This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valjean. 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.
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)
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 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.
Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months.
Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months:
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. AEWFanboytalk22:11, 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...
...a good album that isn't a double album? Mezmerize!
...another good album that isn't a double album? Hypnotize!
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)
And no, I do not need and shall not want to commit to opening myself up to enabling an email relationship of any kind with the likes of any Wikipedian, it's not you, it's me. I already got tangled up with an older, "hotter" mail server in the '90s, once was enough and I'm still "praying for the end of time" as far as that familiar dashboard confessional goes. No to Facebook, no to Twitter, no to Adult Friend Finder or whatever. No to WikiMeets, WikiCons and WikiWorld Waterpark's Wikkity-Wak West Coast Bash. You're either going to run into me in a Northern Ontario bar and/or restaurant by sheer dumb luck or you aren't, simple as that. But if that should come to pass, hell no we're not going to share "a" beer! Six-drink minimum, that's the way I was raised. Also, I haven't been to a bar or restaurant in about four years, so don't get your hopes up. Also, I still haven't even begun to read or remember what Les Miserables was/is even about, I just know it's famous, so cheers to me learning why I call you Val (two origin stories down, one to go)! In case you were wondering, I'm named after "The Incredible" Hulk Hogan, not The Incredible Hulk, and now I just realized what Nelson Muntz meant when he suddenly found his tadpoles crude in comparison to a normal person's lunch. Stay classy, Valjean, whoever you are! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
I 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)
LOL! Eggnog is something I rarely drink. I don't even remember the last time I tasted it, but it was probably at some Chrismas market booth on a cold evening. We never drink it at home. I suspect I might have liked it, because I like cold buttermilk, and that also has that creamy "off" flavor. I guess that makes me weird. I also like Baileys. My grandmother taught me to like buttermilk, and my wife and I both like to use it on dry cereal. That's probably odd, too. I really like buttermilk koldskål. Another drink with spirits that I like in the cold months is Irish coffee, made the Danish way. If I recall correctly, it goes something like this. Take a white coffee cup and put a copper coin in the bottom. Then add coffee until you can't see the coin anymore, which happens pretty quickly. Then fill with whiskey/rum/akvavit until you can see the coin again. (Lots of alcohol.) Then finish with the sugar, real whipped cream, and flaked/shaved dark chocolate. Delicious! Here's a mention of a Swedish recipe, so it's apparently an old Scandinavian thing.
I mentioned akvavit, which revived a memory. It can be made at home and flavored with many different herbs, so people will have their favorite recipes. In Greenland, the Inuits (never call them Eskimos) use the small leaves and seeds found in the sublingual pouch of the rock ptarmigans they hunt. Some of the plants they eat are very aromatic and flavorful. In the summer and fall there will be blueberries in it, and in the winter there are the dried seeds, leaves, and twigs they can find under bushes where there is no snow, which means the meat has a delicious, slightly blueberry-marinated, flavor in the fall, while the ones shot in winter have a rather boring flavor. Hunters will sometimes save this pouch. Some pouches will be blown up (like a very small balloon) and tied off, then dried and used as a small baby rattle. I never saved them, but have seen the rattles. You can read my article here: Reindeer hunting in Greenland. I have spent many hours sitting and freezing my butt off watching ptarmigans gathering food under bushes while I sat on a cold boulder and scanned for reindeer with my binoculars. (Clue...reindeer are much easier to spot in the winter as they don't turn completely white.) The birds are so small that we usually served two of them per person, only eating the breast meat. Delicious with their own gravy!
I had to think about it. I think I take after my maternal grandfather. He had rather simple taste in food. My winter drinks of choice that aren't wine are either plain black coffee or café mocha (but nothing in between). Years back an English friend of mine introduced me to his style gin and tonic. It was a pint glass with just a bit of ice, a good squeeze of lime, a shot or so of gin and the rest is tonic. I was hooked (in a non-alcoholic way). I never really got into mixed drinks. I think the low quality stuff I tried at bars back in college stunted my growth in that area. I am a fan of various sours. But, alas, none of those are winter drinks and 2020 might be a dangerous year to add drinking to the list of hobbies :D Here's to having minimal cabin fever this winter! Springee (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I like gin and tonic and many other mixed drinks, but rarely touch hard liquor. It's been over a year since I had a mixed drink, a margarita. It's just not part of the culture of our small circle of friends. I totally understand the caution regarding alcohol in these isolated quarantine times. We have always limited our alcohol intake. We just don't like the feeling of being drunk. Even in my college days, I was a stoner and rarely drank alcohol in excess. Pot, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, those were my drugs of choice. A lot of good memories from those days. I stayed away from cocaine and all pharmaceuticals. No uppers or downers for me. I stopped that lifestyle in 1973. Now I prefer a cold beer occasionally, and we like wine, especially good dark zins. OZV Old Vine Zinfandel (Lodi) is a great one (Costco). It takes us a week to empty a bottle, so we are definitely moderate drinkers. We make it a practice to never drink alone, sort of like the pot culture of always sharing a joint. Don't bogart that joint my friend... -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
After one of those nights in college hard liquor didn't appeal to me like it used to. In my 20s my friends and I used to drink a good bit but those days have passed and my partner doesn't drink much and I generally don't drink alone*. I never did get into other things. I guess part of it was, like you, I didn't really like being drunk. Anything more than a mild buzz was more than I enjoyed so I never had an urge to try things other than alcohol. That meant that unlike many of my friends I also never smoked. *I forgot about margarita's. On business trips, with or without others I was happy to have one with dinner. Ah, the happy, not work from home days. Springee (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
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:
Yes, Wikipedia does have "barriers to entry," and we should be thankful for them, not criticize and undermine them.
When people buy into Trump's "All RS are fake news!" mantra, they follow him down a rabbit hole that excludes RS, so they cannot self-correct. He allows no crack for "the light to get in". Being a die-hard Trump supporter has serious consequences here. This extreme media bubble of falsehood does not exist on the left, as left-wingers tend to use a much wider variety of sources, so they discover errors and self-correct fairly quickly.
What lessons does this situation have for editors here? Are we willing to do anything about it?
'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)
Hello! 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.
I have now restored that aspect, but don't be surprised if someone deletes that part as an irrelevant WP:Coatrack detail, as the article is about Stop the Steal, not Parler. I had kept the only part of relevance to the article. That detail is covered in the Parler article, where it is clearly relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 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:
BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".[7][8][9][10]
The second operation was very recent and involved contacts with Trump's representatives during the campaign to discuss the hacking of the DNC and Podesta.[11]
Lawfare has noted that the "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."[12]
and the myriad secret contacts between other Trump campaign members and associates with Russians[13][5][6] to be the alleged "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win",[14] which the Mueller Report describes as "Steele's central claim".[14][15]
Brennan stressed repeatedly that collusion may have been unwitting, at least at first as Russian intelligence was deft at disguising its approaches to would-be agents. "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.[16]
According to CNN, "former top Trump campaign officials have corroborated special counsel Robert Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign planned some of its strategy around the Russian hacks, and had multiple contacts with Kremlin-linked individuals in 2016."[17]
Dossier source(s) allege that Carter Page secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in July 2016.[18] Page denied meeting Sechin or any Russian officials during that July trip,[19][20] but he later admitted under oath that he met with Sechin's senior aide, Andrey Baranov, who was head of Rosneft's investor relations.[21][22]
[23] In his testimony, Page admitted he met with high ranking Kremlin officials. Previously, Page had denied meeting any Russian officials during the July trip. His comments appeared to corroborate portions of the dossier.[19][20]Newsweek has listed the claim about Page meeting with Rosneft officials as "verified".[24]
On October 11, 2017, it was reported that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), had said: "As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven."[25]
Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have described the impact of some of the flaws in the dossier:
But its flaws have taken on outsized political significance, as Mr. Trump's allies have sought to conflate it with the larger effort to understand Russia's covert efforts to tilt the 2016 election in his favor and whether any Trump campaign associates conspired in that effort. Mr. Mueller laid out extensive details about Russia's covert operation and contacts with Trump campaign associates, but found insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges.[26]
Sources
^Cite error: The named reference Sciutto_Perez_2/10/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Cullison_Volz_4/19/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Price_12/21/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Levine_1/12/2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Goldman_Savage_7/25/2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Competence
Hi 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)
My first edit as a registered wikipedian was on 18 December 2005, but I started editing as an IP in 2003, before we had reached the first million edits. -- Valjean (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
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 update
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.
You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
New categorizations/icons:
Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.
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.
