User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

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)

Some questions for Trump supportersEdit

I don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:

there was Russian interference in the election?
1. that its primary goal was to destabilize America and sow division?
2. that its secondary goal was to harm Clinton's electability?
3. that its third goal was to help Trump win?
that is was Russia, and not Ukraine, that interfered in our election?
that the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence" to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy"/"coordination" between the Trump campaign and Russians?
that the Mueller investigation did prove the existence of active co-operation/collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians?
that there were numerous secretive meetings and contacts between the Trump family, Trump campaign members, and Russians/Russian agents?
that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these contacts?
that several have been convicted for doing so?
that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of conspiracy/collusion?
that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies to not start investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian asset (not "agent")?

What's your position on these assertions? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I supported Trump in the Canadian sense of disgust at Clinton's thinly-veiled plans to nuke Russia, but haven't cared for any American president's lying, greed or racism. Jimmy Carter's, maybe, because his was subtle. Maybe too subtle (was he even trying?) Helped clean up a nuclear disaster near a river I know once, so for that alone, he's still the only decent one since TV debates became a thing. Somewhere on Wikipedia, '15 or '16, I tried and failed to persuade American voters they didn't need to choose between two evils when Carter is still technically an official living president, merely not sitting. Same deal with Obama. You want him back, why settle for Joe Biden, the complete opposite counterbalancing VP? Makes no sense.

That said, I can confirm 1 through 6. There is absolutely nothing perfect or proper about a legit intelligence agency treating Russian election meddling with newslike urgency when agents of America's largest trading partner and country that speaks fluent English and Americanism are hiding in plain sight, planting seeds as you read this. Russia isn't in your hemisphere, much less in your charm spell radius. If any Asian deep state has the power to boost a viable signal over an ocean, it's Jerusalem. Wake up, Bullfolk!

Thank you for this opportunity to endorse Jimmy Carter, Kamala Harris and The Rock. Rome had a triumvirate, and it turned out alright, eh? And no, that wasn't an allusion to "the Fall"; Rome is currently and objectively better than Washington. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, November 9, 2019 (UTC)

Actual text of sanctionsEdit

Text of sanctions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See here.

For the record and to help me and others know the exact wording of this sanction at the time it was applied, I'm placing it here:

===No personal comments===

Policy shortcut

WP:No personal comments sanction

On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.

If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate ~~strike~~ and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologize/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.

Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

This is a civility-type sanction and is very good. I like it. It's good to be reminded of this type of thing, because, human nature being what it is, in the heat of the moment and when one is being attacked, it's easy to react/respond by sliding toward this type of offensive behavior, even when one has good intentions and does it to defend Wikipedia against attempts to undermine its policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WarningEdit

Per the closed WP:AE report at permalink, you are warned that you must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Steele stuffEdit

This might be of interest to you. Bear in mind that it was uploaded by John Solomon, so its authenticity is questionable. It's currently bouncing around the conservative echo chamber as evidence that the FBI was warned that Steele wasn't credible. (Ex: [1]) That seems very far-fetched to me. However if this document is real it might serve another purpose, to shed a little more light on the dossier allegations and how Steele arrived at them. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This will have to be quick.... I saw that on Twitter, but the thread immediately devolved into conspiracy mongering, so I stopped reading. I know about that allegation, but it's not new, just a twist on what we already knew, AFAIK. We have always known that Steele quickly developed a strong dislike for Trump (what normal person wouldn't?); that the dossier was raw intelligence, IOW unedited and largely unverified; that it was possible that some of it was even accidentally picked up disinformation from Russian intelligence, unlike most of it where "Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give.", IOW they could have also given Don Jr. misinformation, etc. This is no secret, and both Steele and BuzzFeed made this plain from the very beginning. Is there anything really new here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at it from a different angle. It's much more interesting in how it fills out our understanding of the dossier allegations than in how it does (or rather, doesn't) support the Spygate theorists. For instance Steele explained why the pee tape allegations were credible. R2 (bleep) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There are several interesting things about the pee tape allegation that make me tend to believe it might be true:

Trump has no alibi.
Even Schiller, his bodyguard, wouldn't give that to him.
He was offered the prostitutes.
It would be totally in character for him to consort with prostitutes.
It's also in character for him to have them defile that bed. He hates Obama that much as a president and as a black man. His racism is a well-documented family thing.
Comey is a trained professional at sniffing out BS and lying. Comey was a disbeliever until he talked to Trump. That changed him into a "maybe peeliever," and he's the expert.
Trump lied more than once in different ways about this.
He did it when lying wasn't even necessary or provoked, IOW clear consciousness of guilt.
There is no reason not to believe it. This is Occam's razor stuff. Belief is the more logical option.
And then there is this.

