Valjean

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

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)

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

Comparison of original second paragraph and version 4. My changes are highlighted:

ORIGINAL

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.

Version 4

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. 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 to that source is not present, 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 and editors 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.

Ce

Did you actually do any copyediting in this diff? All I saw was pointless whitespace removal and replacing one instance of wikitext with a local template that does the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what one means with ce. It's the most minimal form of ce, i.e. wikignoming. The reflist was just a modernization of the old template. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. The wikitext parsers automatically collapse double spaces when rendering the page, so I personally wouldn't bother, especially since whitespace changes sometimes draw complaints about needlessly complex diffs. I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed something in the middle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What's a "needlessly complex diff"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that complaint usually surfaces when the diff is very long, but little of importance happens...except for that one little change that you overlooked because there was a whole lot of nothing happening elsewhere. I think it's a bigger problem for multi-edit diffs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Show

You removed information from the Abi Carter article. I'm putting it back. Headtothestripe (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What information? What's your justification for restoring it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

One reason for restoring it is that it should not be removed. Without knowing if you have been to the area or places mentioned or you know whether I have... It is relevant that Abi Carter performed at TB and about the golf course. We're not listing everywhere she sang. It's enough to put the busking and the part I have. Headtothestripe (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That content is too much detail that's not even about her and is also a violation of WP:COATRACK. It also seems promotional. The source doesn't even mention her, and it must. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't know which parts I mean. Of course there is more than one way to phrase something. I could explain. The golf course is by TB. She could have performed at the course for example. It is not your responsibility to delete all references on Wikipedia which could have meaning. Headtothestripe (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is OUR responsibility to follow our PAG, and, as an experienced editor, that's how I interpret this situation. I was tempted to delete even more, but I left a rather trivial sentence (only because the source did mention her). If you choose to edit war over this, it will get more attention, and that sentence will likely also get deleted. The article is primarily about her, not those locations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Putting that back, I said you can rephrase it. You bringing up side things is not pertaining to anything. Headtothestripe (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning of "side things". Let me remind you of WP:OWN. As the article's creator, you have a little bit of a WP:COI, so be cautious. - Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What in heck? Now you have some person who you were telling they are making mistakes and that person is trying to make you happy by deleting information. Headtothestripe (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I have no clue what you're on about, but I'll do some sleuthing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to "show rapport" or understanding but then you are making problems on other things, why? Headtothestripe (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what your mother tongue is, but your English communication is not good. I don't know what you mean by "show rapport" or "Show" in the heading of this section. Speak in full sentences so there is no ambiguity in what you say.

I have reverted your last change as it removes edits that are required by our manual of style. Stay on-topic. No more COATRACK violations. Don't add anything not directly about Abi. You are still a newbie who does not understand how this place works. Stop edit warring and start learning. Since you have been objecting and creating more work for experienced editors (I've been here since 2003), I am preparing to get you blocked. You have managed to offend many editors and administrators and been warned many times, so getting you blocked will be very easy. If you stop the disruption immediately, I will also stop. If you continue, then I'll take you to WP:ANI, and it won't be pretty. You will nearly certainly be blocked and possibly banned.

Now stop discussing article issues on editors' talk pages and use the article's talk page. Focus on content, not on other editors. Do NOT post here again.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Refs format

When you created whichever system of formatting for references for Abi Carter, there's one problem. In footnotes you should be able to still read (without having to hover over the particular ref with a cursor) the following: American Songwriter, USA Today, Desert Sun, Yahoo, Parade, etc. If you use the specific format method you're implementing can't you leave those mentions in the footnotes? Headtothestripe (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Headtothestripe, I use official Harvard style citation format, so the author, date, URL, source/publisher, etc. should show (in the refs I have formatted). If they don't show, it's because I didn't create the whole citation, just added a proper ref name. I'll check.

Don't change them or mess with the ref names. They are unique and use the author and date, per Harvard style, per our manual of style. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Fixing" citation date format

Re: [2]

This used to be a useful fix. Now the system normalizes all citation dates per the {{Use mdy dates}} template at the top of the article. The format in the citation template coding is unimportant, and I was tempted to revert as "not improvement" ("no harm done" is not adequate reason for any edit).

Hope you're well. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot I can learn here, so feel free to improve my understanding. The basis for my actions in this regard are largely based on Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style, which says "Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day." For some odd reason, I hadn't noticed the "except for"...! Therefore, I may have applied that too broadly. I like consistency and lack of ambiguity, and all the other references are in the format September 9, 2016, so I was just keeping the article consistent. I hope this isn't disruptive or doing something wrong. Is it just a waste of my time, or am I being too pedantic? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, the guidelines about citation date formats are about formats in the rendered article, not in the coding. As I indicated, the two are no longer connected when {{Use mdy dates}} or {{Use dmy dates}} is present in the article. Before your edit, the system was doing the format conversion for us in the rendered article; you can verify this by looking at an article revision preceding your edit.

Date format consistency in what readers see is important; in what editors see, not so much.