Thanks for the notification. User:SuperHamster, I notice the script uses Media Bias Fact Check, but this is a one-man operation that we have repeatedly dissed and is highlighted as a "Generally unreliable source". The better one is the Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes Media. They are a large, well-trained, team effort. Please make that switch. -- Valjean (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That's correct, but it's not the whole story. We depend on secondary and tertiary sources to avoid OR and to establish due weight. Using ONLY a primary source violates both of those rules. If you have a secondary source, you can add the primary source along with it, although it is usually mentioned in the secondary sourcing, thus obviating any need for it. There is an exception to the above, and that is for straight and totally uncontroversial details and facts. So your content is classic OR and should be removed entirely. Instead, I flagged it to allow you to correct the deficiency. Instead of fixing it, you have doubled down by adding yet another primary source. Do you really want to get blocked for very clear policy violations? I tried to give you a second chance with my clear edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you have added an AP ref. I haven't read it, but that may solve the problem. Next time start with secondary sources and you'll be on firm ground. -- Valjean (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. Regarding primary source, which policy requires that editors remove the references of primary source completely in these cases? I have no problem with your adding {{cn}}, but I don't think it was fine to go one step further and remove the reference of primary source. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I would have been justified in reverting your whole edit, but I can be patient. It wasn't a BLP matter (which requires immediate removal), so I wanted to try a teaching approach. I've been here since 2003 and know my way around. -- Valjean (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay. If Wikipedia's policy does not require editors to do such removals in these cases, please avoid doing so. What one should have done to my addition is probably adding templates such as {{Primary source inline}} or {{Primary sources|section}} first, not removing the references or even the content altogether, which is prohibited by WP:VD. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
How dare you speak of vandalism? You fail to get the point of that tag. You are not supposed to use primary sources in the way you did. Period. Now leave this page. Your ungratefulness is noted. The next time you fail to follow our policies, I will not show you the mercy I did this time. — Valjean (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
To be clear
I 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. Levivichharass/hound20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This pinged me as I was about to save a response, so instead I have followed your advice, with my response at the end that didn't get saved there. -- Valjean (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, at this point in history, especially on this issue, having "a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican slant" is equivalent to having "a pro-facts, anti-conspiracy theories slant" and "a pro-RS, and anti-unreliable sources slant." That is in keeping with policy and an attitude we expect of editors. Only fringe editors act otherwise. When the Democrats start pushing conspiracy theories and basing their opinions on unreliable sources, Wikipedia will expect editors to stand on the opposite side and base their editing on the same RS which Republicans will be using at that time, even if it appears to readers that our content appears to have "a pro-Republican, and anti-Democratic slant," and it will indeed appear that way.
In short, we can't allow how things appear to clueless readers affect our editing. We must write what RS say, even if those readers' impressions are misguided. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to avoid misunderstandings, I have stricken that word, but you know very well that I was only referring to the ones, including editors, who miss my point. (Experienced editors have no excuse for doing so, so methinks thou dost protest too much.) My whole point is that editors must not be partisan, but should always hold RS as their lodestar when editing, and should bring/change their POV into line with what RS say.
Partisan editors hold to a party line, regardless of the facts, while good editors don't care which political side is affected/rewarded/exposed/punished/whatever by what RS sources say. They just stick to RS. That's not at all a forum violation, and my comment was an on-topic reply of relevance to better editing and more firm adherence to RS policy, so don't ignore that context. -- Valjean (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You: My whole point is that editors must not be partisan ...
Also you: Well, at this point in history, especially on this issue, having "a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican slant" is equivalent to having "a pro-facts, anti-conspiracy theories slant" and "a pro-RS, and anti-unreliable sources slant."
(That's partisan!) One of the mistakes you're making is ascribing the views of Powell to views of "Republicans". Most Republicans, like 99% of elected Republicans, do not believe the election was stolen or fraudulent. So, no, having an "anti-Republican" slant is not having a "pro-facts" slant. That statement was very partisan, and you should strike it, too. Nothing screams "Wikipedia is run by liberals" like an editor saying anti-Republican = pro-facts. Levivichharass/hound20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
"99% of elected Republicans, do not believe the election was stolen or fraudulent". Really? (If that is true, what they might privately believe and how they publicly act are certainly very much at odds.) If you're right, then my generalization was overly broad, yet still basically true. That's how generalizations work. It recognizes, without saying so, that there are exceptions. It is only the GOP side (and 100% of the Trump GOP side) that disputes the election, and just how many is a quibble over numbers, but your 99% cannot be true. I didn't make the mistake of assigning any number. It still appears that you are missing my point, and that is to not edit in a partisan manner but to follow RS. Can we agree on that? If you keep attacking me, then it might appear that you do not agree, and I really doubt that. Why approach me with a tomahawk on this New Year's day? Aggression isn't helpful. Let's bury the hatchet and agree on the basics. I'd rather smoke a peace pipe. -- Valjean (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
OK in my defense, yesterday it was announced that 140 GOP members of Congress were planning to support the objection, which is news that I hadn't read yet when I made my 99% post an hour ago. :-) So, yeah, my 99% estimate is maybe a bit high. Still it's less than half, so there's that. Anyway, I'm totally with you on burying the hatchet and smoking a peace pipe! Levivichharass/hound21:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
There's still a fact-based accounting problem here, namely apples and oranges. Let's say Taylor Swift releases a controversial song (call it "Erection", for simplicity's sake). Now let's say one loudest direct competitor (say Kanye West) tweets all-caps about her stealing the idea from Steel Panther and fabricating details of the narrative, and a couple of his followers echo that exactly. But then 138 misfits show up to challenge "Erection" because Billboard and ASCAP didn't follow their own rules, and because megacorporations like Apple and Spotify pushed it explicitly and unfairly hard, relative to West's "Ho Hum (feat. Lil Uh)". You couldn't count the 138 as Panther apologists and Kanye kooks. They have their own reasons for wanting to fight. Capisce? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
(To be retroactively clear, I had no idea exactly 138 were going to show up on the wrong side of the ultimate overtime challenge or that Kanye was planning to announce a new divorce. They were just based on an old punk song and pop feud, respectively. Taylor Swift is in no way an allusion to Kim Kardashian. "Erection" was supposed to sound like what it did, though, sorry. Simply unprecedential, won't happen again!) InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I came here to deal with another topic, but got as far as the Powell comments. I have a copy of her book, "Licensed to Lie," which claims the upright, responsible citizens at Enron were wrongfully persecuted, that Senator Ted Stevens was innocent as the driven snow, and it has a very lengthy forward by former ("Whew!") Judge Alex Kozinski, who also appeared with her on C-Span's Book TV about the time when she was on her book tour. Activist (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, @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)
Indeed! Having a normal human being in power is reassuring. Also one so experienced and willing to work with the opposition. -- Valjean (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been very active here the last few days as I've been glued to my TV, following along with these amazing developments. Amanda Gorman really ignited the sun in that "new dawn" you mention. What an inspiring young lady! We have a hill to climb, and that's a difficult, uphill, battle. Hope will wither and die if we don't struggle against evil, and we really are up against strong forces of ignorance, lies, and bigotry that want to ignore the will of the majority, destroy democracy, and install a dictatorship, so the old adage, "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," (Curran) is still true. We must continue this struggle more than ever because the enemies of democracy are no longer just fascists on the right and communists on the left, but white American domestic terrorists allied with the GOP and Trump.
I never thought I'd have to write those words, but that's what we're seeing. America used to be a beacon of democracy the whole world looked up to, and I have lived in six different countries, so I know what other countries think about us. Democracy exists many places because of our example, and it thrives much better in some other countries than it does in the USA. We must pick up and clean off our sullied honor and regain our reputation as the foremost defender of democracy wherever it is the people's choice. Democracy is coming to the USA (Cohen). It has never fully arrived, and we must defeat the forces that resist it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Well said V. I am still in awe of Amanda. I suspect that I will never be as mature or wise as she is. Last night I couldn't figure out what the feeling in my stomach was and then I realized that the knot that had been there since November 2016 and relaxed. Best regards and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Good comment
Worth keeping:
The pillar does apply, it just says the opposite of what you think it says. It's not that we have a point of view which is neutral. It's that we are neutral with regards to point of view. Then another pillar, verifiability, says that we should only include material which is present in reliable sources. Together these two principles combine to say we are neutral with regards to any point of view that is endorsed by reliable sources, which effectively banishes any endorsement of Nazism (or, for that matter, any other crank ideology) from this encyclopedia.... Loki (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Youngrubby, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have attempted to improve that content, but there is still a comma about which I'm uncertain. Take a look at the content now. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 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)
I don't know why you left this message here, but I see that it was fixed quickly. If properly-sourced, it might have been okay, but it wasn't. -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus" is not a standalone policy - drafting proposed text
Here is a first draft:
Lack of consensus, standing alone, supports a revert or a removal of new content only when the content is the subject of an ongoing or recently concluded discussion. In such cases the reverting/removing editor should link to the applicable discussion. In all other cases the reverting/removing editor should instead cite policy, sources, or common sense.
The "applicable discussion" should itself have a consensus based on other policies than "consensus". This also refers to old and long-established content, not just new content. -- Valjean (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
How about this then:
Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports a revert or a removal of new content only when the content is the subject of an ongoing discussion or a recently concluded discussion that reached consensus. In such cases the reverting/removing editor should link to the applicable discussion. In all other cases the reverting/removing editor should instead cite policy, sources, or common senseanother substantive basis for the revert/removal.
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)
What kind of "promotion" are you seeking and why? There is no need for that.
Each item to trim should be discussed first, rather than a general trimming of what a limited subset of Trump fans consider UNDUE. That's a very subjective decision, so other policies should be considered first. The specific ways to deal with such content are clearly mentioned at WP:PRESERVE. We must still preserve the content, so trimming isn't just outright deletion.
There is no good reason to remove informative content, especially significant opinions and info from intelligence agencies, such as Brennan, whose very informed commentary is not undue.
Your removals are consistently one-sided. I don't even need to provide diffs, just point at your edit history. You run protection for Trump and attack his critics, EVERY single time. When have you ever included content critical of Trump? Never. Think about that. That's partisan editing, and your pushing the issues will draw attention to that fact. I thought you had already been warned, if not topic banned, from the AP2 topic area.
By contrast, I have added lots/most of the content critical of Steele and the dossier. There is lots of such content.
There are huge amounts of content in RS which I never add. The article is not "an aggregation of just about every time an RS news or opinion article mentioned the Steele Dossier." I'm very selective, as are many other editors who contribute. Improvement is always welcome, but complete deletion of good content is rarely an improvement. Tweak, rather than delete. Try it. That's the PRESERVE approach. Discuss your proposed changes. The results will have staying power. What you've been deleting is very long-standing consensus content that should not be removed without good discussions. What you've done is really bad editing. It's not collegial or collaborative, but purely partisan. -- Valjean (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Promoted to Good Article for starters - most of the content and prose is already there. There's enough editors here adding content critical about Trump that I don't need to. I abide by NPOV and NOTNEWS and UNDUE a lot more than Trump's critics seem to. If I look at your editing history I see a lot more sanctions than I've gotten, but that's neither here nor there. Are you saying you are opposed to an RFC? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
An RfC would be very improper at this stage. Normal editing and discussion is supposed to precede such a move. The way toward improvement is to be specific. Discuss each proposed change, one at a time, rather than gripe about perceived general/systemic problems, such as article size. -- Valjean (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. 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.)
I have commented on your talk page. Self-revert, because right now you are edit warring, and doing it to multiple other editors. You are the one who should be careful. -- Valjean (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, you're not the first person to have had the moral high ground only to throw it away, and not likely to be the last. That was uncool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
"Unpleasant people": Personal attack, clearly referring to the subject of the discussion, Buffs. While not really civil either, this is a level above "I find them an unpleasant editor" due to its objectivity assertion.
The skunk comparison/metaphor/whatever: This is unambiguously comparing a detailed description of a stinking animal's forced bespattering of others with foul-smelling bodily odors to Buffs's behavior, and comparing Buffs to the animal itself. The detail provided, including about color and viscosity of the fluid, has a single purpose: evoking disgust.
"easily within the top ten most unpleasant editors I have met here since 2003": Irrelevant detail for the discussion due to its subjectivity, doubling down on the initial attack.
The block is meant to have a lasting effect, deterring future similar wording. This is probably usually caused by the temporary inability to participate in the encyclopedia and every enthusiastic user's understandable interest in not being prevented from editing in the future. In some cases, however, the block log entry alone already achieves this purpose. This relieves me, as it means that 12 hours are perfectly sufficient and any longer duration wouldn't have had a more helpful effect.
That all said: It's an online website. If an online website has the described effects on you, please consider reducing the emotional involvement with the website if anyhow possible, as such an intense reaction sounds unhealthy both to the community and the affected user.
Thanks for the clarification. It's healthy to see things through other's eyes. Thanks. I won't be engaging in such behavior again and have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs. -- Valjean (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries from my side then; I'm removing the block. However, please avoid making any further comment in that specific ANI discussion until the 12 hours are over. This is because even a well-meant apology can fuel the fire if it's written too hastily. Proper, credible, unconditional self-reflection is sometimes only achievable after sleeping a night over the whole situation. Text written after the next night might be more valuable than text written today, in many regards. In the end, it's your decision; there is no longer a block technically preventing any approach. All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. I have tweaked the Guccifer 2.0 article to include that info. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sends Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirms that he received it. WikiLeaks publishes the file's contents on July 22. The Mueller report asserts that Assange was "working to shift blame onto [Seth Rich] to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing".[1] -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
References
^Poulsen, Kevin (April 18, 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 22, 2019. Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer "to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing," Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election.
1) @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)
To answer this, I'd have to get into forum territory, so I just copied your sig from below and placed it here so I could answer here. I hope you don't mind. I'll then copy this to my talk page where we can continue tomorrow. -- Valjean (talk) 05:54, 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.
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)
Please 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 article
I 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)
Thanks for sharing. I'll read it and ping you later. We're on vacation and are going to explore the Eureka,CA area today. It looks like we might get some rain, which is rare in California. We really need it! We may have to go inland to get away from it. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 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:
Hill called the ex-president “a counter-intelligence and national security risk because he was so vulnerable to manipulation based on the fragility of his ego.”...
She dismisses the widely held belief that animated much of our politics for four years, that Vladimir Putin had some damning revelation on Trump that prompted the American president’s wildly excessive deference to his Russian president.
..."What Putin had on Trump is what everybody else had—recognition of his extreme vulnerability to manipulation.”
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:
"Fiona Hill Hill testified that there was a “good chance” Russia had kompromat, or compromising materials, on Trump during the 2016 election and told a conservative lawmaker that information gathered by the Kremlin is often “factual.”"[2]
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)
Yes it seems very difficult to follow all the statements and changes, so I don't know why she's now contradicting things she said earlier. I wouldn't personally believe much that Amy Siskind has to say. I've seen some of her comments on Twitter and they seem to not be grounded in much reality. My opinion is that much of the Trump / Russia affair was overstated by the media and we are seeing the media come to terms with that now and reconcile what the truth actually was. So put however much stock into that as you think it deserves. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 8 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]
What if I was to tell you that we had evidence in black and white that the Trump campaign paid foreign spies, including Russian agents, to generate dirt on Clinton, used this information to kickstart an FBI investigation while lying about where it came from, leaked it to the media, and then used it to lie to a secret court leading to secret surveillance of Clinton campaign members, and leaked that to the media too? It's all about the narrative...Schiff peddled so much misinformation about collusion. Remember the Schiff memo? How'd that hold up after Horowitz put out his report? On a side note, of all the things that never happened, that conversation Schiff writes about in an airport never happened the most. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I understand your point, but fear it's based on some misunderstandings, so why not reverse it to what you're actually saying. -- Valjean (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
BLP smear of Rep. Schaffer Schiff (repair autocorrect misfire).16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC). WP is not a Fox News mirror site. SPECIFICOtalk16:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I suspect you meant Schiff. He's back with a vengeance and may actually get something done, unlike Mueller, who was weak and wimped out. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, although I doubt that the effects of Mueller's age could be foreseen. It was really sad to see and a real WTF! moment. Mueller totally caved to Trump's obstruction and miserably failed to compel the production of evidence by using subpoenas and immediate imprisonment for failures to do so. If there was nefarious intent on the part of Rosenstein, I doubt he would have chosen an honest man like Mueller. He would have chosen Giuliani! -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Have you considered that the investigation was actually quite thorough and there was simply nothing illegal to find? For example, Andrew Weissmann played a lead role in the investigation, and there's no way he would "cave" to obstruction or suffered any visible cognitive decline. It's crazy how fast the narrative changed after the Mueller report came out, and it's sad to see now that it's shifting to him being old (although he's younger than President Biden...)
Here's the reversal of my previous yarn:
What if I was to tell you that we had evidence in black and white that the Clinton campaign paid foreign spies, including Russian agents, to generate dirt on Trump, used this information to kickstart an FBI investigation while lying about where it came from, leaked it to the media, and then used it to lie to a secret court leading to secret surveillance of Trump campaign members, and leaked that to the media too? And these guys knew what they were doing, with one of the Alfa Bank story peddlers writing that it could "give the base of a very useful narrative." See this NYT story for more. The current National Security Advisor put out a statement about the Alfa Bank story and Clinton herself tweeted it out a few days before the election. It will be very interesting to see what Durham's subpoena to Perkins Coie turns up. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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:
"including Russian agents"? What Russian agents? Steele never got information from Russian agents. It was Trump's campaign that did that repeatedly as part of their collusion with the Russian government.
"to generate dirt on Trump"? "Generate" sounds nefarious, sort of like "fabricate" or "falsify", rather than what actually happened, which was to seek and gather information (essentially steal information that the Russian government did not want released) for later investigation for accuracy. Unfortunately, Buzzfeed published the draft dossier before that process was finished, and, besides that, it was never intended for publication. Steele was pissed of that it got published.
"used this information to kickstart an FBI investigation"? Which investigation?
"while lying about where it came from"? Lying? "where it came from"?
"used it to lie to a secret court leading to secret surveillance of Trump campaign members,"? How "lie" (I assume to the FISA court)?
"campaign members" plural? Who else besides Carter Page was surveiled because of the FISA court? Page was acting very suspiciously, so don't blame that on the dossier. I suspect you're thinking of the pre-dossier, pre-FISA court, existing Crossfire Hurricane investigations of Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. (Steele never mentioned Clovis or Papadopoulos.) They were all lying and acting suspiciously enough to warrant investigation, but it was only Page who ended up with renewed FISA warrants, after his old FISA warrant from 2014. He's always been a fishy guy the FBI couldn't trust, and with his own "shell"-like organizations (IOW pretty empty offices with no staff, one next to Trump Tower).[3] His activities and slippery way of responding to questions are similar to classic secret agent activities. It turns out that the dossier was right about Page. All but one of his lawsuits has failed. On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles which described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.[2] You can read about Page's meetings with Russian officials.
That Alfa-Bank story was very short-lived as a public story, but it turns out that it's still not a clear-cut done deal. In spite of any political motivations for pushing stories negative of Trump (all sides in politics do this, so it's hypocritical to complain when the Clinton campaign did it), including that story (Durham and Sussmann are dealing with that now), there is still highly unusual weirdness and mystery about the Trump/Alfa-Bank backchannel communications that don't back up the denials by Trump.[3]
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)
Mr Ernie, I have now numbered my points to make it easier for you. I want to be sure I don't misunderstand you. Note that each point may have several questions. -- Valjean (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
My original comment was intended as a rhetorical type comment a la Schiff’s, but I’ll respond to this when I have some time. I’ve not had a lot of that lately. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
1. Several of Steele's sources were Russians.
2. Some of the information was allegedly fabricated (Danchenko, Sussman and the Alfa Bank, etc).
3. The FBI investigated everything the Democrat operatives brought to them. The Steele Dossier was a central and essential piece to several FISA applications to spy on Americans.
4. Sussman allegedly lied that he was being paid by the Clinton campaign. He ostensibly came as a good samaritan, when in reality it was party of a scheme intended to favor one political campaign over another.
5. It's been pretty clearly established that the FISA applications contained severe flaws. When questioned by Congress most of the people who signed off on them said they would not sign then had they known now what they knew then.
6. Many of Trump's campaign members were surveilled and investigated.
7. It was a pretty big story, and in fact Clinton herself tweeted about it a few days before election. Twitter shut down the Hunter Biden stuff (incorrectly they later admitted) a few days before the 2020 election. Taking that same tack would have had Clinton's tweet deleted and her account blocked for misinformation (that she - probably not knowingly - had paid for!)... Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
I've mentioned these issues at the existing AN thread initiated by Deicas to try to get their topic ban lifted. I'm not seeing any effort on Deicas's part to see past their own agenda. Acroterion(talk)20:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Per my comment at the Brooking Institution talk page — "Please don't "creat[e] a section on [@Valjean's] talk page" . These issues pertain to editing the Brookings Institution article and should be occurring on that talk page. "Scattering the discussion to more pages is disruptive".
If indeed, @Acroterion, you believe that "this is best done via a community decision at AN" then I suggest that you make that suggestion there [4].] Why don't you make a new Brookings Institution talk page section for your AN proposal, @Acroterion? Deicas (talk) 21:24, 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)
I knew you were interested in the topic. That's all. If you don't want to use your email function, feel free to disable it, but it is commonly used when we don't want to clutter talk pages. Misuse to affect voting in AfDs would be wrong, but this is not such a situation. It's just a heads up. -- Valjean (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that discussion is moving along on its own well enough, I don't really have anything of substance to add. I've glanced at it from time to time as it popped up on my watchlist. I don't mind the Wikipedia emails, but in general I prefer notifications dealing with non-sensitive on-wiki things to be made on-wiki, just for transparency's sake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Sadly true. The limitations of anonymous internet communication by bytes really became evident in this situation. Communication broke down. It's hard to be sure exactly what went wrong: language barriers, immaturity, tunnel vision, personality quirks, whatever, etc. It certainly wasn't because of any lack of lots of good advice.
I hope we can get back to doing what needs to be done. That timesink was like a massive sinkhole that spread to more and more venues and sucked in more and more people, and we can never recover that wasted time. Now what will happen at their talk page? I suspect a short process there, resulting in a loss of access. -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ Valjean: At [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brookings_Institution] you are making false claims of "consensus". You assert " there is currently a consensus against including it". Your claim of "consensus" is immediately belied by your own " the discussion is far from settled at the article talk page or here". And yet you continue to make false claims of "consensus" — " An alternative to continued discussion is to drop the issue now and bow to consensus." Clearly in the midst of an unresolved BLP message board discussion you can not truthfully claim the existence of any "consensus".
Your claims of the existence of a "consensus" are FALSE. "Editors should not make false statements on Wikipedia", WP:DNTL. Your false statements are WP:UNCIVIL and and constitute WP:DE. You have an obligation to be honest. An Wikipedia editor "Does not say things they know or believe to be untrue simply to support their argument" (WP:DISHONEST).
You reference to "[k]eep in mind that we don't know why he lied to the FBI." and "Our lack of knowledge as to "why he lied to the FBI" has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a violation of WP:DE. Please strike it out.
This block of text, just below, has nothing to do with the acceptability/non-acceptability of the disputed text per Wikipeda policy ....
"Partisan sources are making much more of this than may be justified. It's just another attempt for them to score more points. The fact is that he had an immunity agreement with the FBI, and yet he lied. That's bad. Some of his lies are consequential because they wasted the FBI's time. Even if he was justified (in other situations) to lie to protect his sources, one does not lie to the FBI and get away with it. Even though he lied, we still aren't sure if it has any effect on whether the lies affect the truth or falsity of some allegations (and many allegations have nothing to do with Danchenko or his sources). AFAIK, even under oath, he didn't deny that the allegations were true. His lies were about sourcing, etc".
... this off topic digression, just above is disruptive and violates WP:DE. Please strike it out.
Your " But I digress, so enough about that. Kindness is still paramount." is an off-topic digression. It is disruptive and violates WP:DE. Please strike it out.
Your reference to "poisoning the well" is not a reference to Wikipedia policy as I've pointed out before. It is disruptive and violates WP:DE. Please strike it out.
I see your comments have been described by Zaereth as "double talk and wikilawyering", and I agree. It's very tiring and counterproductive. Also, "you incorporate a lot of logical fallacies into your arguments.... Haven't you noticed your arguments fail to convince others? This is all part of why." Zaereth makes very good points.
Those comments of mine (that may be seen by some as FORUM violations) are to give context and explain why we must be cautious about the Danchenko situation and thus avoid BLP violations. Seen in that context, they are relevant, even if a bit wordy. Brevity has never been one of my strengths, so don't paint it as some big crime.
There is a clear majority of editors who do not share your opinion. That is the emerging "consensus" I see.
Accusing me of lying ("say things they know or believe to be untrue") is a nasty personal attack.
Stop ordering me and others to strike our comments.
In conclusion...Considering that you have an indef block hanging over your head, how is it possible that you have already forgotten all the good advice and warnings you received from Acroterion and Johnuniq? They have already told you what to expect if you don't heed those warnings. (Other editors and admins have also done so.)
You don't seem to be able to learn to moderate your objectionable behavior. Your repeated legalistic demands are badgering that border on harassment. Stop it. -- Valjean (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
You 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)
Thanks for the heads up. I have added some commentary that should move things along. Although there is a clear majority for following Summary style, if we end up without a consensus, then an RfC on that subject should be held, probably at WP:NPOV/N or Wikipedia talk:Summary style. -- Valjean (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
According to {{cite news/doc}}, the |agency= parameter is used for The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. (bold in original) My preference is generally to use |work= because it further states for |publisher=: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). (formatting also in original)
you should be banned from editing wikipedia
you 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)
LMFAO! Does my honesty scare you? Hypocrites hide their biases. Of course I'm biased, and so are you. (You just don't like my biases. Does that mean you should not be allowed to have your biases?) So what if we have biases? As long as they are informed (in this case by RS) biases, it's okay. It is only a problem here if we allow our biases to affect our editing, which is totally unlike what we are allowed to do in discussions and on our user pages.
Since I've been here so long that I helped develop the NPOV policy, I'm a bit of a specialist on NPOV and bias and have written an essay on the subject. You'll understand NPOV and Wikipedia a lot better if you read it: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.
Self-awareness about one's biases is an important thing, so when you live in a glasshouse, don't throw stones by accusing others of having biases. Like assholes, everyone has them. It only makes you look foolish and naive when you accuse others of bias and imply you are unbiased. -- Valjean (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF and use of unreliable sources
WP: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.
Even 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.
^Chapman-Smith DA, Cleveland CS III (2005). "International status, standards, and education of the chiropractic profession". In Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B, et al. (eds.). Principles and Practice of Chiropractic (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. pp. 111–34. ISBN978-0-07-137534-4.
^Cite error: The named reference Nelson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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)
LOL! In the Philippines, an obnoxious food is balut, a boiled fertilized egg. Really gross. They'll even hold their own nose while eating it. In Sweden it's fermented herring (surströmming). The older generation of Inuits in Greenland (where I have lived) eat raw stomach pieces of reindeer dipped in the raw stomach contents. It smells like shit. My wife witnessed it because she worked in a retirement home. She almost barfed. (It's also a bummer when you hunt them and accidentally hit the stomach. It spoils the meat.) They'll also take a seal, empty it of entrails, leaving the fat-lined skin, and then fill it with Little auks. Then they sew it all shut and hang it up for a long time while it all ferments. Then they eat all of it. They also eat lots of raw meats, sometimes including the intestines with contents.
BTW, right now Igor Danchenko is in the hot seat for lying five times to the FBI. We already knew he lied to the FBI by trying to downplay his role as a source, but was never charged for doing it. Now we find he might have also lied to Steele. This will get interesting. What's a favorite, obnoxious, Russian food? -- Valjean (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Since I don't go seeking out bad food I'm not sure how much I can contribute here :D I did live in Japan for a while. I will say their green tea is and bean paste "treat" things are not my favorites... not even close. I remember my boss who seemed to love shocking people with food bringing a pigs face to work for a coworker. This was a fully shrink wrapped and ready to boil pigs face! While not a big fan of Japanese food I did like Okonomiyaki. As for buried foods (!) I recall seeing something about buried seal meet in an episode of Flying Wild Alaska. The flying looked great but I'm not sure I could have handled that meal. My own evil food is spaghetti squash. My parents made us eat it once as a kid. It was so traumatic that I still avoid the stuff. My SO tries to sneak it into meals from time to time. It's honestly not that bad but mentally I just can't do it. So if you like it, that would make for a good holiday argument :D Springee (talk) 19:50, 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)
LOL! Now that's an idea. Maybe I should edit the article on kimchi. I grew up eating it in Korea and love it. Now that I've looked, it's not on my extensive watchlist, so I probably haven't edited it, which is really strange. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I notice that the article says almost nothing about the smell/odor, which is considered repulsive by those who don't love it. I'll add something about that as RS do comment on it:
Kimchi is known for its strong, spicy, flavors and odors, although milder varieties exist. Variations in the fermentation process cause the final product to be highly variable in terms of quality and flavor.[1] Because it contains lots of garlic and ginger that produce sulfur compounds, its strong odor is considered offensive by Westerners, and even Koreans keep it separate from other foods to prevent it from tainting them. To increase its international marketability and export success, scientists are experimenting with the types of bacteria used in its production to minimize this problem, literally to "engineer the smell out of kimchi", as "the smell [is] so pungent it can take days to work its way out [of] a person's pores".[2] These efforts are not universally appreciated by lovers of kimchi, as the flavor is affected in the process, and some see a danger that this allows non-Koreans to "control South Korea's narrative about its own culinary staple".[3]
I went to a wedding in Korea and stayed in country for a week. I never developed a taste for the stuff. Your reply had me laughing as I thought about what food related parallels to the typical political debates on Wikipedia. Are cooking shows owned by the Martha Stewart network reliable or bought and paid for by big bacon? Is orange juice really "part of this complete breakfast"? We would have the anti-coffee editors who are always pushing tea. It would be a good April 1st article :D Springee (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that recipe for shakshouka, an unknown to me, makes my mouth water. It sounds like a flavor bomb. I'll see if my wife would like to make it.
Just talking about kimchi inspired me to get out our jar in the back of the refrigerator. It was still good, so I ate some for supper. It's great for adding flavor to various dishes. Try it in a burger or hotdog, or throw some in a beef stew. I describe it as Korean sauerkraut. Being retired has its advantages. While working, I could only eat kimchi on Saturdays, as it takes a day or two to get rid of the body odor. My wife had to learn to like it, but now she's a big fan. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I'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)
In this case, WP:BEFORE may have been ignored as no mention of notability occurred, and there was no use of the talk page at all, as suggested at WP:BEFORE. The nominator also complained about lack of mention of all possible strategies used by contestants, accusing me of "picking and choosing". (Can you imagine an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with stratetgies used by Jeopardy! contestants? A new article can only do so much, and then other editors are welcome to add more if they see fit.) Fortunately, other editors are speaking out against their attempt. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'm sure you have lots more important things to do. BEFORE is enough for me to know about. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Today, December 18, 2021, is this user's 16th WikiBirthday as a registered editor
This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 11 months and 10 days.
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)
I am taking into consideration the RfC and explained further on the ANI page. In short, I think we need an RS that says this in order to include it in the article as it may be controversial otherwise. Whizz40 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Whizz40, I am relieved to learn that you are not another COI afflicted editor in regard to the CRA article and the subject of climate change. Your initial undoing of my edits seemed to indicate otherwise, and I suddenly saw the article as a well-guarded walled garden.
So, is there hope? We do not need a source that uses the words "climate change denial". We just need a source that describes it, and we certainly have that: "Economists at CRA have sought to weaken, delay and defeat policies designed to mitigate the effects of climate change.[1]" Weaken, delay and defeat is a good definition of climate change denial. While it would be nice to develop that subject better, it's not an absolute necessity. We edit based on the content and sources we have, not on what might be. The lead should mention significant topics in the body of the article, and therefore the climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead. See my essay about How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
There was a specific RfC about including this point in the lead of this article and the consensus was to exclude it. In order to include it, I think we need to expand the article to provide good coverage of the topic and then write a balanced lead. Examples of articles about other consulting firms with the leads at various stages of development are McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, Boston Consulting Group, and Oliver Wyman. Only the first, which is most developed, mentions the controversies described in the article in the lead.
As for the climate change denial, I understand it fits the broad definition of this topic but if RS haven't used these words exactly then I think it's better for Wikipedia not to add this. I changed the wording of the subheading in the article which I think succinctly summarizes what the sources are saying. Whizz40 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Your examples from other articles is an illicit WP:OTHERTHINGS argument. Boston Consulting is one where something should be mentioned in the lead, but its lead is also lacking in many other ways. It's very incomplete. I am finding very limited mention of CRAI's climate position online, yet it's denial activities are pretty strong and show a longstanding pattern, not some isolated instance unworthy of mention in the lead. It's methods are similar to the efforts of Big Tobacco, where all negative mentions on the internet are (were) suppressed by SEO activities that push negative content down beyond the normal reach of those who only search the first two Google pages. The mention we do have is pretty strong and perfectly describes climate change denial, but if you aren't willing to back such mention in the lead, there isn't any hope because then it is indeed a walled garden with COI afflicted editors guarding it. If we don't mention it in the lead, at least the category and the "see also" hatnote should be restored. Maybe the other editors will allow that.
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored, but it does happen through whitewashing. Unfortunately, there are companies that successfully use Wikipedia for promotion and get away with it because they have many editors who work for them and remove anything negative sooner or later. This affects articles related to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and politics (a notable example is the Koch brothers' group of paid editors who got busted here but were not blocked). (Read this.) Powerful companies guard their images very aggressively. -- Valjean (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources in the article relate to the period 1991-2009. It's up to you on the See also note in the section and the category. I have reverted once to express my view but won't revert again as there is no policy violation and other editors need to express their view. Note the syntax of the category was broken. Whizz40 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I goofed when adding the category. I'm not going to bother with that article anymore. Without active support from other editors, it's not worth the grief. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference Franta was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Hey, 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)
So do RS, and you're supposed to follow them and not use your own OR interpretation. Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions that just irritate smarter people, so "Stupid question, stupid answer" applies. That's known as "sarcasm" in English, and Biden has a long history of using it on idiots. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. Your statement "Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions" is clearly your opinion. For someone so careful about RS, you seem pretty biased.Nerguy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I share the opinion of others, such as Senator McCain, whose response to Doocy is immediately above Biden's response in the article. Now stop treating Wikipedia like a social media discussion and follow what RS say. ABC News said "sarcastically", and we should write that so readers don't make the same mistake you're making. -- Valjean (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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)
Uanfala, you're absolutely right. I was viewing it on my cellphone and that gives a very limited view, so I oversaw the good part of the edit. I have now restored it. I hadn't seen the talk page entry. -- Valjean (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The history around here with Barrett and Quackwatch is what lay behind that tunnel vision. There is an intense hatred of both here, and too often they have been removed leaving a hagiography to a quack or some pseudoscientific BS. In this case, there were other good sources doing the job, so they weren't essential. -- Valjean (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I try not to remove things like that if there's no other balancing text in the article, and when I trim, I make sure to leave enough to fully balance any fringe or woo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 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)
I land firmly on the side of BLPRESTORE in situations like this. If there is a good faith BLP concern, we lose nothing in keeping something out of an article while it's discussed. In this case, a secondary sources was found, so problem solved. A bit of civil discussion would have resolved this toot sweet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest following what you suggest about civil discussion instead of edit warring and talking past people. There was no reason for your last revert (or even the first if you were doing due diligence) or the blanket edit warring mentality (i.e., shoot first, ask questions later). I don't want to take up more of Valjean's talk page, so I'll again warn you that you need to stop cherry-picking only parts of BLP and stop creating timesinks for the community with tendentious editing and avoiding the article talk page. You're barreling past how much WP:WIKILAWYERING you're doing misusing BLP, and this isn't uncommon for newish editors to have trouble recognizing their own behavior issues. That's why I'm trying to spend some time with you.
Especially in controversial topics like fringe ones, it's best to slow down in situations like yours, not charge through, especially since your behavior is under scrutiny at ArbCom. Knock off the tendentious attitude in comments and you'll see most editors are much easier to work with. KoA (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
My second revert was bad, and that's on me. I was on mobile, and didn't see the addition of the book cite, and should not have reverted in haste. I apologize for that, it was definitely a bad revert. I guess I had some of that tunnel vision myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I can understand the cellphone issue. I often check my watchlist and look at edits while on my cellphone and one doesn't get the full picture. -- Valjean (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
So, in the spirit of this discussion, I'd like your, and KoA's take on Jonathan Fletcher. Not the article, but the BLP and BLPCRIME reverts. Article is on a non-notable person, and was almost entirely discussion of sexual abuse allegations. There is a BLPN thread, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan Fletcher with a clear consensus that the material shouldn't be there and the article shouldn't exist. The editor in question's username is a bible verse, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." They also seem to have a severe case of IDHT.
So you're saying a vicar who is in no way notable except for allegations, should have an article based on only sources dealing with the allegations? I certainly don't think a vicar reaches the threshold of being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Possibly, but not necessarily notable enough for a whole article. People also become notable for other reasons than their position. This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather keep this all at BLP/N, or the AfD, rather than having the same conversation in three places. Don't take my lack of responses here as ignoring your points, just trying to keep things reasonably centralized. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Valjean has given good advice, so I don't feel the need to add to most of that. What I will comment on this is the "keep this all at BLP/N" comment, which I've seen as a recurrent issue I've commented a little on already. It's the article talk page that generally rules the roost (or AfD, etc.), so you need to use that. BLPN is generally not binding unless there's a more meta-RFC or something, but instead a place to solicit advice or ask for more eyes/involvement to get consensus on the individual talk page. When there's no talk page discussion and sometime tells me to go somewhere else, that's a huge red flag.
So for instance at the Fletcher article, I'd be concerned about both Ephesians and your reverts. That burden rests more on Ephesians, but there's a point where you're expected to explain yourself on the talk page too. However, citing BLPRESTORE is getting a bit out of line. You need a very clear cut issue, ideally something that like extremely poor sourcing, to cite that. If someone cites that while removing something that is adequately sourced and policy can allow, that falls into wikilawyering territory I mentioned. Instead BLPCRIME mentions you should consider removing it, which is very much a talk page discussion to start if someone disputes removal. When I see someone taking such a hard line or more gray area or actually somewhat ok BLP subjects, that is where we get into POV issues that Valjean mentioned above. KoA (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi, 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)
Good luck. If you need any help or advice, feel free to approach me here. I've been here since 2003, before we had our first 500,000 articles, so I know a bit about this place. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
I've never seen an editor go above and beyond to help another Wikipedian on the topic of fringe personal beliefs like you did for Stiabhna. Great stuff. ––FormalDudetalk23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Just 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 Tailtalk18:50, 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!