Now we've got more about it? Wow! Will this never end? I can't wait for the movie.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm on my phone with a lousy connection and just waiting... One thing interesting about this is that Steele did not intend for the dossier, as we have it, to be published. He wasn't happy about that.

We also know that the dossier was shared with journalists and is just a small part of his finds. Look at the page numbering and you'll see there's a whole lot missing. That was probably too sensitive to share with journalists, but the FBI no doubt has it and has been researching it and maybe following leads.

This is most likely some of that "missing" stuff. Interesting! It's what's NOT in the dossier that should scare Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump Exemption PolicyEdit

The "Trump Exemption Policy" (see here) describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other public person. These editors do not treat other people this way. This is super POV pushing, whitewashing, editorial behavior.

Such kid-glove treatment (reserved only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for all public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. He makes sure of that.

There should be no special exemptions for Trump, and no double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump-Russia "co-operation" provenEdit

Terminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a '"well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. The next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened.

Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There is mountains of evidence for that. See this exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2

Note those words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties [did indeed take] actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion.

See this from: Mueller Report#Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter:

The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:^[1]

Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.

The main fact is that co-operation/collusion actually did happen. Trump welcomed that Russian help and facilitated it.

How do Trump supporters react to that? They stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an absurd position to hold because they would never do this in real life for anything else. Here's an equivalent situation:

Two men are arrested for beating, shooting, and robbing another man, and after hiding the loot they burned his house to the ground. He barely survives, is forced into retirement because of the injuries that will plague him the rest of his life, and is left destitute, as his belongings have not been recovered. He now lives in a homeless shelter. His life is completely altered, with a bleak future.

At the trial, the two men are accused of planning the attack, as one man brought the gun and the other man brought the bullets. They are charged with conspiracy to commit a crime and also charged with battery, robbery, and arson.

The defense counters that there is no proof the men planned the attack as no formal written or oral agreement to commit the crime has been found.

The final verdict acquits the men of the charge of conspiracy, but convicts them of the other crimes, with lots of evidence.

The friends and family of the two criminals now rejoice and loudly proclaim their two friends are innocent as no conspiracy was proven. They don't talk about the crimes committed or the now destitute and injured man.

THAT is the current position of Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources
^ Savage, Charlie (April 20, 2019). "How Barr's Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report's Findings". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2019.

Have you seen these stories yet?Edit

Hello, and hope all is well with you. Have you seen these stories yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-justice-dept-abandons-prosecution-of-russian-firm-indicted-in-mueller-election-interference-probe/2020/03/16/5f7c3fd6-64a9-11ea-912d-d98032ec8e25_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html

It's interesting to me to see both sides (the US Gov't and the Concord attorneys) take on why they are dropping it. I guess we may have a few pages to update. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they showed up in my Google Alerts. I've read about this and find it very interesting. The Russians are smart and are using our own court system's discovery process to force the release of top-secret information held by Americans which would aid the Russians in identifying any moles or Russian sources of information relied on by U.S. intelligence and Christopher Steele. (Steele revealed his sources to certain trusted people who recognized the names of some super important and reliable sources.)

We know of one of their sources who literally had so much access to Putin that he photographed documents on Putin's desk. He and his family had to quickly be secreted out of Russia by U.S. intelligence after Trump was revealed to be sharing top-secret intelligence with Putin. Suddenly this really good U.S. asset was endangered, and his whole family is now back in America. That's a shame. Even foreign allied intelligence stopped sharing intelligence with Trump and were more careful when sharing with American intelligence agencies because Trump compromised the system. Wittingly or unwittingly, he functions as a Russian asset.

This is all pretty scary and both Putin and Trump love it. Anything like this that cripples investigating and understanding the Russian interference helps both of them, and this is a major stick in the spokes. It helps Putin eliminate moles, catch Western spies, plug up weaknesses which U.S intelligence has exploited for years, and it helps Trump get rid of any Americans who have just been doing their patriotic and apolitical jobs of keeping America safe (what Trump considers a "deep state" to be fought and eliminated), thus weakening American intelligence, again a nice helping hand to Putin. All that's left is for Trump to appoint Alexander Bortnikov to head the CIA.

Experienced and effective department heads in most U.S. government agencies have already been eliminated by Trump and replaced with powerless and unqualified acting heads who are loyal only to Trump, not to America. This too helps Russia.

