User talk:Valjean/Archive 20
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 20 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
Please comment on Talk:Deepak ChopraThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Can I get your opinion here, both parties admitted there are four reliable sources. I wrote this article because of my science background to protect the public from quackery. The encyclopedia tends to be bias against fringe. Valoem talk contrib 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Bull, can you look inI am sorry to come at you out of the blue on this, but I am in a quandry with an editor pulling rank (length of time here). I came to an article, at the behest of another, to look at the large blocks of unsourced text. Out of compassion, I gave it a half day, while I was waiting on an overseas gig to warmup. The article—believe it or not, a church—had not been edited in over 6 months before I came. The article had a list of 20+ "references", but essentially no inline citations. And those listed "references" were really, a reading list, not references, because there was no clear evidence, and eventually evidence contrary, that the content was drawn from that list. (The article gave names of wives of principle individuals, talks about their moving from city to city—the sorts of things that are not usually in published sources. Its being unreferenced, and its having this sort of content led me to believe this was WP:OR, a personal record of history, rather than a history based on published information.) I set to work on it, fixing the dead links, examining the 4 inlines that did appear, then reading the "Further reading" list of 20+ to see what citations I could place. I put in many hours, and now, all the citations in the article are good, and the article—though still in need of inlines—has 15 good citations, and many of the inline tags have been removed (though many more still to go). Enter now a fly-by editor, never been interested in the article before. Does two things.
He argues only DD MONTH YYYY is acceptable for an article about a U.S. organization (?!), and that it must be done immediately. I have asked, to no avail, that he allow the date format to remain as I have set them—YYYY-MM-DD, for publication dates, at least in the interim, because that facilitates my skimming and using citations in the Further reading list, as I am doing this extensive updating edit. I mostly want to get done with what I can do on this article, and leave, and if he wants to change all the dates after I am gone, that is fine. I just want this editor, who has (a) done nothing at the article before my coming, (b) only done disruptive things since my coming, to quit reverting things and leave them alone, so I can make the remaining progress I intend. (And next time I am asked to edit outside of my specially, I will likely say no.) Can you look in? Article is (believe it or not)… Scum of the Earth Church. Thank you in advance for whatever you decide can be said or done there. Please, feel free to refer to an Admin if you think appropriate. Once again, in closing—I want uniform dates when I leave. I have no strong opinion what that date format should be after I leave. I simply want the date formats that make the editing easiest to remain in place for the few days I am working. Absilutely uniform date formats are icing on the cake, and not the cake itself (in my opinion). See Talk a that article for the one sided argument. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Vaxxed DramaYour input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion at Caitlyn Jenner#List-defined references
Need your attention hereCFCF intends to merge the discussion with no consensus to do so. He wishes merge despite two AfDs allowing inclusion and the discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard having valid points against merge. They insist on apply WP:MEDRS, which is not necessary, however I gave them unimpeachable MEDRS sources from PubMed here. CFCF stated "I will remerge the reverts by Valoem shortly", if he does so before the discussion is closed in favor of merge please revert, and I will open an ANI for topic sanctions against him. Valoem talk contrib 16:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
A request for your point of view on an article - your help over a year ago was very appreciatedHello BullRangifer. I contacted you back in Oct 2014 to provide an unofficial third opinion on a hotly contested article, Rolfing. You gave level-headed advice that helped toss a bucket of water on the situation and everything calmed down for a while. Your status as a quackbuster means that the other editors involved on the page actually listen to your opinion. It seems to me that one of the editors, who has a clear anti-alt-med bias as opposed to simply valuing science and critical thinking, is so bent on his POV that he doesn't thoughtfully read and consider the edits I make before reverting them. Nor does he take the time to understand what I've written in the talk page, before going back to talking about pseudoscience. I do expect a lively back-and-forth with other WP editors, I expect to have to support my edits with quality sources, and I expect that editors will show good faith in dealing with each other. My proposal: revert the page to the "last stable version" from March 17 - prior to my contested edits and the others that followed - and then we discuss the various changes on the Talk page before making them. Would you kindly jump in and give your two cents? Thank you!!! --Karinpower (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC) As suspected a user is doing a full merge of all article with no consensus. You input is needed for or against. Valoem talk contrib 17:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Bull, could you look in on…and perhaps send an editor to the Conditioner (farming) article, where my usual nemesis is warring, and ignoring Talk. Point is, the article has two issues, the two tags are distinct and non-redundant, and and this editor is stalking and disrupting. Cheers, for whatever you might find time to do. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organismsThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) With Led Zeppelin...in the news, I went to the Robert Plant article, for some insight into the early days. Go there, you will see what I did. The sources there are in really rough shape—in the one section, I fixed one dead llink, and combined two duplicate references (along with noting the usual unsourced, capricious text-dropping). Calling this to your attention, in case you are interested in a high impact referencing mini-project. If so, I will (for the little it is worth) support you in any updating, correcting, etc. that you do. Cheers, Le Prof