Hi...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)
??? You're ignoring the "has expanded" part of "Owing to changing climate, the range of ticks ... has expanded from a limited area of Ontario to include areas of..." It isn't discussing a static status of the current range but the dynamics of how it became what it is. -- Valjean (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually I'm not and I'm glad you brought that up. That whole section is about the range of Lyme Disease in Canada, not how it came to be that way based on how every other section is worded. Also, none of the four sources cited support the language that you're suggesting. The closest is the 2009 study[1] but that actually supports the text as I suggested. That study states where it was originally detected in Canada and where it was found in 2009. "Since 1997, detection of human cases by vigilant clinicians and passive surveillance for ticks has led to the identification of populations of I. scapularis in..." It then discusses future expansion due to Climate Change. It does not state that the original range expanded because of warming temperatures. It states that vigilant clinicians and surveillance are the reason the additional populations have been identified. To that end, the text should read "The range of ticks able to carry Lyme disease has expanded from a limited area of Ontario to include areas of southern Quebec, Manitoba, northern Ontario, southern New Brunswick, southwest Nova Scotia and limited parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as British Columbia. Cases have been reported as far east as the island of Newfoundland" because the references support that. If you have a reference which shows that the expansion of ticks able to carry Lyme Disease expanded from that single colony in Ontario because of Climate Change then I would support keeping the current text but otherwise without a reference to support that wording, it should be reverted as an unsourced claim. Dbroer (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll AGF and trust your judgment. You don't seem to be a climate change denier. We see enough of them around here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
You 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 understand. My concern was mostly with Stormfronter. There are a number of IPs that seem to be used by "Stiabhna". If any of them are obvious socks, I'll probably just delete their contributions and/or contact you. -- Valjean (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Questioning 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)
In this case, we have the other editor evasively parsing words in a way that was thoroughly discussed and rejected at previous talk page discussions of the matter. I found the other editor's post to be disappointing, sophomoric, and unworthy of the occasion. SPECIFICOtalk15:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Adding: As PME knows, as a good-faith and constructive contributor to this and other difficult articles, the text was built over several years of intensive collaboration among editors who often had sharp disagreements about various points of emphasis. Most of the active contributors have refocused their time and attention to other pages. It's a big problem to have newcomers reopen settled issues without first familiarizing themselves with the prior discussions and -- worse -- apparently without having much familiarity with the scope of RS reporting and analysis that were raised in those discussions. The "consensus" list helps mitigate this to some extent, but we can't list every point and every issue there. When an editor comes and parses words in such a way as to come thisclose to violating settled consensus, but with artfully crafted wording that was also settled in old threads, that really is not helpful. SPECIFICOtalk16:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
An inexperienced editor comes along and deletes long-standing categories and legitimate content and PME supports them. Think about that. Experienced editors should not support inexperienced editors who make such blunders, the type normally described as fringe and tendentious, especially considering that PME has an AP2 topic ban and DS sanctions sword hanging over her head [Clarification added later: the "sword" refers to the threat of a topic ban based on violation of DS sanctions. It is an existential threat.] after many warnings for tendentious editing in support of fringe, pro-Trump, views. She should not support tendentious editing against consensus. These matters will be brought up if necessary, so it's best we deal with this here on a personal talk page. I want to understand what's going on and why PME is aiding such blunders even though she has been warned. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Clarification added later. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not under any topic ban? What are you talking about? But yeah, friendly not, don't do stuff like that again. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If you were under a topic ban I would have just said it. No, it's a threat hanging over you, as you have been warned several times, and you have been discussed in that connection, with a number of admins very willing to do it. Just be more careful. Also, don't mistake a disagreement or a request for an explanation for a personal attack. Editors can have disagreements, even unpleasant ones, while mentioning each other without it being a personal attack.
Otherwise, and NOTE THIS(!!!), I take your concerns (mentioned below) in good faith and do appreciate the reminder. You haven't wasted your time. Next time, just be more careful. You could ask for clarification instead of rushing in here with accusations and assuming I said something I didn't say or even mean. I will be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You said considering that PME has an AP2 topic ban. You said that, just above my comment. So you will forgive me if I am not sure what you mean by If you were under a topic ban I would have just said it. Because you literally just did. Did you just mistype? There is no threat either, unless you are threatening me? I am not sure. PackMecEng (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You need to read the words that followed and note the "falling sword" figure of speech: "...considering that PME has an AP2 topic ban and DS sanctions sword hanging over her head after many warnings..." It's still hanging because of all the warnings, but not fallen. I am not threatening, just reminding you that a danger already exists from many sides. As long as we can settle our differences here, without any escalation, as you threatened above, we can both learn to have a more civil and constructive relationship, maybe even collaborative. I'd really like that.
I'm tired of the antagonism around here. There's too much of it all over this place, and there are few innocent parties. The smallest human weaknesses and imperfections get blown up, punished, and exploited, much like Mao's purges and communist watching and controlling of each other ignored human rights, criminalized private initiative, and destroyed Chinese society. He was a monster, and his mentality is too often manifest here. We should be more patient and forgiving of each other. If the subject of left-wing extremism interests you, read Wild Swans. A great book. -- Valjean (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The "and" makes it two different statments. The second statment DS sanctions sword is seperate from the first where you mistakenly give the impression I was under a topic ban. Which is why I did not list it. I see now you had a different meaning behind it, but the way you wrote it is wrong in that case. I will also reiterate that there is no sword hanging over my head. That is just not a thing. What IS a thing is your latest block and several trips to the drama boards telling you not to personalize disputes or talk about other editors. That is all this is about. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't make it "two different statements", although you have interpreted it that way. Sorry about that. By the way, it is "a thing". Public warnings and private discussions among concerned editors and admins have made it clear that you are in constant danger, and I don't see any point in you getting close to triggering such an occurrence. I think you could continue to participate in the AP2 area without being so defensive of Trump. If you were more cognizant of what RS say about him and his actions and actually allowed them to change your mind about him, we'd see that you had a positive learning curve, but we're not seeing it, and that's worrying. The ability to vet sources for reliability is an essential quality for editors. It's a CIR issue. It's your continual siding with views from unreliable sources that defend Trump that's worrying and wastes our time. Some of your allies, who are in the same position, have wisely chosen to voluntarily avoid the area as their input is disruptive. You could choose to do the same, but that's not ideal. Ideally you'd learn and improve. Right-wing input from editors who are not so extreme is always needed. To be too conservative and dig in and refuse to learn isn't healthy. The liberal, scientific skeptical, and wikipedian attitude is to follow the evidence and change positions, and human nature being what it is, that's not always easy. It's a learned, not natural, attitude, which is why highly educated people tend to be liberal. They are taught logic and scientific skepticism. I know we disagree on some of these political and sourcing issues, and now you better know my thoughts about how you relate to the matter and how others view you. I hope we can at least avoid friction and exaggerations of our human frailties. We both live in glass houses and should avoid casting stones. It's better to deal with this on personal talk pages and avoid drama boards. Justice and fairness do not exist there. They are kangaroo courts that leave broken lives, depression, and suicide in their path. We have lost good editors because of events on those boards. It's just sad. That's why I avoid them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Neat, that sounds like gaslighting. Especially since I have mentioned none of the things you talked about and certainly not in this discussion or the discussion on the talk page. Seriously, stop personalizing disputes and discussing your thoughts on editors. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 6 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)
The easy answer is NEVER personalize disputes or discuss your thoughts or theories about other editors on article talk pages period. Full stop, easy. Just don't, there is no value and you will get another warning or possibly asked to leave the site. This is the exact kind of thing that gave you your most recent block. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Recently arrived editors at that article routinely personalize talk page discussions and disparage or attack longtime good faith contributors. Evident even on the current talk page text. SPECIFICOtalk19:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I've seen vets snip noobs, noobs burn vets, vets trash vets and (rarely) two noobs circling. The subject takes a lot of shit from "both sides" as well, as do accepted and proposed sources. It's what some might call "a toxic environment" and what others may recognize as "the Internet, deal with it". They both have a point. That's the problem, the overall exclusive reliance on increasingly different words to reframe old arguments, not anybody in particular. Is there an equally obvious solution? Of course not. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think reading comprehension issue applies to PME. Parsing help: The sentence considering that PME has an AP2 topic ban and DS sanctions sword hanging over her head is structured like this: "considering that PME has an (AP2 topic ban and DS sanctions sword) hanging over her head". Don't stop reading in the middle of a sentence. considering that PME has an AP2 topic ban is not a meaningful quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The "and" makes it two different statments. The second statment DS sanctions sword is seperate from the first where he mistakenly thought I was under a topic ban. Which is why I did not list it. I know you are just trying to be a good friend to me, but you are mistaken here buddy. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Two different "statements" separated by an "and" would need two different verbs. Valjean thanked me for what I wrote here, so I know that I read the sentence right and you read it wrong. And I also know that you have always been trolling when you pretended to be my friend. You admitted once that you did it just to make me mad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 6 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)
Then you can explain here how you could make the claims you made, if you really had read the whole article and seen all the mentions of Trump's relationships to far-right matters and his relationship to conspiracy theories. It's there.