All of this puts America at a distinct disadvantage against Russia and is part of Putin's "Make Russia Great Again" agenda (by weakening the U.S.), known in America as "Make America Great Again". Trump's slogan sounds nice, but it's very damaging to America. Dropping the case now shows that a conviction isn't worth the price of allowing such information to get into Russian hands. In this court case, it's better to just let the guilty get away with it. Russia would never extradite them anyway. A continuation, with convictions, would be a very damaging Pyrrhic victory for America. I wonder if Trump will get involved and demand the case move forward because that way he can get more names of Americans to punish. Putin is probably trying to get him to do that.

Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You may find this interesting, in light of the fact that both Barr and Durham are working for Trump to impede investigations of Russian interference: Justice Dept. Is Investigating C.I.A. Resistance to Sharing Russia Secrets.

The last two paragraphs are significant (starting with this: "But Mr. Durham has not interviewed the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, his onetime deputy Andrew G. McCabe or Mr. Brennan."). Durham and Trump often seem to deliberately look the other way and avoid information sources which can undermine their attempts to further Trump's agenda "to foster a narrative that it was illegitimate for government investigators to scrutinize links between his campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks and that he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy to sabotage him for political reasons — a push that led to the Durham inquiry." That's why Durham's inquiry, unlike the work by Horowitz, has been described as a cover-up.

Mueller didn't go nearly far enough; Horowitz did pretty good work; and Durham (and Barr) serve only Trump's agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump loyalists take command of the intelligence community

"All four had angered the White House, in part because they supported the intelligence community’s findings that Russia has been meddling in U.S. politics to benefit Trump."

With his DNI picks, Trump is trying to corrupt the intelligence community

The Post’s View: Trump puts an unqualified loyalist in charge of national intelligence

When competence is not the goal

Trump appoints a partisan propagandist to run the intelligence community

Barr Is Dismantling Charges Filed by Mueller

BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Belated wishesEdit

Hello V. I saw that your name change was a birthday request so I want to wish you a Happy Birthday a month late :) MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, thank you so much! The next section tells a bit about my reasons for choosing the name Valjean. -- Valjean (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Great stuff V. That Classics Illustrated pic sent me whooooshing back in time. I remember reading all of those that I could find as a young un :) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was remiss in not adding my condolences for your loss in the fire. My apologies. You said you aren't looking to rebuild your library. Still if I had the means I would get you at least one edition from The Folio Society. The quality of their books make my hands tingle whenever I hold one. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My new library will be very limited, with some choice favorites. I just checked that website, and they don't even have any books by Hugo. Too bad. The one I received is this one, which is pretty nice. -- Valjean (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Username change from BullRangifer to Valjean.Edit

"So long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use." -- Victor Hugo, preface

On 14:30, March 23, 2020‎, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean.

I have desired a username change for some time, and after some waiting it has finally happened. Jean Valjean is the hero of Les Misérables, my favorite book, which I have read in several languages. His just character is worthy of much admiration and emulation. I'm also a fan of the 1980 musical. I also considered a username associated with Atticus Finch, another hero of mine, but Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean were already taken. Valjean was available, so I chose that one.

I know that this is offensive to some very religious people, but if I had to choose a book to give someone, and I had to choose between the Bible and Les Misérables, I'd give them Les Misérables. The principles of honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, kindness, selflessness, simplicity, heroism, and social justice found in the Bible are portrayed in a much clearer manner in Les Misérables. Jean Valjean was completely transformed from a hardened criminal into a virtuous man by the kindness and grace of Bishop Myriel. After his fateful meeting with Myriel, Valjean modeled his own life after the character of Myriel. We all need heroes, and they should be chosen wisely.

I used to own the book, CDs, and DVDs of the movie and musical in several languages. I even found an ancient 12-volume leather-bound set of Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Copenhagen, a great city for old books and cultural events, where we also saw the musical in the round Østre Gasværk Teater, with its revolving stage. A great experience. My wife and I especially loved the 2019, six-part Masterpiece Theatre adaptation from PBS: "Dominic West stars as fugitive Jean Valjean, with David Oyelowo as his pursuer Inspector Javert and Lily Collins as the luckless single mother Fantine. Love, death, and the struggle for social justice in early 19th-century France feature in this beautifully faithful retelling of one of the world's most beloved stories."[2]