Yes, it's a waste of your time. As for "doing something wrong", a "no improvement" edit is always doing something wrong, even if a very minor something. If "all" other cites in Trump use the mdy format in their coding (I haven't the time to check), it must be because one or more others don't understand the situation or think format consistency in the coding is worth their time and system resources. If you're interested in my advice, it's don't be that guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, there is probably a bot that goes around "fixing" citation date formats where it isn't needed, and I just haven't noticed or have forgotten. That would explain wide consistency in the coding at Trump. These are "no improvement" edits in my opinion, but I'll probably not revert one on that basis. At the least, we human editors could leave it for the bot. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A strong consensus cannot prevent a RfC

Since the purpose of a RfC is to bring the issue at a larger scale, it makes sense to do a RfC even when you are alone against a majority, if you sincerely believe that the community at large will have a different position. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In principle, that is true, but "when you are alone against a majority" it is nearly always seen as a disruptive move, a sign one cannot bow to the opinions of others and will not drop the stick. That usually ends up with sanctions, topic bans, and blocks. I've seen it a thousand times and even saw a Nobel Prize laureate permabanned for such disruption. I know there is little hope you will learn from this or anything anyone else will tell you. Just don't say that I didn't warn you. When you are under about 15% support (a "snow" oppose), it's time to bow out, and do it graciously, without accusations and acrimony. When over that amount, an RfC may be the way to go. Showing "respect" for a consensus means a lot around here. It shows one AGF and is collegial. You don't have to agree, but you can stop objecting. It's usually best to move on, away from such topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Abi Carter article

The Abi Carter article is coming along fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Line breaks

@Mandruss: I need some insight and figure you would know. In some situations I use <br> to force a linebreak, but I often see that some use <br />. Which is the proper method? What's the real difference? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, though I wouldn't mind knowing. Suggest WP:HD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll ask there and report back to you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see it, no need to report back. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of Edit on Reiki

Hi Valjean,

I would kindly ask you to amend your reversion on Reiki, which seems to have included the POV tag I have added to the article. As I am sure you are aware of much better than I, it is crucial that the notification remain there as long as the discussion is ongoing on WP:NPOV/N as well as the article’s talk page.

Thank you! –Konanen (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at the article, not here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Konanen (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A bit trigger happy? You were told to discuss this at the article, not here. Next time, just do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know

--Dustfreeworld (talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

This is the TOUCH from a HUMAN.

PS. While I agree with our admin that there’s not clear enough consensus to remove most instances of that p* word in the article, I really can’t agree the label of “whitewashing”, with the fact that I’d never removed the first instance of that word in the article. The other instances (not the first) were removed because I thought they were repetitious and somewhat redundant and maybe in conflicts with some of our core policies / coi / sourcing guidelines. Yes we disagree. And there maybe misunderstanding as well. And the definition of that word in my language (and perhaps other Eastern languages as well) is very different from that of yours. And yes I can be wrong. Anyway, I’m quite upset to see that a civil discussion / disagreement on content would give such a result.

From our limited interactions, I believe you are a reasonable person. I don’t know what you think about me. I don’t expect any reply from you. Yep, I need peace of mind. I just want to let you know that you’ll still have my respect if you stop mentioning my name from now on, forever, anywhere at WP. Respectfully,
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as you're much more careful around the topics of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, I see no reason for more friction. I'm not one to hold grudges, but I don't forget either. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I just discovered this diff of a comment of yours. I'm sorry for not responding and reacting accordingly to it. THREE people made edits at exactly the same time then. Your edit got lost in the cloud of dust. I never saw it til now. For the life of me, I can't find it on the page! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the mystery is solved. It was immediately removed as a violation of your topic ban. Well, here you can get my apology, and I wish you well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not asking for any apology for “not responding and reacting accordingly to” my removed comment. Before I posted that comment (which wasn’t a comment on any topic) in the hope that the “gravedancing” can stop, my name had already been mentioned at least four times by you already. I hope the reply above isn’t the fifth one. I think I’ll be well if there’s no more gravedancing.

BTW, Wrg to the hug above, I want to say that, if I’m someone who is so ill and is sure to die very soon (luckily I’m not, yet), I really won’t mind paying for some services that would allow me to take a rest and relax in a spacious place, for a few hours, and have someone comfort me with their touches (well, perhaps it sounds weird, but sometimes, even a few caring letters from someone not that close can give a reason for a hopeless person to hold on). (If someone knows they will die soon, does wealth, or any claims that they will / wiil not get well by doing something, matter to them? I don’t think so. They just want better quality of life in the end stage). But I do mind, when I come home from those services, that my loved ones say to me, “Oh, you go for those (whatever potentially derogatory term, as specified by WP) sessions again?” This doesn’t cover all the situations. And I know people don’t want to hear this, but it’s just my 2 cents. Whatever. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"fifth one"? Not at all. We're just talking here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hugs are good. So is massage. Touch is a wonderful thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Genuine question

Regarding Jeffrey Epstein

Hello. In spite of "violations of normal jail procedures on the night of Epstein's death, the malfunction of two cameras in front of his cell, and his claims to have compromising information about powerful figures", do you still believe that the controversy surrounding the death of this scum are fringe and/or unserious? I'm not saying that you should believe he was killed, but is it really possible to be that confident when saying he undoubtedly committed suicide? I'm not asking about Wiki policy by the way, I'm asking about your actual opinion. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly suspicious of the circumstances of his death. He played a dangerous game. Blackmailers tend to invite retribution. But that's my opinion, not what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. I thought you believe that he committed suicide. Guess I was mistaken then. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncertain and tend to suspect murder, especially because of the irregularities that occurred. With a prisoner like him, there shouldn't have been any irregularities. I edit as if he committed suicide because that's what RS say. My obligation as an editor is to align with RS in my editing, regardless of my personal POV. NPOV is satisfied when editors align themselves with RS, which are not always in the "center" of any controversy. Sources and events are rarely "neutral", and we should document them as they are, warts and all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)