With heist of USD 50M…in virtual currency from a DAO, see here, there will be increased attention to various tech articles, one being Block chain (database). I went there, and it is a nearly outstanding article, except for the quality of presentation of its citations. I am running reFill, in a first pass, to fill bare URLs. If you have time, take a look, and see if there is anything further you can do? I will then return and give some further work as well. Cheers, and, in re: above, hope you are well. Delete anything I've written if you wish. Cheers mate. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC) I see that you deleted an image from this article, indicating that you think it's a copyvio. Why do you think so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Good work on the Salonga article. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this essay is a very good idea. I don't have time to read this long essay carefully, but I have a couple of quick thoughts:
Try to avoid words like "very". Your essay will be more persuasive if it does not seem to be pushing too hard. Maybe in the autumn, I will have time to read it carefully for you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Your changing of a tagI tagged a statement in the Phone sex article with a "fact" tag, which displayed as "Citation needed." Fifteen minutes later, you changed my tag to a "CN" tag, which also displays as "Citation needed." Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes lists both ways of tagging and does not say one is to be preferred to the other. So what was the point of your change? If you see a statement tagged as "citation needed," perhaps your time could be spent in some more productive way than changing one tag to the other. It also wastes the time of other editors who then see the change and spend time searching for articles about templates to find out if there has been a change in the preferred way of getting "citation needed" to display. Then you used the inaccurate edit summary "rmv active external link" which did not appear to have been done in your edit. What gives? Regards, Edison (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamateThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Need help to fix a ref error - resolvedHi, BullRangifer, remember your request Need help to fix a ref error in Alternative medicine. It's been a while and that error was still there. I looked at the problem and discovered that one of the Harvard-style templates had a parameter ps= in it. Removing that fixed things; it seems that an empty ps= still causes the reference to have a distinct name than if there is no ps= present. I know that there's WP:NODEADLINE, but that it took more than 6 months for this one seems sad. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Could you have a lookBull, was directed to this page by a nephew who asked. "Why is it that some WP pages don't have to have any sources at all." Could you take a look here, and see if the page cannot be protected, so that any further edits must be approved (i.e., to ensure that writing to provide sourced material begins). I do not know how to do this, so I ask it of you. (I will then take the teenagers back to the page, and show how the process works.) Cheers, thanks. Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:NeonicotinoidThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) If time permitsI have done as much as I can afford, today, with Colleen Cavanaugh. Have a look if you can. Cheers, Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) New newsletter for NotificationsHello You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia. That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please subscribe! All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Jane Doe content at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegationsHi. Re this, I'm not sure you're aware that the article is under the U.S. politics ArbCom remedies, which specify that disputed content stays out until talk page consensus is reached to include it. The active RfC is deciding that consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC) More context, two editors who want the content included are challenging the legitimacy of the RfC. I'm not aware that one can do that, unless by divine intervention by a higher power, which I've never seen happen, but we'll see. In the meantime I would like to ask you to reconsider your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesisThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:Periodic tableThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Periodic table. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, BullRangifer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia essays by BullRangifer has been nominated for discussion![]() Please comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental IllnessThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndromeThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebarThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for defending the WP:NPOV policyLike I noted in that RfC, it's one of the most misused and abused policies we have, if not the most misused and abused policy we have. Seeing some of the arguments made there.... It's just one of the reasons I don't enjoy editing here anymore. People will twist our policies to their liking, regardless of what the policies actually state. Ugh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC) "420" collaborationAs a member of WikiProject Cannabis, you are invited to help organize the project's upcoming "420" collaboration, which is scheduled for April 2017. Yes, we're a few months away, but we're hoping to get the ball rolling by getting buy-in from experienced Wikipedia editors and seek help fleshing out some goals and ideas for a successful campaign. We also plan to conduct both on-wiki and offlline outreach so non-Wikipedias can also contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up and contribute to the ongoing discussions. All editors are welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Talk:Donald Trump Russia dossierHi, BullRangifer! You might want to delete or strike your comments about Centrify at this talk page. Not only are they unhelpful and unlikely to contribute to a good working atmosphere, but they are incorrect. Centrify is not a "relatively inexperienced user". They have been here since 2007 and have more than 6000 edits. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that." - CJRFood for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):
