Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT

"The quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them."[1]

When all else fails, AGF and remember that

We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.
There's only you and me, and we just disagree.
by Dave Mason (Listen)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Recent talk page discussion

I don't like that I felt I had to disagree with you during our most recent talk page discussions. I feel bad about it. Hopefully, my feedback was not too harsh. Lately, we've actually had some laughs right here on Wikipedia. It is good that we have been able to do this and I hope we can continue. Maybe in the future if I disagree with you on one of your pages I will just ignore it. Frankly, I think I prefer doing that. Well, if I need a quick chuckle I can go over to Doug's page. Oh, bye the way, I have an idea for your most recent page! I think Oedipus Rex will fit nicely as one the examples. I will post it soon when I have time. I have to research it a bit before I post. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no serious gripe with you. Just a bit of disagreement, and that's okay. How else can we help each other move in a better direction? We all need help at times. You expressed your disagreement soberly and without assuming bad faith and accusing me of creating an attack page. Neither did you attack me personally, as in the forbidden usage of my political affiliations as a means to disparage me. No, we're good, and I really do appreciate this thread. It means a lot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reference Addition to Chiropractic History Page

Dear Valjean,

I'm writing to you regarding a recent edit I made to the Wikipedia page on the history of chiropractic. I noticed that you removed the reference I added the History of Chiropractic.

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral and credible Wikipedia page. My intention in adding this reference was not to promote any particular viewpoint, but rather to provide additional context and information to support the claims made on the page.

The reference I added offers valuable insights into the History of Chiropractic. I believe it would be a useful resource for readers interested in learning more about the topic.

If you have any concerns about the validity or appropriateness of the reference, I'd be happy to discuss them further and provide any additional information you might need.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Shantoahammed Shantoahammed (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't use chiropractors' websites as sources here. It's considered promotional. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reversion to Edit of Wrist Pain Page

Dear Valjean,

I'm writing to you regarding a recent edit I made to the Wikipedia page about Wrist Pain. I noticed that you removed the edit to the general description of wrist pain.

I understand that wrist pain is a generally vague topic. My intention in adding this reference was to create simplicity and disarm any alarming or harmful diction caused by the framing of the original text. The reference I added offers a basic and informative synopsis of the symptom, and I believe it would be a useful edit to provide readers a simple explanation while removing the redundancy of information provided in other subsections.

If you have any concerns about the validity or appropriateness of the reference, I'd be happy to discuss them further and provide any additional information you might need. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Zain Zainquazza123 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You started making that edit as an IP and then created your account and continued to try your edit, even though it had been deleted previously. That's edit warring, and we don't allow that. I also didn't think it was an improvement. The matter is now moot as it has been edited more, with the addition of good sourcing, so the content is much better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

US legal status and CSA Schedule for CBD

Hello Valjean - I would be grateful for your thoughts on this discussion topic which started when another editor changed the long-standing infobox legal status of CBD in the US as under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

As discussed in the article and FDA documents, there is an exception for CBD derived from hemp with low THC content, but this source is not a common extract and has numerous FDA-imposed restrictions to be insignificant enough to omit in the infobox.

I believe it's safe to say that every cannabis constituent (except for hemp CBD, the approved CBD drug, Epidiolex, and synthetic THC drugs, Marinol and Syndros) is included under Schedule I. The sources I listed in the discussion support this position, which should be the main detail of the infobox.

Regarding whether Epidiolex (which is CBD in limited clinical use) is under Schedule V, I cannot find a DEA announcement of the 2020 change to "unscheduled", although I do concede that the DailyMed (NIH source) says it has no DEA schedule. In further discussion at the talk page, I will admit this error.

The main point of contention is that CBD is a Schedule I substance, which is the accurate information to display in the infobox.

As a fellow Cannabis Project member, I thought your experience would be useful for this debate. Notice to Bluerasberry who also has an interest in this topic.

Thanks for your consideration and comments. Zefr (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability, second paragraph

This is my attempt to disentangle two concepts that are confusingly mixed together in the second paragraph. I have also stricken a confusing phrase in the note that becomes extraneous in my version. This is not a fully finalized wording and improvements are welcome.

The current second paragraph states:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

The policy will be much easier to understand if we disentangle the two verifiability concepts related to the (1) existence of a source and the (2) accessibility of the source for the reader:

1. Verifiability is satisfied by the existence of a reliable source that directly supports the content. (But that knowledge is useless to readers if we stop there.)
2. That source must then be made accessible to readers in the form of an inline citation placed near the relevant content.

Based on those principles, we can tweak and rearrange the current wording (above) to this:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. Verifiable implies both existence and access. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation is not immediately accessible to readers, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

That is a bit longer, but it is also more comprehensive by providing the reasoning behind the requirement to provide an inline citation.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion