User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Compare Wikipedias

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people climate change pseudoscience and fringe science He should not be given alerts for those areas.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself. Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). "Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn". NewsBusters. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as "conspiracy theories" and "part of a cover-up," even "when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA." Valjean specified that "Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted." Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name "BullRangifer" has been "previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation."

"In the 7th century, the Etymologiae states that remains of the Ark are still at Mount Ararat in Armenia"

I'm pretty sure that's what the source said.[2] [3] It's actual location is irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have now added a quote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some poor analysis in your answer. That doesn't make logical sense. Because, as you said, "falsehoods" includes "lies", it can be clarified that a particular falsehood is a lie, but there's no point in clarifying that a lie is a falsehood, as that is per definition. To make it easy: if I ask why an article says "fox", and the footnote says that the RS only said "animal", you cannot tell me that it's because animals includes foxes. If the RS says "falsehoods", it's not necessarily saying that it was a lie. Also, if you don't care about the concept of truth, you cannot lie. That is instead called bullshitting. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 86. It would be nice if you provided a quote from me, as well as the URL for the place I make the quote, IOW a diff. I'd be happy to explore this topic with you. Talk page comments often fail to do that, and I sometimes write things clumsily.

BTW, your point about bullshitters is spot on. Harry Frankfurt explains why bullshitters are far more dangerous than ordinary liars in his book On Bullshit. A few sources actually make that point about Trump, The Bullshitter-in-Chief. Here are a few more: [4][5][6][7] We barely touch on the distinction here: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. I don't recall whether fact-checkers make the distinction, rather than just saying "falsehoods", "lies", or "untruths". It would be worth going deeper into that topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you were saying Marxist and communists are far-left or not. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug! Nice to have you here. I suspect you saw my comment here. Right? Let's continue there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not getting involved there. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! I've already answered there. Am I going to get into deep water there? Is there some big debacle attached to that topic? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, don’t want to get in with the editor. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider far left to be revolutionary, most Marxists aren’t, think particularly about academics I admit but a lot of others. A lot of Communist parties take part in the democratic systems of their country, especially India where they govern some states. Not far left. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. They become pragmatic just to survive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In response to your edit summary at Melania Trump's article, I should point out that both Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox person have TemplateData that clearly specify family members that are notable or of particular relevance should be listed in the infobox. Her father is clearly not notable enough to have his own article, so I fail to see why he should be given space in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I'll self-revert. Thanks for the info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I took your word for it, but I'd like you to quote the words on this page that back your statement: Template:Infobox officeholder -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have to open the TemplateData and there if you look at the parameters individually you'll find that for "Spouse(s)" it asks that they be listed "if [they're] notable"; same for "Partner(s)" and "Domestic partner(s)". Now I had not noticed this before but it does not provide any descriptions for "Parents" and "Children" but I think we should follow the same rule. Keivan.f^Talk 20:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this Template:Infobox_officeholder/doc and saw "notability" only connected with ONE item, "cause of death". Nothing about spouses, children, etc. If that's not the right page, please provide the URL. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Template:Infobox officeholder. It's under "TemplateData for this template used by TemplateWizard, VisualEditor and other tools" which is right above "Tracking categories". It provides you with parameter "name", "description", "type" and "status". Keivan.f^Talk 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valjean/Archive 32, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valjean/Archive 32 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already expressed an opinion in support of keeping the content you are concerned about. I am surprised that you chose to email me about this. I communicate by email only when I perceive a compelling need for privacy. I see no such need here. Advance your convincing, policy based arguments right here in the open. I do not engage in behind-the-scenes intrigues. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want someone to provide evidence of the claimed BLP violations and don't want to bludgeon the MfD. I'll go ahead and make a direct request for evidence on the talk page there. I guess that's allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nickps (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your chin up. Rainbow's are most beautiful after storms. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. It's tough when I have a guillotine hanging over my neck. Does keeping my chin up increase or decrease the ability of the blade to strike my neck? That ANI is a piling on clusterfuck of bad faith, but there are some people who are seeing it for what it is. I still have not been provided an example of the claimed BLP violations in the draft article, a claim that started the MfD. Still accusations with no evidence. And my request for evidence of that unproven claim is called "bludgeoning" and led to the ANI, which has been continued without a demand for evidence. How can that happen? Accusations without evidence are considered a civility violation, but nothing happens.

I can "almost" see rainbows in the huge clouds of smoke from the Park Fire. (That's another stress right now.) The colors at night are actually beautiful. The clouds of smoke are lit up by the light from the fire. We go out and take pictures. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo ARoseWolf's words. A guillotine, indeed (do follow that link, if you haven't seen it already). But there is plenty of pushback to the accusations, and I'm pretty sure they aren't getting traction, just a lot of unhelpful noise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right. There is a lack of accountability here. Nickps should be held accountable for making accusations without providing any evidence, and then attacking me and abusing ANI instead of providing the requested evidence. That's egregious behavior worthy of a trouting and one-way interaction ban. He needs to stay away from me and the draft (in fact all drafts in userspace), and even get a topic ban from the topic of the draft. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on that to happen. I'm guessing it will get closed with no action taken against anyone, and if that happens, you should regard it as a victory. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that happening. No justice here. I don't have much confidence in dramaboards here. Justice is often lacking. They tend to be kangaroo courts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just said that I'll work with you to fix the issues that editors see, and I think it will resolve with that. Let's work together on that. (As for the drama, yeah, it's bad, but remember – it's only a website.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take the assistance. Don't look for justice because you are right, there is no justice here or anywhere for that matter. I don't worry about what is said off-wiki. I don't usually discuss Wikipedia off-wiki. There is nothing you can do about what is said on WPO. Some of it, I'm sure, is just hate and drama but there are nuggets of truth in everything that is said and things you can take away from this and that discussion to improve you as an editor. It's not easy. I've been disillusioned with Wikipedia for some time now and I doubt it would be any different on WPO given what I have experienced of it.

My disillusion has only grown with recent discussions I've been in. But I realized something yesterday when I was reading the AN/I about you and correlating to to my own experiences. The most fulfilling experience we have is when we hit the publish button and a new article we helped manufacture is now in space online forever. It may be AfD'd next week but it is in the history somewhere and recoverable.

After a particularly frustrating discussion recently I dug in my heels and finished Wild River (Alaska), an article I had been working on for sometime but lost sight of when I got involved with a RfC on Andrew Jackson. I had forgotten the thrill of trying to find sources to match what I already know firsthand. I was mostly disappointed (not many sources for my remote location) but even that was refreshing. I wasn't angry or disgusted. There was no drama. Just me and a river I know very well. There is healing in that. Val, find your healing place, whether that's on Wiki or off. Then come here, work with Tryp, and become an even better editor. You don't have to be a victim of anything, even the injustice found online. The power is inside you, that much I do know, because I see and hear it. I'm still trying to master mine. --ARoseWolf 11:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your support, kindness, and advice. I don't want favoritism, just a fair shake and straight talk, and I appreciate that you do it with kindness and good faith. That's wonderful.

Tryptofish, I will definitely accept any help you are willing to offer. Can we do that on the talk page of the draft, or should we do it somewhere else? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do that, and yes, I think the draft page talk page would be fine. At some point, probably not right away, I might try a significant rewrite myself, letting you know when I'm starting and stopping. I'll need some time before I can really do very much, so I'd like to take it slow. (By the way, I looked at WPO, and they switched to freaking out about me, and then moved on to the editor who joked about Rodney Dangerfield. They really freaked out! I get a kick out of trolling the trolls. Such a droll way to turn the tables.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything, including you taking a turn at using the source material (and any more you might find) in other creative ways. I suggest that you create your version in a subpage so we keep them separate. Pinging will be essential. I'm still in the beginning phase of my typical way of creating articles. I start with a lot and end up with a lot less. See these notes where I describe My article creation process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you watchlist the draft and its talkpage, do you need me to also ping you? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be good enough. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]