User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

This page has been removed from search engines’ indexes.

Compare Wikipedias How to find word count

Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). “Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following ‘The Hunting Ground’ controversy”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become “a kangaroo court or lynching” by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether “The Hunting Ground” crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself. Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). “Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news”. Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it’s even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let’s start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). “Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn”. NewsBusters. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘part of a cover-up,’ even ‘when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA.’ Valjean specified that ‘Nothing coming from Trump’s Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted.’ Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name ‘BullRangifer’ has been ‘previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation.’ Raymond Sturman (October 23, 2024). “Top 5 Editing Conflicts in Wikipedia Pages on Religion”. World Religion News. Retrieved October 24, 2024. Located on the Catholic Church Wikipedia talk page, the screenshot below details a recent discussion of the tension between the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Catholicism. Editor ‘Valjean’ is protesting that the word ‘Roman’ has been removed from the title, arguing that there are other branches of Catholicism, while the Roman Catholic Church says it is the real Catholic Church.

User talk:Valjean/Grand conspiracy

I welcome ideas and suggestions. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is RS and please be more specific about the Trumps Grand Conspiracy then I can investigate more formally. Apologies if my opinion offended but you did state ideas. ~2025-31061-00 (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS refers to “reliable sources“. All articles must be based on them. Go to the linked page and you’ll get an idea of the direction I’m going. MAGA is pushing a grand conspiracy theory that all of Trump’s problems are because of a political witch hunt, that he is an innocent victim, that the Russians did not interfere in the elections to help him win, that he and his campaign did not welcome that interference with open arms, and that he did not do everything in his power to aid and abet it. The facts (RS), and even the Russians, say otherwise. They claim they helped him, that he would not have won without their help, and that he owes them. We document such conspiracy theories here, and there is a lot being written about it. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Moscow Trump Tower letter of intent proves Trump lied about having no business dealings with Russia so he may well be compromised by Putin ref https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-moscow-russia-investigation-giuliani-ivanka-cohen-mueller-a8690226.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com In my opinion most other things are presently just conjecture but that could change of course; but this a start for your Grand Conspiracy article as the Independent is one of the better UK legacy media outlets. ~2025-31061-00 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please find ways to make your headings more neutral per WP:TALKHEADPOV, bullet 1. Your position begins after the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Size reduction efforts should focus on presidential content”

What policy does that violate? It’s a talk page heading, not article content. It doesn’t violate NPOV (which does not apply in that situation) or BLP. It’s not a !vote either.

Please suggest an improvement. I have no doubt you can do it, and you know I VERY highly respect your opinions. Maybe I’ll better understand your point when I see an improvement demo. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [2] ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That misses my primary focus which is that we should reduce the presidential content to the barest minimum required by summary style. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. This is by design per TALKHEADPOV. Editors will just have to read some of the text to know your primary focus. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense in this situation. There is nothing sensitive going on here. There is nothing offensive in that heading, and the heading should describe the content. This is bizarre. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre but true! 😀 Your position begins after the heading., sensitivity and offensiveness notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my dense aspie brain, but I don’t get it. What does Your position begins after the heading. mean?

What is so special about this situation that the heading must not mention the focus of the content? This is new territory for me. I don’t recall anyone ever citing TALKHEADPOV to me. I have had potential BLP violations in the heading mentioned, and non-neutral RfC headings mentioned, but those are very different matters than this. Editorial POV in the heading in this situation is perfectly acceptable, especially just a suggestion to focus more on presidential content. That isn’t even a “POV” but a suggested topic. We normally do that with headings. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TALKHEADPOV is not well-known or widely-enforced. It’s still part of WP:TPG, which is the bible for talk page usage. It still represents a de facto community consensus merely by the duration of its existence.Your position begins after the heading. means that the heading should not convey your desired goal, which is your position.Try a BOLD edit to TALKHEADPOV and see how far you get, or raise this at WT:TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 01:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. I don’t find your wording (Your position begins after the heading.) there. I do find this heading:

• Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.

Then there is a short list of four points describing what that means, and I do not violate any of those four points. I really think you are misapplying this guideline where it’s not really an issue. This is creating needless complication and stymieing communication. It renders my heading meaningless. We are all trying to find a way forward and making suggestions is legitimate. My point is lost. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence at bullet 1 is: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. The subsequent bullets are additions to that, not examples of it (“for example” is conspicuously absent). An arbitrary matter of structure. Your specific view is that Size reduction efforts should focus on presidential content. I don’t see how this could be any clearer. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what heading would get the “downsize presidential content” across? Please suggest something. I am literally afraid to try anything. If you were some jerk, this would be easier for me because I wouldn’t care about your feelings, but because I respect and admire you so much, I fear disappointing you. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what heading would get the “downsize presidential content” across? None. That’s the point. Editors have to read some of the text. If an editor can’t be bothered to do that, they probably don’t have much to contribute anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach seems to ignore another point there: “Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed:” — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t go to WT:TPG for other opinions, I’m at my DGAF point on this issue. You may have worn me out. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 06:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, until we get on the same page, this will continue to be an issue if you hang around that article much. I won’t do it any different the next time. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 07:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]

No, you can’t require prior discussion before a bold edit, as I said. The exception is when the bold edit violates an existing consensus, which Bill’s did not do. All other reasoning is irrelevant here, and I hope we won’t make this another Valjean issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I also said, you can challenge with a different rationale, just not that one. Something more than a simple “I disagree”, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning the first time, but I then invoked BRD. Regardless of my reasoning, BRD was still in play the first time, so an admonition to use a better edit summary would have been enough, rather than reverting my revert of his bold deletion. So…I agree with your first edit summary about my edit summary. I should not have said that, but my revert of his bold edit was still good.

He is also violating his topic ban. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that “I invoke BRD” is sufficient rationale for a revert? It isn’t. All challenges invoke BRD whether you actually state that or not. It’s an implied part of process at that article, which is strict BRD per ArbCom. Any topic ban considerations are separate from this point, which affects far more than Bill Williams. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]