User talk:Valjean
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Compare Wikipedias How to find word count
- post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
- climate change
- pseudoscience and fringe science
- Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner . Retrieved February 8, 2020.
Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself.
- Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable . Retrieved October 5, 2018.
Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). "Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn". NewsBusters . Retrieved August 15, 2020.
Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as 'conspiracy theories' and 'part of a cover-up,' even 'when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA.' Valjean specified that 'Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted.' Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name 'BullRangifer' has been 'previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation.'
- Raymond Sturman (October 23, 2024). "Top 5 Editing Conflicts in Wikipedia Pages on Religion". World Religion News. Retrieved October 24, 2024.
Located on the Catholic Church Wikipedia talk page, the screenshot below details a recent discussion of the tension between the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Catholicism. Editor 'Valjean' is protesting that the word 'Roman' has been removed from the title, arguing that there are other branches of Catholicism, while the Roman Catholic Church says it is the real Catholic Church.
- Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT
"The quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them."[1]
When all else fails, AGF and remember that
We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.
There's only you and me, and we just disagree.
by Dave Mason (Listen)
Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.
You see this?
[edit ][2] Andre 🚐 19:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, we've known that he was accused of lying since Spring, but now he has actually confessed. Nice! Giuliani has some unsavory Russian intelligence accomplices in his efforts to cover-up Trump's misdeeds and cast the blame on others, such as Biden and Ukraine. Nasty business. Our content that says that "no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been found" (paraphrase) is still accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
BTW, your sharp mind is needed at Talk:E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#"Falsely_stated"??. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- I'll check it out when I have some time. Andre 🚐 20:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit ]
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Recent edit which concerns you
[edit ]Hello, please see the edit summary for this edit . Johnj1995 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Account has now been blocked for making legal threats. Johnj1995 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
You are wrong and you know it.
[edit ]"Your criticism carries no weight with us as long as you show so much evidence you [are a biased hypocrite]."
"You have been lied to."
"Never repeat what you [posted to me] ever again."
Now that the shoe is on the other foot "...maybe you should get better sources and new friends." Chompaydm (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- ? What are you talking about? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- You know what you did. 2601:248:C000:147A:105D:AF20:6926:3AB0 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- No idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- You know what you did. 2601:248:C000:147A:105D:AF20:6926:3AB0 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Clarification on my 4 February 2024 comment
[edit ]Sorry to bring this up again, but when I said "User:Valjean told me I need to get consensus on the talk page first." (link here: [3]), I actually meant to say "User:GiantSnowman told me I need to get consensus on the talk page first.", per this revision: [4]. 123957a (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Administrators' newsletter – February 2025
[edit ]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
[edit ]- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive
Removal of talk page comment
[edit ]Is there a reason you removed this comment? It was reasonably on-topic and there is no WP:ECR sanction in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I could be mistaken, but it looked like the same type of IP comment we have removed on sight several times, possibly from the same person (hence my not repeating previous explanations this time). Like I said, I could be mistaken. Maybe it was on another page. Feel free to restore it and answer it. I'd like to see how you deal with it in a better way. I have no doubt you can, and I can learn from your example. It's just so tiring dealing with these repeated attempts to push unsourced claims and not go by what RS say. I will try to be more careful in the future. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- If it's not plainly disruptive just ignore it and trust the closer to weigh those responses as they should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, that makes sense. Sorry about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- If it's not plainly disruptive just ignore it and trust the closer to weigh those responses as they should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
[edit ]- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
- In the media: The end of the world
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
Administrators' newsletter – March 2025
[edit ]News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
- A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
- A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.
- A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
- Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
- The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.
March 2025
[edit ]Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Russiagate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Your edit summary was "archiving", however that page does not appear to have an archive set up... Electricmemory (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Electricmemory:, it's obviously not vandalism, so use a different template, or better yet, don't template the regulars. I have just set up the archiving, but if I made a mistake, I'd appreciate help to fix it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yeah, maybe that was a tad harsh, however there is no archiving in place for that page, so something didn't quite work. Electricmemory (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I see the archive page you created, but there's no mention of it on the parent page. Electricmemory (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I added code to that talk page, but the archive link is not showing, so I must have done something wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- My apologies, but I've got no clue how to fix that. I shouldn't have templated you either (most of my talk page dealings are with low-edit count IP vandals, so it's a bit of a habit) but have a nice day :) Electricmemory (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- It has been fixed. I forgot to add a bit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- My apologies, but I've got no clue how to fix that. I shouldn't have templated you either (most of my talk page dealings are with low-edit count IP vandals, so it's a bit of a habit) but have a nice day :) Electricmemory (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I added code to that talk page, but the archive link is not showing, so I must have done something wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Re your "thank you"
[edit ]No no, thank you for all your work on the article! Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC).[reply ]
- That's an important addition. Most people are likely unaware of the difference. Bullshitters are even more insidious and dangerous than normal liars. We live in dangerous times. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
answering here
[edit ]Re: autoconfirmed, that user is. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Good to know. I still think my suggestion would prevent a lot of disruption. Unfortunately, we have editors who have been here for decades and are still clueless and lack competency to edit CTOPS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Sabine Hossenfelder - anti-science controversy
[edit ]I think it's really unfortunate that you locked this discussion.
I came to the page specifically to learn about whatever disagreement exists between S.H. and other scientists. Understanding whether or not she has an "axe to grind", and why, is a critical part of assessing the veracity of any science writer (or any writer, for that matter.). I was surprised to find no mention of it.
To be clear, I fully support suppressing content that lacks valid sources. I don't support suppressing even a conversation about whether an issue is sufficiently important to motivate the effort to go find those sources.
Regards, Ma-Ma-Max Headroom (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- (talk page watcher)Ma-Ma-Max Headroom, the conversation has not been suppressed which would mean that nobody could read it. The conversation was hatted because it was not productive and came very close to a policy violation. Hatted conversations can be read by anyone who clicks "show". Discussion of improving the biography of a living person must be based on what reliable sources say, and zero reliable sources were brought forward in that conversation despite repeated requests. Therefore, that conversation had to come to an end, and a fresh conversation can begin only if links to reliable sources are produced. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]