BullRangifer (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing that might bring some pleasure, and some long term goodI started on Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, fixing dead links, making citations uniform, etc. I did citations 1, 5, 8, and 16. Journal of Wildlife Diseases is a repeat appearing journal, and so the first citation could be cut and pasted as a citation to do the rest. My real interest in this, is in the direction of an immunization that might protect. Thought you might be interested on various levels. (If this lures you back to a bit of work that is worthwhile, all the better.) Cheers, and sympathies over the semi-retirement. I have succumbed at times as well. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Hope you are doing wellBecause of your semiretirement, I am no longer skipping the first pass reFill and manual repair of dead URLs (which I routinely punted your way, in earlier times). Hope life is treating you well, absent the unnecessary headaches from here. (Will only check in, on occasion, here, for replies.) Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump–Russia dossier: possible copyright violationI removed some text you inserted to Donald Trump–Russia dossier as your act possibly constituted a copyright violation. Perhaps you copy-pasted text from The Washington Post article accidentally? Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
"partisan POV pushers and, predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers (the Koch brothers control many articles)"@BullRangifer: I would like to learn more about the thought process behind your intriguing comments! I'd also be eager to inspect any articles where you think NPOV has been compromised by such paid whitewashers! That would be a major problem in need of serious attention, if true. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Where to begin. I don't think your suggestions jibe with my own experiences, in which far left WP editors relentlessly insist on sourcing to places like HuffPo, Think Progress, Media Matters, Random Activist Blog XYZ, and even Gawker. Then there's the religious campaign against Daily Mail, which, curiously, is more an exercise in venting British leftist rage about the U.S. election than anything else. And then there's all the times I've heard some breathless argument why some essentially perfect sourcing from a place like New York Times must be suppressed because it doesn't present the correct wacky far-left view. Not just "I want to give the wacky view more emphasis", but "The non-wacky view must not be mentioned". And of course whoever argues for the inclusion of the non-wacky liberal view sourced to New York Times will be loudly condemned as a shill, paid troll, fascist pig (not in those exact words, mind you), etc.
I think it is also well established that trillions of dollars in big money interests back leftist policies. Money goes wherever there is more money to be made. The remainder of your comments, especially about "rigging and hacking of the election", and the idea of a massive conspiracy between Trump, his supporters, and the Kremlin—I'm sure you can understand that without you posting clear arguments or evidence, I can't take this seriously. Kremlin release of HRC emails isn't "hacking the election" even if some passwords were sniped to get the emails. That's hacking an email server, not a presidential election. Regarding your less dramatic claims, I still would be interested to see an example of the POV pushing, whitewashing or "cover-up" that you describe, or even a single recently active user that is a paid troll or POV pusher as you describe. I'd be happy to take such a user aside for a very blunt discussion of WP policy and decorum. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warmingThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Trump is pure as snow"Hi BullRangifer, you wrote on the talk page for the Russian interference article that I was First of all, I've never said anything like "Trump is pure as snow" on the talk page, and it might surprise you to know that my personal beliefs are pretty much opposite to that. However, I also think that just because you or I might dislike a political figure, that doesn't mean we should lose our objectivity. Second of all, I read your second quote to imply that I'm an agent of the Trump administration or the Kremlin. That's a pretty insulting thing to imply about me, and I would appreciate if you'd strike those comments on the talk page. Even if it wasn't your intention to imply that, that's how it looks to me, and will probably look to at least some other editors. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated interjection
jgIf you have an issue with a user please do not use article talk pages to discus it. if you think there is an issue report it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Minor edits, reduxHi, I saw your post on another user's Talk page about marking edits as minor. I ran into another editor whose edits are also all 'minor': Special:Contributions/AlEmory. They are hardly minor. Can / should something be done about this? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
C-SPAN on YouTube is not SPAMYou are WARNED, stop cyber-Bullying me. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Xb2u7Zjzc32, I don't have much time right now, but here's a preliminary take on the issue.
"YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. In general, unless the video is clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it." Essay page
Do you see the problem? These are not official channels AND they are copyright violations. You may have also included some official channels in your edit. Try restoring them, but they must really be the official channels. I suggest you visit RS/N and then report back to me before I get time to file a complaint. I'll abide by their judgment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1RRRussian interference in the 2016 United States elections is under discretionary sanctions and 1RR. Please self-revert your second revert on and stop edit warring. First revert: [1] Second revert: [2] Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|