I especially loved the DVDs for the 10th Anniversary "Dream Cast" concert at the Royal Albert Hall and the 25th Anniversary concert in The O2 Arena, but lost them, along with everything else, in the 2018 Camp Fire. After the fire, my dear daughter, who knew how much that book meant to me, gifted me a nice copy of the book. A home without any books is a sad place, so that book started my now-limited and budding collection of favorite books. All my medical textbooks, in at least five languages, are gone. I have no plans for resuming any large-scale collecting of books. I used to lug over forty, very heavy, banana boxes of books around the world whenever we moved. No more of that! -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hugo, Inc. Les Misérables was born of one of the riskiest—and shrewdest—deals in publishing history., Nina Martyris March 23, 2017
Les Misérables: Plot Overview - SparkNotes

Les Misérables (/leɪ ˌmɪzəˈrɑːbəl, -blə/, French: [le mizeʁabl(ə)]) is a French historical novel by Victor Hugo, first published in 1862, that is considered one of the greatest novels of the 19th century. In the English-speaking world, the novel is usually referred to by its original French title.

Beginning in 1815 and culminating in the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris, the novel follows the lives and interactions of several characters, particularly the struggles of ex-convict Jean Valjean and his experience of redemption.

Examining the nature of law and grace, the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love. Les Misérables has been popularized through numerous adaptations for film, television and the stage, including a musical.

Jean Valjean is the protagonist of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables. Hugo depicts the character's 19-year-long struggle to lead a normal life after serving a prison sentence for stealing bread to feed his sister's children during a time of economic depression and various attempts to escape from prison. Valjean is also known in the novel as Monsieur Madeleine, Ultime Fauchelevent, Monsieur Leblanc, and Urbain Fabre. Valjean and police Inspector Javert, who repeatedly encounters Valjean and attempts to return him to prison, have become archetypes in literary culture.

Woodburytype of Hugo by Étienne Carjat, 1876
Portrait of "Cosette" by Emile Bayard, from the original edition of Les Misérables (1862)
Jean Valjean disguised as Monsieur Madeleine. Illustration by Gustave Brion.
Classics Illustrated issue #9, March 1943

Surprise to me, thought I may have been misrouted. I am glad to see your wish was fufilled.

If not already known: Per Portal:Current events/2020 March 23, The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is expected to plead guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter in the Camp Fire. (NBC News). X1\ (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Progress! This is good news. -- Valjean (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Valjean/common.jsEdit

Just to let you know User:SD0001/unreliable.js a test version of my script (User:Headbomb/unreliable.js), so having it there will likely cause issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, feel free to remove the one that I don't need. -- Valjean (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: you don't need the SD0001 one. I can't remove it, because it's a JavaScript page, and only you (and possibly an interface administrator) can edit it for security reasons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter says Trump lost the electionEdit

June 28, 2019: "The president himself should condemn it, admit that it happened, which I think 16 intelligence agencies have already agreed to say," Carter said at a panel on human rights hosted by the Carter Center in Leesburg, Virginia.

"There's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated, would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016."

"He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf," Carter said.

Moderator and historian Jon Meacham then asked the former president if he thinks that Mr. Trump is an "illegitimate president."

"Based on what I just said, which I can't retract," Mr. Carter responded to laughs from the audience. "I would say yes."[3][4]

PreciousEdit

flora and fauna of Greenland

Thank you for quality articles such as Spinal disc herniation, Charlotte's web (cannabis), Flora and fauna of Greenland, Vis medicatrix naturae, in service from 2005, for encouragement, for changing your username to your hero, for "Let freedom ring!" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2368 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda. Much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020Edit

From the editors: The bad and the good

News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

Arbitration report: Unfinished business

In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool name change!Edit

Just wanted to say hi, again.

(Also, User:Javert is never going to be allowed, will it?) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. Some names are hard to get. Now don't go and throw yourself into the Seine.

We need you here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Anon IPEdit

Don't worry about the IP posting "threats". It appears to be an unfortunately quite unwell person. Congrats on name change, at least this one I am sure how to pronounce! Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation about the virusEdit

Hello there 👋 you’ve removed the following from “Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic” page, citing a lack of RW? What does that mean? Thanks

The Chinese government officials initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human. The WHO has cited this information in the following Twitter post from January 14th, 2020: ″Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China″ Berehinia (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Berehinia (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I wrote RS, which means reliable source. -- Valjean (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask you to what this acronym stands forEdit

