunderstand what's written, but in this case, the editor in question missed all the mentions of far-right and conspiracy theories throughout the article (including conspiracy theories in the lead) and completely ignored a whole section discussing Trump's conspiracy theories. So their statement ("Not one sentence in this article says the Trump was a far-right politician and not one sentence says he's a conspiracy theorist."), in that context, seems to indicate (1) they didn't even bother to examine the article, or (2) they are being "tricky and extremely technical", because it's true that the exact words "far-right politician" are not found, even though far-right is found several places. The same applies to "a conspiracy theorist", even though a whole section is devoted to Trump's conspiracy theories and it's mentioned in the lead, both the conspiracy theories he has created and those he pushes. How could an editor somehow miss that? My response AGF and was merciful. My first impulse is to strike my comment, but then how should I make the point that their reading comprehension is so lacking they missed all the mentions throughout the article of both matters, and missed a whole section? "Reading comprehension" is the mildest good faith description I could think of. So are we dealing with a reading comprehension issue, or is it a "tricky and extremely technical" (straw man) issue? Please answer that question. Help me find a better way to describe it. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I just happen to come across this by clicking on Valjean's talk page, and it's disappointing that not one editor here felt it was necessary to notify me of a discussion in which I was one of the main subjects. I also don't appreciate Valjean thinking it's their place to assess my reading comprehension skills. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to draw an extra set of eyes to Frédéric Sinistra, a COVID-19 denier who died of the disease, and for which the page is seeing occasional bursts of traffic from IPs trying to erase that fact. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Kindly stay off my talk page.I'm being civil here when I say I really would appreciate if you left me alone. I'm done editing political articles and don't appreciate people coming on my Talk page to disrespect me or label me partisan or a conspiracy theorist. It was uncalled for and inappropriate and crossed a line. Have a nice life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24rhhtr7 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Precious anniversary
Reminder of BLP
The article reflects sourced informal allegations of corrupt activities by Joe Biden, Viktor Shokin and Burisma. Nobody except you apparently pushes the notion that Hunter Biden acted corruptly, or was even in a position to do so, in this matter. There is talk in RS of potential investigations into whether he failed to register as a foreign agent and pay his taxes, but these are entirely different crimes, even in theory. I ask you retract, reword or cite all your claims suggesting there ever was alleged corruption by Hunter Biden. Stick to the three entities already named as possibly corrupt by the mainstream media or conspiracy theorists, please, if insinuations must be made at all. InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC) General consensus for determining reliability of an individualHi Valjean. With all your editing in areas of politics, I thought you might be able to point me to discussions that might suggest some general consensus on when a person is unreliable for information about his/herself. It seems like it should be an important note for addressing BLPSPS situations. Thanks for any thoughts on this. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Regarding my recent revert
Not to be a botherI saw your response on the Hunter Biden thing... not trying to be a pest in that regard and I can see the level of rhetoric is heightened. I don’t know if you wanted things to be bought to your talk page or posted on the talk page of the article in question so if I’ve done that in error, apologies. My question has more to do with taking a direct editorial position when things are still in a state of flux in many ways. As a result is the wording on the article even really correct at this point because so very much is still up in the air meaning that the article is making assumptions that would not necessarily be extended to people of different political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 ( talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Lauren Boebert a far-right politicianCollecting some information here. This is also happening at Candace Owens, another extreme right-winger. From this addition, which was deleted: Other refs mentioned in this version of the lead:
but found in the body: The efforts to whitewash her extremist far-right leanings and position are worrying and unwikipedian, but, considering who is doing it, unsurprising. POV protectionism of these extremist right-wingers is a pattern. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
References
May I briefly pick your brain?Full disclosure, I recently have been speaking to SPECIFICO about something completely unrelated on their TP and I noticed some references in your recent comment there [5], and I was wondering if I could possibly get a brief opinion from you on policy/guideline stuff, no accusations or allegations - just pure technical stuff about NOTNEWS RECENT etc... Again, completely unrelated to that situation AFAIK. I do apologize to you and SPECIFICO for being nosy. If I am out of line I will apologize and leave it at that, no more questions asked. I will only ask if it is welcome. Sorry for crashing your page, have a peaceful day! DN ( talk) 22:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for emailing meYou make a reasonable point, however, I am involved in private conversation with a blocked user, trying to encourage them to act civilly. Perhaps unwisely, I did not expect comments from spectators. I hoped by my edit summaries I was expressing myself clearly to those not involved: Please allow me to have some space with the user without too much side talk, which can easily distract those of us on the autism spectrum. On the merits I believe I expressed the appropriate caution that outing was a real concern. I am aware of several situations in which outing caused real pain and cost to a wikipedian and I don't wish that on anyone. Thank you for expressing your concerns. I have admired your important work for some time. Thank you for your stridency. BusterD ( talk) 21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interferenceSoibangla, I saw your edit and added another one. This reminds me that we need an article documenting Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interference. Note that is not "conspiracy" or "coordination", but "cooperation", which amounts to collusion (which is not the same as conspiracy. See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion). The Steele dossier alleged misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign. That cooperation continued into the 2020 campaign as the Russian interference has never stopped. The specific allegation was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". There are two elements there: conspiracy and cooperation (=planning to cooperate). Whether formal written or oral conspiracy happened (unproven) does not negate the fact that the cooperation did happen. (Just because the police may not be able to prove that two thieves "conspired" to steal jewels from a store, the fact they stole the jewels is the really important fact.) Steele's sources accurately reported, long before the American media or intelligence knew, the three elements of Russian interference (to disrupt America, harm Clinton, and help Trump). They did this six months before U.S. intelligence announced the same findings using other sources. Whatever other faults the dossier may have ("unproven" isn't really a fault), its central theme was accurate, and several key Trump campaigners were convicted for lying about their roles. Some of the elements of cooperation we know about are:
