User talk:Valjean/Archive 20

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archive 20
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25 Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Koren Specific Technique Can I get your opinion here, both parties admitted there are four reliable sources. I wrote this article because of my science background to protect the public from quackery. The encyclopedia tends to be bias against fringe. Valoem talk contrib 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Editor Alexbrn is removing sources mid AfD again. Valoem talk contrib 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Bull, can you look in I am sorry to come at you out of the blue on this, but I am in a quandry with an editor pulling rank (length of time here). I came to an article, at the behest of another, to look at the large blocks of unsourced text. Out of compassion, I gave it a half day, while I was waiting on an overseas gig to warmup. The article—believe it or not, a church—had not been edited in over 6 months before I came. The article had a list of 20 "references", but essentially no inline citations. And those listed "references" were really, a reading list, not references, because there was no clear evidence, and eventually evidence contrary, that the content was drawn from that list. (The article gave names of wives of principle individuals, talks about their moving from city to city—the sorts of things that are not usually in published sources. Its being unreferenced, and its having this sort of content led me to believe this was WP:OR, a personal record of history, rather than a history based on published information.) I set to work on it, fixing the dead links, examining the 4 inlines that did appear, then reading the "Further reading" list of 20 to see what citations I could place. I put in many hours, and now, all the citations in the article are good, and the article—though still in need of inlines—has 15 good citations, and many of the inline tags have been removed (though many more still to go). Enter now a fly-by editor, never been interested in the article before. Does two things. Keeps removing my under construction tag. (I have "under construction" when I am away, and "in use" when I am working, as I was taught, I think by you), and Keeps running a script to chance my dates to one he prefers. He argues only DD MONTH YYYY is acceptable for an article about a U.S. organization (?!), and that it must be done immediately. I have asked, to no avail, that he allow the date format to remain as I have set them—YYYY-MM-DD, for publication dates, at least in the interim, because that facilitates my skimming and using citations in the Further reading list, as I am doing this extensive updating edit. I mostly want to get done with what I can do on this article, and leave, and if he wants to change all the dates after I am gone, that is fine. I just want this editor, who has (a) done nothing at the article before my coming, (b) only done disruptive things since my coming, to quit reverting things and leave them alone, so I can make the remaining progress I intend. (And next time I am asked to edit outside of my specially, I will likely say no.) Can you look in? Article is (believe it or not)… Scum of the Earth Church. Thank you in advance for whatever you decide can be said or done there. Please, feel free to refer to an Admin if you think appropriate. Once again, in closing—I want uniform dates when I leave. I have no strong opinion what that date format should be after I leave. I simply want the date formats that make the editing easiest to remain in place for the few days I am working. Absilutely uniform date formats are icing on the cake, and not the cake itself (in my opinion). See Talk a that article for the one sided argument. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC) The date format should be US style, IOW Month, Day, Year. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker) here. Hi, Leprof 7272. Datestyle is set by the original author of the article, or by the first editor to introduce a date into an article. There is no convention for dmy vs mdy, although if the article has a strong international tie an argument can be made for dmy. All numerical dates are never appropriate for the body of an article or for citations in an article. All numerical dates may be used in a table where date sorting would be helpful. Have you researched to see what the original date format was? If you want to change the datestyle you need to reach a local consensus on the talk page. The American police and American military use dmy datestyle in their communications, so it would not be out of line for somebody writing an article about such to decide right off to use dmy instead of mdy, but again yyyy-mm-dd would never be correct per MOS:DATES. You can find out more about an articles origins by clicking on the "Page information" link on the left hand set of links on every article page, although talk page consensus discussions in the interim may have trumped the datestyle. In conclusion, do not change datestyles in articles on your own. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker) here. Hi, again Leprof 7272. In this permalink the article is using December 18, 2011 as the only date visible in the body, so if I was unifying dates, I would go with mdy vs dmy. Once you go mdy in the body, then you are obligated to be consistent and go mdy everywhere else, except maybe in tables as I explained before. As Walter points out, it is an American article so the logical choice would be mdy anyway, but it is not a policy by any means, as Walter alludes to. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Vaxxed Drama Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion at Caitlyn Jenner#List-defined references You are invited to join the discussion at Caitlyn Jenner#List-defined references. Hi, Bull. I thought this might interest you. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Need your attention here CFCF intends to merge the discussion with no consensus to do so. He wishes merge despite two AfDs allowing inclusion and the discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard having valid points against merge. They insist on apply WP:MEDRS, which is not necessary, however I gave them unimpeachable MEDRS sources from PubMed here. CFCF stated "I will remerge the reverts by Valoem shortly", if he does so before the discussion is closed in favor of merge please revert, and I will open an ANI for topic sanctions against him. Valoem talk contrib 16:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Valoem - this edit constitutes canvassing, a practice that is frowned upon. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 17:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC) How so? Even if I asked him for input it is allow per WP:CANVASSING asking an editor with prior involvement requesting to be remain informed for input in the same discussion is allowed. In fact I could ping the entire group of people who participated in the AfD if I desire, however in this case I only asked him to revert your merge to avoid 3RR. Thanks. Valoem talk contrib 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC) It would be nice to know which fring theory thread is being discussed, and which articles are involved? and yes, I agree with CFCF regarding canvassing. This is classic. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC) A request for your point of view on an article - your help over a year ago was very appreciated Hello BullRangifer. I contacted you back in Oct 2014 to provide an unofficial third opinion on a hotly contested article, Rolfing. You gave level-headed advice that helped toss a bucket of water on the situation and everything calmed down for a while. Your status as a quackbuster means that the other editors involved on the page actually listen to your opinion. It seems to me that one of the editors, who has a clear anti-alt-med bias as opposed to simply valuing science and critical thinking, is so bent on his POV that he doesn't thoughtfully read and consider the edits I make before reverting them. Nor does he take the time to understand what I've written in the talk page, before going back to talking about pseudoscience. I do expect a lively back-and-forth with other WP editors, I expect to have to support my edits with quality sources, and I expect that editors will show good faith in dealing with each other. My proposal: revert the page to the "last stable version" from March 17 - prior to my contested edits and the others that followed - and then we discuss the various changes on the Talk page before making them. Would you kindly jump in and give your two cents? Thank you!!! --Karinpower (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUCCA As suspected a user is doing a full merge of all article with no consensus. You input is needed for or against. Valoem talk contrib 17:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Bull, could you look in on …and perhaps send an editor to the Conditioner (farming) article, where my usual nemesis is warring, and ignoring Talk. Point is, the article has two issues, the two tags are distinct and non-redundant, and and this editor is stalking and disrupting. Cheers, for whatever you might find time to do. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC) There were widespread complaints (see discussion) concerning user:Leprof 7272 over use of attention banners that very nearly resulted in a block. Now Leprof 7272 is resuming adding redundant attention banners to articles. I suggested an alternative option here which was simply deleted without discussion. Boghog (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC) FYI, Boghog is a stalker, and when he argues his case, conveniently only presents very one-sided aspects of his story. In the foregoing, he fails to mention, (a) that I actually accommodated and incorporated the "alternative option" he mentions, despite deleting it from my Talk page, and (b) that the reason for his entries be treated by deletions is for the very reason of his stalking. Bottom line, feel free to ignore anything, ever, from him about me. When I ask you into an article, it is for whatever you bring (whether it agrees with me or not). Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) With Led Zeppelin ...in the news, I went to the Robert Plant article, for some insight into the early days. Go there, you will see what I did. The sources there are in really rough shape—in the one section, I fixed one dead llink, and combined two duplicate references (along with noting the usual unsourced, capricious text-dropping). Calling this to your attention, in case you are interested in a high impact referencing mini-project. If so, I will (for the little it is worth) support you in any updating, correcting, etc. that you do. Cheers, Le Prof P.S. Tags were already in article, I added one expand, one reimprove, the latter which may eventually need to go at top.) 50.129.227.141 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Second P.S. As a big fan of your work, and one who has looked into your background, I am very sorry to see the above banner, and hear what others have done to you. Would share with you that an earlier login of mine here was retired, for the very reason that someone took it upon themselves to try to trace the place of my academic appointment, and out me. I found no ready, responsive support within WP, so just eliminated and disconnected the old record, with the new never making mention of anything specific enough to allow tracing. Again, I am sorry, and feel deeply for the suffering those who stalked and expressed hatred have brought. Please don't let it lead you to the conclusion that you and your work are not deeply valued. Share this with family, if you wish. You are respected, valued, and all the more, needed at this often sad place. Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC) With heist of USD 50M …in virtual currency from a DAO, see here, there will be increased attention to various tech articles, one being Block chain (database). I went there, and it is a nearly outstanding article, except for the quality of presentation of its citations. I am running reFill, in a first pass, to fill bare URLs. If you have time, take a look, and see if there is anything further you can do? I will then return and give some further work as well. Cheers, and, in re: above, hope you are well. Delete anything I've written if you wish. Cheers mate. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Lea Salonga I see that you deleted an image from this article, indicating that you think it's a copyvio. Why do you think so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC) It's the same image she uses on her official website and YouTube profile. We have no indication that the image has been released from its copyright for use here. I have contacted User talk:Nicworks here and at Commons, but no response yet. Until then we can't risk it. Do you have any information I'm not privy to? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Take a look here. Nicworks claims it's his "own work". Well, that's not good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC) The image has been deleted from Commons. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Good work on the Salonga article. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks! If I make any mistakes, don't hesitate to let me know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Essay about editorial neutrality I think this essay is a very good idea. I don't have time to read this long essay carefully, but I have a couple of quick thoughts: 1. Go through it again and see if you can trim and streamline any of the text. From my quick look at it, there seems to be a lot of repetition. Write each thing once, as clearly as possible. And delete anything that does not immediately advance your argument. The shorter the essay is, the more likely that people will read it. 2. In the box at the top, you write: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. The very expression "neutral point of view" is misleading, because NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". I would eliminate repetition and recast this more like this: NPOV refers to neutral editors, not neutral content; that is, an editorial attitude, not to a perspective with respect to the content being edited. 3. Also in the box at the top, you write: ... Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using very biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. ... We document all forms of reality, whether we like it or not. I would change these two sentences to say something like this: Wikipedia articles document all significant points of view presented in third-party published sources about the topic; the sources will necessarily present the biases of their authors. ... We document the points of view evident in the sources published about a topic and present them neutrally, even if the points of view presented are politically or historically unpopular. Try to avoid words like "very". Your essay will be more persuasive if it does not seem to be pushing too hard. Maybe in the autumn, I will have time to read it carefully for you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the thoughtful reply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Your changing of a tag I tagged a statement in the Phone sex article with a "fact" tag, which displayed as "Citation needed." Fifteen minutes later, you changed my tag to a "CN" tag, which also displays as "Citation needed." Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes lists both ways of tagging and does not say one is to be preferred to the other. So what was the point of your change? If you see a statement tagged as "citation needed," perhaps your time could be spent in some more productive way than changing one tag to the other. It also wastes the time of other editors who then see the change and spend time searching for articles about templates to find out if there has been a change in the preferred way of getting "citation needed" to display. Then you used the inaccurate edit summary "rmv active external link" which did not appear to have been done in your edit. What gives? Regards, Edison (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Sorry about creating confusion. If you look at my edit summary ("rmv active external links"), you'll see that my reason for the edit was different than what you have described. I wouldn't do that. Somehow I got caught in an edit conflict (having left my PC without saving an edit), and then it appeared that the "fact" tag was somehow activating the links, something I had never seen before. By changing the tag, the active URLs disappeared and I left my PC. Now I can see that they had been removed by another editor before I saved my edit. It was weird, and now what was weird makes sense. I didn't realize that someone else had just removed them. Your "fact" tag hadn't somehow gotten new and magical powers to activate a live URL! Fortunately everything seems fine now. Again, sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Need help to fix a ref error - resolved Hi, BullRangifer, remember your request Need help to fix a ref error in Alternative medicine. It's been a while and that error was still there. I looked at the problem and discovered that one of the Harvard-style templates had a parameter ps= in it. Removing that fixed things; it seems that an empty ps= still causes the reference to have a distinct name than if there is no ps= present. I know that there's WP:NODEADLINE, but that it took more than 6 months for this one seems sad.