Sorry to bother you on your talk page but I got a question thats been bugging me. What does RS stand for? At first I thought you meant RT (Russia Today), but of course their his biggest supporters in the media, so it couldn't be that obviously based what your saying it implies. I tried googling RS + Wikileaks as well but I didn't see anything that seemed relevant. I'm sure its something really basic though, that I should have instantly got, and I'm gonna feel really dumb for not realizing thats what you meant. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait is Reuters? was looking back at the dicussion. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kwwhit5531, RS usually means reliable source, which is a pretty Wikipedia specific term. The article I linked to should give you more information. Ravensfire (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ravensfire, I was asking because me, Valjean and Thucydides were having discussion here: Talk:WikiLeaks and Valjean used that acronym in one of his responses to Thucydides. So I wanted make sure I understand what he meant correctly. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicineEdit

My edit was reverted but I don't think it should have been. I did not alter the content of the article and I made a post on the talk page beforehand (although not long before). The introduction was difficult to read as it was and said the same thing over and over citing different sources. I will make add more on the talk page beforehand and wait another day to see if there are any responses on the talk page before I fix the section again. Jlf3756 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to repeat content from the body of the article, so duplication is required. It's best to change small amounts in the body before making any changes to the lead, and, in fact, changing a lead is fraught with risk. Even experienced editors can burn their fingers when doing so. Your changes were deletions of mostly critical content, and that is not allowed. Articles are supposed to include any criticism found in reliable sources, so don't do that. -- Valjean (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary I was not trying to remove criticism, I was trying to remove the criticism being restated in slightly different wording over and over. I am seeking feedback on the talk page but haven't heard anything else. I was trying to follow conciseness as outlined in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Jlf3756 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

TCM can be criticized on several different points/levels, and they should be preserved, but if one level is being repeated unnecessarily (IOW not just duplicated in the lead, as it should be), then consolidation of that point is okay. In that case, save the different references and group them. Later we can see if that result needs trimming or removal of weaker sources. -- Valjean (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not remove any references that were not included elsewhere but if that was done, how would you save references and group them? I dont see anything about this on Wikipedia:Citing sources or related pages. Would you just move them to sources under citations? How should they be grouped?Jlf3756 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If one particular criticism is repeated in different places, that can often be consolidated into one place if the context allows it. (Sometimes repetition in different places is justified. It all depends on the context.) If the same reference is used, and the content consolidated, just use the same reference. If different references are used for the same criticism and that content is then consolidated, then group the different references together after the content. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

PA at CH articleEdit

I don't want to take you to a administrator. But I have now asked you to strike your PAs about me twice, and both times you struck your previous attack just to add another one. So final request: please strike your most recent attack on me without further comment about me, and let's focus on content. I'm here in good faith, I'm following BRD, and I'm open to discussion. I only want to improve the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have struck more, but since that was not a PA or speculation about Wikipedia competency, but about the appearance of the article after your changes, I'm not sure if it's enough to satisfy you. -- Valjean (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not satisfied. In line with policy, please do not talk about me: what I understand, what I know, what I'm competent at, how I appear, whether I should be editing, or anything else about me. If and when you fix this problem, I will reply to your content points and we can get back on track. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I struck all of that. What more do you want? What wordings are left to strike? Or do you want me to delete it completely? I can do that for you. -- Valjean (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, would you like me to delete those comments for you? I'd be happy to do that. I had no idea anyone could interpret my comment as you did, and I'm sorry for causing you distress. I'll be more careful in the future. -- Valjean (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I regard all non-complimentary commentary about me as a PA, and I try to live by that. It's how Swarm instructed me on my talk page some time ago, and I agree with it and expect that treatment from others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and my deepest apologies. I'll fix it right away. -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your name changeEdit

I just became aware of your name change when pinging you at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. And now I see the page notice above as I type this. I am sorry that you and your family were harassed. I didn't know. I also don't know if changing your username has to do with that. Feel free to remove this section from your talk page if it being here is a problem. I can also remove mention of your previous username at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau; I only noted it there so that others would recognize you. It's odd seeing you with a different username because you used that one for so many years and it's completely different from your current one, but you obviously have to do what is best for you (and your family) if the username change is related to that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gosh. Well, I'll just have to try to get used to it. All the best to you and your family, Valjean. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

No problem. This username is not related to those security issues. They have existed for many years, starting around the same time as I started here at Wikipedia as an IP editor (2003), but not related to Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020Edit

News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

Featured content: Featured content returns

Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Seen 2020 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting?Edit

Finalist: Staff of The Wall Street Journal: For revelatory work showing how a California utility’s neglect of its equipment caused countless wildfires, including one that wiped out the town of Paradise and killed 85 people. pulitzer.org Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting

X1\ (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

Hi Valjean! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Tables, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

[NYTcompare-1] Savage, Charlie (April 20, 2019). "How Barr's Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report's Findings". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2019.

[1]