So what about it? Should we have such an article? Many RS touch on the factors mentioned above, so it is a notable subject. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
RollbackA heads up, this probably wasn't a good use of standard rollback. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and an edit summary would have been appropriate. agtx 01:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Re: Editing Dinesh D'SouzaI am ensuring sources from both sides of the political isle are available. I see nothing wrong with my edits. --– Brenr 14:00, May 11, 2022 (UTC) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Falsifiability
"I suspect an editor block is necessary"huh? soibangla ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC) National ReviewContext Alas, irony is hard to convey online, save by the use of semi-literacies such as emoticons. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON warningYou're reaching disruptive levels of badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior at the move discussion at Talk:Great Replacement. At my count, you've made 16 comments in the discussion. Reiterating yourself if you have felt misunderstood once or twice is fine, but at this point we know what you are voting for. Repeating it 15 more times is not useful and actually makes it more difficult to parse consensus. Please give it a break. No one is confused about what your position is at this point. -- Jayron 32 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail![]() It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template. at any time by removing the Doug Weller talk 15:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC) 2000 MulesCall it whatever you want, but you of all people are bowing to the pressure of the trolls. There is no need to waterdown undisputed fact or be diplomatic. On this subject you need not budge one inch. On the flat earth article the opening sentence clearly declared the conspiracy theory to be false and as a matter of empiricism this is NO difference! You are enabling this, even if just a little. We don’t need to bury words like “false” or “no evidence”. It should be labeled as such each and everywhere a false claim is made! You are playing right into the hands of a flaws equivalence fallacy. Don’t you know that? It isn’t a violation of Wikipedia etiquette to say Elvis really did die, that the Earth isn’t flat and that claims by a convicted felon that there was wide spread election fraud are false. The opening sentence in the flat earth page says as much, and the only difference here is a cult of bullies happen to back it, and you can’t take the heat. Do as you will. I’m done, man. 2601:280:CB02:52A2:F033:60BC:9DE:6CEE ( talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your email.If you have a matter that needs admin attention, WP:ANI is the appropriate way to request it. -- Jayron 32 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) On a slow-motion edit war where I think you made a good call. Place close attention
Comment about imageconfused by your remarks the image came from a zoom chat and I did not alter it. News to me AGF Makofakeoh ( talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thanksfor adding the judge's paragraph in a text box, nicely illustrates that section. However, FYI, I was uncomfortable including the last line in the text box, for reasons in my EditSum when I took it out. [10] FYI, I'm collecting RSs and quotes for "Trump" "Coup".... including any analysis (not just hand waving) that says it was not coup (which so far is zero).... at my Sandbox2 (note the 2 on the end). Feel free to add similarly formatted suggested additions via the associated talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thanks for help with copy editing, that is MOST welcome. So are content changes, though please put those ideas on the associated talk page. Keep 'em coming! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC) markup for line breaks in text boxesHi, I don't need (or want) to discuss this...... I only know enough about Adaptive web design to ask a question, but I don't really want to learn the answer..... if you're happy after I ask it, I'm happy. I noticed you used wikimarkup in the textbox to force line breaks. They look fine on my fullsize desktop. Do you already know how that will display on a wide range of devices using both the web and app versions of the en.wiki? Or how it gets crunched when other platforms echo our articles? I was just wondering if maybe such things are reasons to let the text line returns and box length-width change automatically to fit the users technology for best viewing? But like I said, I'm not really interested in learning the tech side of our markup magic, so I'll just leave you to wonder if the line breakmarkup should be reevaluated, or if its good as is. Thanks for caring. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I messed around some organizing my userspace and its possible that sandbox2 fell out of your watchlist. I had it deleted then started a fresh copy, so if you still want to watch things there, you might need to re add it. I haven't added to the bibliography, yet. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) Your thread has been archived
So I'm a troll?(from editor's edit summary) [13] I attempted to reach out this editor and this is what they wrote about me in their edit summary...- (from Dixiecrat article)"Rather than tagging specific admins, I would suggest you read WP:SYNTH. It would be a more productive use of your time. And no, I'm not talking about hatting the discussion - I'm talking about hatting your sections of random, unrelated citations below." So, Toa would you concede WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with the 2 EXPLICIT citations I have already provided? I think assuming that I tagged 2 "specific" admins, as opposed just looking for a neutral administrative perspective, is very assuming on your part, and in the spirit of AGF, I do not feel comfortable putting this on the article talk page, so it's going here for the moment. I am going to take some time to step back and let Val OR ANY ADMIN AVAILABLE respond... DN ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
TrumpI agree, the inclusion of False makes more sense, I am not sure why it didn't say it before, and I only removed it procedurally due to my mistaken revert. Thanks for restoring it. Fbifriday ( talk) 01:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commentary on imagesHi Valjean, I wanted to follow-up on something that stuck with me about Talk:Molly White (writer)/Archive 1 § Image change. It struck me that we would not similarly discuss which portrait of, say, Noam Chomsky is most "attractive" or "aged well" for his infobox, and that it would be especially uncouth to talk about his photos that way in his known presence, for example if his attention had specifically been called to the question like it had been in this case. I would think we'd want to extend that same courtesy to our colleague. I didn't feel comfortable participating in particular because of those comments, which had little to do with the question of best representation. I imagine this wasn't your intention so I wanted to bring it to your attention in the event that you would agree and want to know that your words had that effect. czar 06:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|