My AGF led me to assume that some sort of reading comprehension issue, most likely a language one, had caused you to miss all the mentions in the article. We see that often here. I don't think you were being deceptive, but it was odd for you to not see what was plainly there for everyone else to see. What gives? -- Valjean (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
We went into detail in the talk, I don't want to rehash. I saw the references to conspiracy theories and far-right stuff, I only contend that it did not support the categorization. I believe you're well aware of my position at this point. There isn't any content in the article labeling Trump a conspiracy theorist or a far-right politician. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
"I don't want to rehash" - That's what led to several of us scratching our noggins. You repeatedly "rehash" even after all your points have been fully answered. Maybe you were not notified to spare you the itch to get involved in something that fundamentally is not about you. SPECIFICOtalk14:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Whoever SPECIFICO said that about, he she should try to be more considerate and understanding of other editors opinions, rather than calling their edits disappointing, sophomoric, and unworthy of the occasion. That's probably not the best way to be inviting and make good faith contributors feel welcome. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sure, but when the edits are disappointing, sophomoric and unworthy of the occasion, how is a new good faith contributer going to learn how to edit properly? -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF06:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Who trained you to spell like that, Pol Pot? Seriously, "contributer"? Bad dog! Constructive criticism aside, I think he edits just fine, three years in. Argues reasonably, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, as a general comment—when people have consistently shown themselves unworthy of serious engagement, you're not obligated to keep engaging with them. Life is too short to spend arguing with the worst sorts of people about things that don't really matter. MastCellTalk20:09, 7 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! BD2412T02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
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 individual
Hi 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)
Hipal, so sorry for the delay in replying. I got caught up in other things and simply forgot this. I share your interest in this matter. There are certain people and journalists who have demonstrated so clearly their lack of honesty and/or neglect for journalistic ethics that they should be rated unreliable sources, IOW only usable in their own biographies per SPS and nowhere else. So far, people tend to reject these attempts as only sources, not people, are rated reliable or unreliable here. I'd like to see that changed for the most egregious cases. A few I can name: Trump, Kellyanne Conway (even her own husband agrees), Jones, Hannity, Carlson, Solomon, Greenwald, Hawley, etc. These are people who seem to have no regard for truth, or only their version of truth that is formed by ignoring widely recognized facts. Being earnest or well-meaning is not enough to be a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll dig further, and will be headed to BLPN at some point. The specific situation I'm dealing with are people who have given inconsistent or clearly incorrect ages for themselves. Very common in the entertainment industry, especially with people who are associated with looking a certain age. WP:DOB has had some good improvements recently, and may need some more. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your ongoing efforts and for extending an invitation to hear my take of the Talk:Biden-Ukraine_conspiracy_theory laptop segment. I just wanted to make sure you saw my latest entry, as it clarifies my opinion. Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry! about my recent revert. I meant to check the diff for a different edit in recent changed but ended up reverting your edit instead. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand. When lots of content is reverted, it usually raises red flags of vandalism. In this case, I am carefully analyzing each entry and have found many entries that do not meet our notability requirements for lists. We are now down to a list of people who were already notable, or whose suicide made them notable enough for their own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Not to be a bother
I 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)
A conservative often described in the press as far-right and an ally of former president Donald Trump,[7] Boebert had close ties with far-right groups such as QAnon, whose conspiracy theories she promotes, and praised the far-right extremist Proud Boys.[8]
Multiple sources describe Boebert as far-right, but she rejects the label.[7]
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)
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)
Thanks! So my question is regarding mostly WP:RECENT, as I see it has been applied in a lot of different ways.
Firstly, does it mostly apply to the lede or to the body, or does it matter?
Second, there has been some discussion about when it is proper to apply RECENT, and when it is being misused [6][7]. I have reached out to the project page and never received any feedback (see second diff in the previous sentence).
Is it better to apply RECENT sooner or later, or is there a relative time frame for RECENT or NOTNEWS?
There seems to be an question in that some may believe it might lead some editors to overstep WP:DUE (from DUE)"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It also seems to possibly encroach on WP:CRYSTAL, in that editors are not supposed to try to predict the future relevancy or WEIGHT of reliably sourced events etc...
Is there a method or some kind of test to see if RECENT is appropriate?
Of course attribution seems like an easy solution, but then there is sometimes a pivot by those arguing RECENT to UNDUE, in that some editors state that said RS content will "not be remembered", or will fail WP:10YT which can sometimes seem like WP:OR to the other side. DN (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
DN, RECENT is one of the policies that is often misused, so I tend to avoid dealing with it. I see it as applying mostly to the body, since what happens in the body is what later determines what can happen in the lead. If the content added to the body is solid, well-sourced with multiple RS, and a significant topic, then it might be worth mentioning in the lead as it's no longer "recent" by that time. The policies you mention are nearly always subjective judgment calls that are thrown around in what I call "policy flag waving", as if their mere mention means something. It usually doesn't. I ask "Is the content properly sourced?" "Is it accurate, without censorship or neutering of what's in the source?" "If it's an opinion that might not be a fact, is it attributed properly?" Those are the things I care about. The DUE weight is determined by representation in RS. For fringe topics, that means that 90% of the article may be devoted to the mainstream POV, and the other 10% to documenting the existence of the fringe claim while briefly explaining it without promoting it.
I've seen RECENT and NOTNEWS used for content that is mentioned every single day by multiple very RS, with the oldest sources over a year old, simply because POV warriors still don't like what they say. That makes a mockery of those policies. That happened a lot at Steele dossier by one POV warrior, until they finally got tired of risking a topic ban for their battlefield argumentation and stayed away. Suddenly there was more peace and serious discussion, without any policy flag waving. I'm basically an inclusionist. See the top of my userpage. We are not paper, so we have the ability to document even the most minute details. We don't write summaries here. We should try to give full and detailed coverage of topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
You 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.
If I have not misread, you called the user Carlos and referred to another language wiki (their native language); would you link to that account, I'm not seeing it clearly (I see two test edits on es.wiki)? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice regarding subjects related to Eastern European articles
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 {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Yes, and I see you have also been warned about that subject. Your edit warring isn't good. Follow BRD and stick to discussion as you have deleted properly-sourced content with bogus edit summaries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The content is properly-sourced. Putin's claims of genocide are false and must not be allowed to stand alone, as RS have clarified the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
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:
Trump planned with Russians in 2013, at the Miss Universe pageant, to run for president, one and a half years before he announced his candidacy. One Russian planner who claims to have helped said the planning started already in 2012.
Trump associates' secretive contacts with Russian agents in 2015-2016 all over Europe, reported to U.S. intelligence by the intelligence agencies of those countries.
Secret knowledge of Russian offers to help by sharing hacked emails at strategic times. This knowledge was not reported to the FBI, but lied about. (This created a situation where Trump was compromised (see Compromised (book)).) This was also the trigger for the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Knowlege of WikiLeaks' possession and sharing of stolen documents
Favorable mentions of the work done by WikiLeaks
The invitation to hack Clinton
Welcoming of interference because of anticipation it would help him win
Spreading the disinformation created by Russian trolls.
Work with Facebook and Twitter to target data
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)
That's an excellent list of articles that use RS which apply to this topic. The idea is to collect them under a title somewhat similar to the heading here.
There has been too much emphasis on the dead horse of an unproven "conspiracy" that likely never was formalized, IOW not a "well-developed" conspiracy, as alleged by Steele's sources. They may have seen it, but we don't have the evidence, so it's best to stop digging there.
It's more important to focus on what has been proven and described in RS, ergo the facts about the often-public acts and statements which helped the Russian efforts. Their efforts did not happen in a vacuum. Trump and his associates provided a welcoming and helpful atmosphere, backed by the reputation and powers of the presidency and government agencies, that aided and abetted the interference and misinformation efforts.
Mueller and a bipartisan Senate inquiry concluded that Trump’s team welcomed Russian help, and tried to coordinate on a few fronts, but it didn’t come to fruition.
But so much suspicion was fueled by Trump’s massive cover-up about Russia.
Trump and his team systematically lied about almost every aspect of the Russia probe. (At the start, they falsely denied any contacts with Russians.) After so many of their denials were disproved, they repeatedly shifted their story. Trump repeatedly undermined and obstructed Mueller’s investigation.
All the while, Trump heaped praise on Putin. He infamously took Putin’s side at the 2018 Helsinki summit by agreeing with Putin’s lie that Russia didn’t try to help Trump win in 2016, leading many to wonder if Trump was compromised after all. [8]
You're right. I'm on my cellphone and had no other option or time right now. You can do it and explain we follow what RS and history tell us. The lead must follow the content in the body, and the changes are so fundamentally egregious that they should be discussed first. Also their edit warring is not okay, and their violation of BRD was edit warring. They need a consensus for those changes. Gotta run now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the user's change was bad, but I didn't see edit warring. They made a change and you reverted it (without explanation). Then they made the change again, because they hadn't gotten any explanation for the rollback. My suggestion is that if you don't have time to explain your revert even in an edit summary is that you should hold off until you do. agtx02:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I am ensuring sources from both sides of the political isle are available. I see nothing wrong with my edits. --– Brenr14:00, May 11, 2022 (UTC)14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
so you've completely changed your tone now. you didnt try to justify it as off topic. you said it was "Just Trump trying to cover his ass." it was a politically-based decision for you. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Now you're mixing things up. What is off-topic is one angle on the topic. That Trump is lying and covering his ass is another angle describing why he says so many deceptive things. That's just my opinion (but still based on what RS say). The last is not why we edit. We edit based on what RS say and whether content is relevant. Don't take my words out of context. Now stick to your talk page and the article's talk page. Discussing this in three places is not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, but what I said did not describe your edit but rather the edits of the disruptive editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
You'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. --Jayron3214:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Message received. Being treated like a fringe editor and enemy is really chilling. I understand your concern, but want a third opinion to help reach a more balanced understanding going forward. Pinging Doug Weller, an involved admin. Let's discuss this. I don't want to be disruptive, but do wish to reply when pinged or commenting in new threads where I haven't commented before. (That's partially what I just did, and to which you responded.) How many others have you also warned, especially the fringe editors? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I have not treated you like an enemy. I've just noticed that you're reaching the point where the number of times you're repeating yourself, and responding to every contrary opinion, is becoming less and less helpful. Don't make this an adversarial matter. You are not an enemy. You are getting carried away and need to tone it down a bit. Let other people express themselves without having to respond to every contrary opinion. Of course you can respond if you are pinged or directly addressed by others. That was not the problem that led me to ask you to slow down a bit. --Jayron3215:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Stricken. I know you mean well. It just hit me like a gut-punch as it came without any warning. It's still chilling and creates fear. I'll try to be more selective. Right now I have received a response but will not reply. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Call 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)
P.S. Also, to give you a sense of what is at stake here... this really isn't just another article about a corrupt politician OR a silly conspiracy theory. D'Souza is a sociopath who weaponizes his movies into a form of abusive gaslighting (read: is there any other kind? no, but it's especially toxic in this form). To give an example: D'Souza is a racist who calls for the murder of blacks by the military in his own words should they (to paraphrase him) "dare to protest in the streets an election that is overturned by the BIG LIE scams he participates in". He actually says he "hopes for this outcome". D'Souza's own wife wrote a letter to the judge that sentenced him for his own election fraud crimes, calling him a pathological liar and man of little character.
Not that I doubt you believe this, but again, when I'd like to give a crazy example from D'Souza so you can see why it is important not to let sociopaths like him infiltrate wikipedia so he can use it undermine democracy and target minority voters. In one of his last movies, the troll actually has the nerve to interview a crazed white homeless man who claims he performed oral sex on Barack Obama. Not only does D'Souza present this 'as evidence', but this is HOW D'Souza operates: his movies are coded hate and the facts and "theories" are actually not that important to him. He wants a debate but the debate acts as a distraction, gives him attention and fuels his fire, so that he can do what he does best: hurt people that he hates, teach the MAGA cult how to legally harass others with this coded language, and help Trump and the aforementioned cult bully their way into fascistic power. No different than how the Nazis operate. Sorry for the lecture but the TL:DR version of this: just grow a spine man. This is a nobrainer and you know it.2601:282:8100:D3E0:D4F3:3459:35E8:1800 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You're singing to the choir. I agree that he is in a special class of dishonest people, which includes Trump, that repeat debunked lies. They have absolutely no regard for truth and their views and activities are dangerous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I get it. But we need to toughen up. Tough love? Also, did you see the heartbreaking news out of Texas???? This cult of hate needs to be stopped!!!! :( We don't need to pull any punches. They lie, they mislead, and they are "false".2601:282:8100:D3E0:D4F3:3459:35E8:1800 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you please remove the "According to Philip Bump" line from the lead? Every source is according to someone, and his findings that there "was no evidence" was actually according to Dinesh D'Souza who got cornered in an interview and admitted it three times when pressed on it. By leaving it the way it is, it suggests this is unique to Bump, or his personal opinion. No. He presented it as a regular article, following an interview. Conservatives are already using the Bump source to falsely suggest he is out to get D'Souza so we don't need to help him.2601:282:8100:D3E0:2559:6622:2220:3327 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand, but this one is tricky. Analysis and other opinion articles are supposed to be attributed, and this wording is Bump's own summary of the interview, not an admission by D'Souza. Bump is putting words in D'Souza's mouth, and I doubt D'Souza would accept that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Go through the edit history of the article and you will find that I restored "falsely" at least once, as I said. I never claimed to have been hacked. I went out of my way to praise your input on article Talk, and I know that you are adamant about including "falsely," and you removed my content opposing that, claiming a misunderstanding. Maybe take a look at who wrote the vast bulk of the article content ripping the film to shreds.[9]soibangla (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you were indeed "praising me",lol, then you could've had good faith when I accidentally reverted you, rather than attack me with vulgar language.lol When you drop the f-bomb, and a personal threat, over what was ultimately a misunderstanding, that is a big flag. You've been around long enough to know better. If you check the history of 2000 mules, you will see that moments earlier a troll had vandalized the page and I mistakenly reverted your edit while trying to revert that one. In any case, I am indeed transparent so if you'd like you can discuss your grievances here, maybe it is a better place since apparently I'm not the only one you are raising red flags with. As for your 'compliments', it honestly feels like you are grooming me for what is a slow-motion edit war in service of WP:GAMING behavior. Just saying it like it is. Cheers. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Based on your extensive and vehement argumentation for including "falsely," the fact I opposed it and you immediately removed it does not do much to help me AGF. soibangla (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
You mean the same edit you were once zealously advocating for? lol And, again, that is why we have good faith as etiquette here. If you notice, I only ever revert vandalism, and for someone (looking at you) who was once for keeping the word "falsely", you sure sound frustrated by its inclusion, as if you were never were serious in the first place. In any case, you are now justifying this red flag behavior from yourself, which, yes, is very much "a threat" not to mention is said red flag of an unstable editor, which in these here parts you'd be insta-banned for less, partner. Again, with this copy paste, I'm telling you that I am willing to let it go in the spirit of good faith. But, if you persist, we can do a WP:ANI if it will make you happy, and have a proper formal discussion on the matter. In said spirit- Please stop asking me about 'my formal account', which is just creepy, and also violates AGF. There is a reason the powers that be let us use anonymity on talk pages because maybe, with contentious articles like this, I don't want to be harassed by unstable editors who sometimes liberally use the f-bomb when they get triggered.*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* Now in stereo- I say, lets just move on, the drama is over. Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE:
Did some digging, and 'interesting' what I found***
(a quote from an editor about you) "After taking a random curiosity in one of your edits, I took it upon myself to review your edit history. In doing so, it is inevitable to conclude that you (almost) solely interact with highly contentious current political events and the people that surround them."
(a quote from an editor about you, regarding personal attacks) "I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here. "
And these are just a tip of an iceberg.
I could go on, but needless to say, there are several examples (and MANY instances) by veteran editors complaining that you have a political agenda, a political bias, and often resort to personal attacks when triggered, and (most interest of all) of "duplicity". Again, you should tread lightly in all this recent drama moving forward as there is MORE than enough to work with here if came down to an WP:ANI i.e. a VERY long history of your instability, political agenda, and complaints about your personal behavior, the sum total of which would essentially ban you from touching political pages ever again if a WP:ANI were launched. Pro-Tip: learn to quit while you are behind. Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
IP2601, don't bring your battles here. You really need to stop the personal attacks, not only above, but everywhere. Stop attacking other editors. When things don't go exactly as you want as fast as you want, you start attacking, and that's really bad. It poisons the atmosphere and forces me and others to distance ourselves from you. You're toxic. Ending your comments with "cheers" doesn't make it better. Threatening to take an editor like Soibangla to ANI is a really bad idea. They are one of our most solid and productive mainstream editors. Note that those who attack Soilbangla are nearly exclusively Trump supporters and editors whose agenda is to further fringe POV. You also need to create an account. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
for 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)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I have now added your sandbox to my watchlist. As far as the quote goes, since it's not from some hyperpartisan source, WP:Advocacy does not apply. It applies mostly to fringe, one-sided POV, especially advocacy of unreliable and false content found only in unreliable sources. Otherwise, we encourage "advocacy" of RS and facts, especially when there is no dispute among RS. If there was widespread dispute among RS, we should not appear to take one side, but at Wikipedia we always side with the maintream consensus of RS. That's policy. This is from a federal judge and is fully mainstream, so I urge you to restore it. It is his "Reaction" (section title), and therefore his well-formulated personal POV is perfectly acceptable. WE, as in Wikipedia editors, are not advocating or pushing OUR POV. We are letting him speak, and he's saying clearly what many other leading sources say. Hillary Clinton: "We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy."[11]
Bill Clinton:
“I actually think there’s a fair chance that we could completely lose our constitutional democracy for a couple of decades if we keep making — if we make bad decisions,” Clinton, 75, said.
“I’m not naive about this. I’ve been in a lot of fights. I’ve lost some, won a bunch. I’ve been elated and heartbroken,” he continued.
“But I’ve never before been as worried about the structure of our democratic form of government,” [12]
I am! I'm in Denmark right now and spending time at a summer house by a lake. We lay in the sun and take walks by the lake near the reeds and trees. Lots of green cherries, wildflowers, stinging nettles, limestone and flint (the only rocks native to Denmark, with all others pushed there by glaciers from Norway and Sweden during the ice ages), poplars, birch, weeping willow, evergreens, orange-red poppy flowers in the wheat fields, golden fields of rapeseed flowers, nightingales, doves, crows, ravens, larks, and water birds. (See List of birds of Denmark. What bliss! Clean air and water. Low crime, happy, secure, and highly-educated people. No mass shootings. Now rated the most competitive economy in the world. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:50, 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 boxes
Hi, 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)
Thanks for bringing this up. No, I don't know, but now that you mention it, I fear it could be problematic for some. What I want is to keep the text in a box at the right, and that's the way I could do it. Without the line breaks, the box would stretch all the way across the page. There must be a better way to create such a box at the right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You might see if your browser has an option for "responsive design mode". Via software, this mode will attempt to show you what the code will display on various devices. Although if you look at the browser based Wikipedia page on, say, a virtual Samsung phone, you see the web version on the virtual Samsung phone... and those users are probably using the mobile wiki app. That's the extent of my knowledge on this subject. Good luck. Have you ever asked for help at the TeaHouse? Its an amazing pool of talent. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 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)
Hi Valjean! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to format a textbox of a certain size, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
(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)
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you not to clutter up the talk page with individual discussion sections for citations that frankly have little to nothing to do with the debate in question. ToaNidhiki0503:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I 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)
I know we're on the same page as to the merits of adding the word. I just wanted to make sure you (and others) understood my thinking, and to make sure no one thought I was edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commentary on images
Hi 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. czar06:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for bringing it up. I had thought of a comment that would have crossed that line and decided not to, but my line and others' lines aren't always in the same place, and it's good for me to learn that. So thanks. Much appreciated.
My concern was a pressing need for a better presentation, not just some personal preference. I didn't say it, but I find the current image very unattractive and artificial, almost cartoonish and one dimensional. I did say flat. It's like a mug shot, but they at least come in pairs. Here we get only one, so we'd likely not recognize her in a crowd from any other angle.
Images from an angle give depth, profile, and more info. That's all. We don't usually use mug shots, except for notable criminals. She's actually a cute girl, and there's nothing wrong with choosing an image that doesn't literally hide that.
BTW, she used to use the one from 2017. Before I opened the thread, I emailed her. She had a slight preference for the current image, but wouldn't put up a fuss if we chose one of the others. So you see, I had performed my due diligence before opening that thread and knew she wouldn't oppose any change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