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for fixing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS) The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Could you have a look Bull, was directed to this page by a nephew who asked. "Why is it that some WP pages don't have to have any sources at all." Could you take a look here, and see if the page cannot be protected, so that any further edits must be approved (i.e., to ensure that writing to provide sourced material begins). I do not know how to do this, so I ask it of you. (I will then take the teenagers back to the page, and show how the process works.) Cheers, thanks. Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC) You have done the right thing by tagging it. Anything questionable or dubious can also be tagged specifically using {{cn}}. Now give it time and see what other editors do. The tag will alert them and some may start to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) If time permits I have done as much as I can afford, today, with Colleen Cavanaugh. Have a look if you can. Cheers, Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) New newsletter for Notifications Hello You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia. That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please subscribe! All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Jane Doe content at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations Hi. Re this, I'm not sure you're aware that the article is under the U.S. politics ArbCom remedies, which specify that disputed content stays out until talk page consensus is reached to include it. The active RfC is deciding that consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC) More context, two editors who want the content included are challenging the legitimacy of the RfC. I'm not aware that one can do that, unless by divine intervention by a higher power, which I've never seen happen, but we'll see. In the meantime I would like to ask you to reconsider your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Mandruss, why should I reconsider my comment? I don't think I have suggested the violation of any policy; I have only expressed an opinion. If editors see any worth in it, then that will contribute to making some type of decision. If I'm wrong, please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Simply because your comment likely encouraged the two users who are disruptively trying to kill the RfC. I don't they know whether you understood the context when you made the comment, and I don't think they care. Considering the context I don't think "the content should be re-added" is a correct statement. Anyway the situation is now at WP:ANI, so this may be moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I wasn't aware of that. I've been off-line most of the time since my comment. Maybe things will work themselves out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC) At ANI, one of the users is using your comment as part of their defense, alleging your support. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Hmmmm, that could be problematic. Would you please provide the URL for the page and some key words to help me search and find their comment(s)? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Go to WP:ANI and search for Bullrangifer. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Will do. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:Periodic table The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Periodic table. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, BullRangifer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia essays by BullRangifer has been nominated for discussion Category:Wikipedia essays by BullRangifer, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Please comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for defending the WP:NPOV policy Like I noted in that RfC, it's one of the most misused and abused policies we have, if not the most misused and abused policy we have. Seeing some of the arguments made there.... It's just one of the reasons I don't enjoy editing here anymore. People will twist our policies to their liking, regardless of what the policies actually state. Ugh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC) "420" collaboration As a member of WikiProject Cannabis, you are invited to help organize the project's upcoming "420" collaboration, which is scheduled for April 2017. Yes, we're a few months away, but we're hoping to get the ball rolling by getting buy-in from experienced Wikipedia editors and seek help fleshing out some goals and ideas for a successful campaign. We also plan to conduct both on-wiki and offlline outreach so non-Wikipedias can also contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up and contribute to the ongoing discussions. All editors are welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Talk:Donald Trump Russia dossier Hi, BullRangifer! You might want to delete or strike your comments about Centrify at this talk page. Not only are they unhelpful and unlikely to contribute to a good working atmosphere, but they are incorrect. Centrify is not a "relatively inexperienced user". They have been here since 2007 and have more than 6000 edits. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Oops, too late - he has already replied. And more politely than I might have. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) MelanieN, the emphasis should be on "relatively". Compared to you, myself, and several others he's scolded as if we were children, he (she?) is a beginner, with quite a block log, and a long and extremely unsavory history of personal attacks and polemic. His current tone has been denigrating and condescending, and I just got tired of it. I called him on it, but since around here people forget what started something, my response is what gets the negative attention. Strangely, the incivility which starts something doesn't get called out, but the response calling it out gets called incivility. That's victim blaming, pure and simple. I've seen this pattern time and again. It's one more reason why I don't edit as much anymore. It really sucks here. You're the admin, and you could tell him to stop the condescension and specious argumentation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Bravo BR. Roxy the dog. bark 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that." - CJR Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others): "We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that. "When you or your surrogates say or tweet something that is demonstrably wrong, we will say so, repeatedly. Facts are what we do, and we have no obligation to repeat false assertions; the fact that you or someone on your team said them is newsworthy, but so is the fact that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Both aspects should receive equal weight." - An open letter to Trump from the US press corps, CJR BullRangifer (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the link, a very interesting read. I also have a great deal of sympathy towards your blue box statement at the top of the page. Chipping away gets very frustrating, and your assessment of things imo is quite good. Roxy the dog. bark 19:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Editing that might bring some pleasure, and some long term good I started on Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, fixing dead links, making citations uniform, etc. I did citations 1, 5, 8, and 16. Journal of Wildlife Diseases is a repeat appearing journal, and so the first citation could be cut and pasted as a citation to do the rest. My real interest in this, is in the direction of an immunization that might protect. Thought you might be interested on various levels. (If this lures you back to a bit of work that is worthwhile, all the better.) Cheers, and sympathies over the semi-retirement. I have succumbed at times as well. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Hope you are doing well Because of your semiretirement, I am no longer skipping the first pass reFill and manual repair of dead URLs (which I routinely punted your way, in earlier times). Hope life is treating you well, absent the unnecessary headaches from here. (Will only check in, on occasion, here, for replies.) Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Things are going fairly well. Right now the (so far) bloodless coup that's occurring in the USA is worrying. This is not normal, at all! A Hollywood scriptwriter would have a hard time writing this. It's just too scary. Trump is ignoring and defying the courts, and trampling on human rights, and attacking the press. This does not look good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Donald Trump–Russia dossier: possible copyright violation I removed some text you inserted to Donald Trump–Russia dossier as your act possibly constituted a copyright violation. Perhaps you copy-pasted text from The Washington Post article accidentally? Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Politrukki, thanks for catching that. I had copy pasted for use during editing, found the right words to use, but forgot to then remove my copy paste and put it all back together into one paragraph. Thanks for fixing it. BTW, it would be a plagiarism issue, rather than copyright, since fair use would cover such a quote. An exact quote should have been in quote marks, even though providing the source. I didn't intend to leave it there, and the goof happened. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Notice of noticeboard discussion There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "partisan POV pushers and, predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers (the Koch brothers control many articles)" @BullRangifer: I would like to learn more about the thought process behind your intriguing comments! I'd also be eager to inspect any articles where you think NPOV has been compromised by such paid whitewashers! That would be a major problem in need of serious attention, if true. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC) I'll give you a few clues: New Media Strategies PR firm employed by Koch Brothers to whitewash Wikipedia (Even their article, New Media Strategies, has no mention of the sockpuppeting scandal.); Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive. After that, many major articles dealing with right wing politicians and issues are watched intently by teams of editors who remove even properly sourced criticism. Even if they don't do it immediately, it will happen. NPOV is not respected. They turn into sales brochures and hagiographies. I don't even look at them anymore. They're like looking at the White House Facebook profile. Pure adulation and fawning. Nothing to learn there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Removal of properly sourced criticism? Quelle horreur!. It sure would be troubling if a gang of WP editors banded together to improperly do that! Seriously though is there anything firmer than a Think Progress press release? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC) It happened, Wikipedia took action based on that occurrence, slapped them over the writst and then let them get away with it and they are still active here. It's a systemic problem. Powerful people and organizations manipulate Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC) I think the usual practice is for WP articles not to mention Wiki-drama that was associated with them. But regarding the socks, I'm confused, what am I missing? I just clicked on like 20-30 user contributions (ahem, laboriously, it took awhile thanks very much) and they all ceased activity years ago. What sort of manipulation are you talking about? Are there any articles still showing problems? Also just for the sake of conversation, do you doubt that armies of left-leaning paid activists (and countless more "volunteers") edit WP for explicitly political aims? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC) I haven't looked for a while, so I can't name anything specific. I just gave up. I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't NPOV violators on both sides. What makes me less worried about left wingers is the fact that they tend to get their information from multiple sources, both right and left, while right wingers tend to stick to right and extreme right sources, and they are backed by the big money corporate interests in the USA. Now they are also backed by Putin, a right winger, and his powerful friends. I have no illusions that Putin's rigging and hacking of the election and very direct influence on controlling Trump's policies (Trump reports confidential information directly to Putin) stops there. Putin and Trump have plenty of editors working here. Everything happening now is understandable if one sees it as a massive and desperate cover-up operation. Read the dossier and the bricks fall into place. The fact that the anonymous sources are not available (those who are still alive) does not make the uncorroborated info any less true. It explains what's happening. Adam Schiff stated there was circumstantial evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians. The dossier details payments by Trump to the hackers who hacked the DNC. It details cover-up efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Where to begin. I don't think your suggestions jibe with my own experiences, in which far left WP editors relentlessly insist on sourcing to places like HuffPo, Think Progress, Media Matters, Random Activist Blog XYZ, and even Gawker. Then there's the religious campaign against Daily Mail, which, curiously, is more an exercise in venting British leftist rage about the U.S. election than anything else. And then there's all the times I've heard some breathless argument why some essentially perfect sourcing from a place like New York Times must be suppressed because it doesn't present the correct wacky far-left view. Not just "I want to give the wacky view more emphasis", but "The non-wacky view must not be mentioned". And of course whoever argues for the inclusion of the non-wacky liberal view sourced to New York Times will be loudly condemned as a shill, paid troll, fascist pig (not in those exact words, mind you), etc. I think it is also well established that trillions of dollars in big money interests back leftist policies. Money goes wherever there is more money to be made. The remainder of your comments, especially about "rigging and hacking of the election", and the idea of a massive conspiracy between Trump, his supporters, and the Kremlin—I'm sure you can understand that without you posting clear arguments or evidence, I can't take this seriously. Kremlin release of HRC emails isn't "hacking the election" even if some passwords were sniped to get the emails. That's hacking an email server, not a presidential election. Regarding your less dramatic claims, I still would be interested to see an example of the POV pushing, whitewashing or "cover-up" that you describe, or even a single recently active user that is a paid troll or POV pusher as you describe. I'd be happy to take such a user aside for a very blunt discussion of WP policy and decorum. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Trump is pure as snow" Hi BullRangifer, you wrote on the talk page for the Russian interference article that I was "an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow", and that "God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process." I think responding there would be getting a bit off topic, so I'll respond here. First of all, I've never said anything like "Trump is pure as snow" on the talk page, and it might surprise you to know that my personal beliefs are pretty much opposite to that. However, I also think that just because you or I might dislike a political figure, that doesn't mean we should lose our objectivity. Second of all, I read your second quote to imply that I'm an agent of the Trump administration or the Kremlin. That's a pretty insulting thing to imply about me, and I would appreciate if you'd strike those comments on the talk page. Even if it wasn't your intention to imply that, that's how it looks to me, and will probably look to at least some other editors. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC) That was not my intention at all. The phrase about "white as snow" was deliberate hyperbole, and while doing something else I considered going back to my PC and wikilinking that phrase to straw man, with this edit summary: "My demonstrative attempt at humor, since I had just mentioned it." I should have done it, because, even though it was over the top hyperbole, you took it seriously. Sorry about that. Of course you don't think that. No one does, especially those who really know him. Also, the rest is not about you, but about the fact that Trump and Putin likely have editors here who try to influence things. They would not ignore Wikipedia. They deny what is obvious to many other editors, and you also deny those same things. I was not referring to you, but just the principle of the thing. I'll have to admit that if I hadn't been analyzing your comments and editing, the thought probably wouldn't have entered my mind, but I have no concrete evidence to think you work for them. What's problematic is that your comments and editing are probably indistinguishable from such a person, because everything you do tends in that direction, and you do have allies who do, and collude to do, the same. You can demonstrate by your actions that you are definitely not such a person. If you stop denying the obvious it would help, but that's too much to ask. I'm well aware that two people can look at the same evidence and still disagree, and that's okay. Peace. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I could just as easily say that the US intelligence agencies probably have people editing Wikipedia, and that your editing is indistinguishable from how they would edit. But I don't think that you're such an editor, and I wouldn't try to imply it, because it's insulting, even if not meant to be. That's why I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your comments that imply I (or other editors) are Kremlin/Trump stooges. The text that I've been proposing for the lede is actually the text that you and I worked on together earlier. At the time, you wrote that you thought it was an improvement. I hope you'll take a second look at it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) You still haven't struck your comments that imply that I and other editors are Kremlin/Trump shills. I'd appreciate if you'd do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  Done. You're not paid shills, just defenders of Putin's POV and Russian interests. That's not a crime here. We all have our POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Unrelated interjection Why does that remind me of something??? Oh yeah, "Mexicans, they're rapists, they're killers, and some I assume are good people..." It's sure good of you not to insinuate that BullRangifer edits like a paid shill. Thanks for that. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC) As long as you brought up the subject Thuc, do you have any personal associations with any of the other German-speaking editors on the American Politics articles? Straight question, please don't take it as an accusation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC) jg If you have an issue with a user please do not use article talk pages to discus it. if you think there is an issue report it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Minor edits, redux Hi, I saw your post on another user's Talk page about marking edits as minor. I ran into another editor whose edits are also all 'minor': Special:Contributions/AlEmory. They are hardly minor. Can / should something be done about this? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) This is usually a newbie mistake, but when experienced editors do it, the cause may be an accidental change of settings. If not, then we're dealing with carelessness or dishonesty. Either case damages their credibility. There are, of course, people who only make strictly minor edits, without exceptions, but they are not the ones we are talking about here. I have contacted a few of these editors, probably less than ten, over the years. My initial contact always AGF, and I usually leave it at that. If they get in trouble later, then my message/warning can be cited as evidence that their continued use of mismarked edits is evidence of bad faith. They were warned. This increases the risk of them getting blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) C-SPAN on YouTube is not SPAM You are WARNED, stop cyber-Bullying me. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Xb2u7Zjzc32, I don't have much time right now, but here's a preliminary take on the issue. Policy isn't completely clear, but this essay is good "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. In general, unless the video is clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it." Essay page So there are at least two considerations (You have posted YouTube videos which violate both.): Is it the official channel? Is it a copyright violation? I don't have time to search for better content from policy right now, but you might search these archives at RS/N. Some of your edits to show why I'm concerned Elayne Boosler edit: Is NewsForTheLocals a RS? 1994 White House Correspondents Dinner with Al Franken: Is Josh Burdick a RS? 1994 White House Correspondents Dinner with Al Franken: Is Hubert Graham a RS? Why two videos of the same speech? That seems like spam. Why not just use the longer one? Al Franken at the 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner (Apr 1996): Is Josh Burdick a RS? Al Franken at the 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner (Apr 1996): Is Hubert Graham a RS? Again...Why two videos of the same speech? That seems like spam. Why not just use the longer one? Jon Stewart White House Correspondents Dinner: Is Lord Rothchild a RS? Do you see the problem? These are not official channels AND they are copyright violations. You may have also included some official channels in your edit. Try restoring them, but they must really be the official channels. I suggest you visit RS/N and then report back to me before I get time to file a complaint. I'll abide by their judgment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) More info relevant to usage of YouTube: Linking to user-submitted video sites Restrictions on linking You have previously been warned about this issue: User talk:Xb2u7Zjzc32#Linking copyright pages BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Xb2u7Zjzc32, are you going to respond, revert your restoration of the problematic content, or otherwise? Do we need to proceed to disciplinary action, or can we work this out amicably and keep your block log clean? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 1RR Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is under discretionary sanctions and 1RR. Please self-revert your second revert on and stop edit warring. First revert: [1] Second revert: [2] Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Oops! I made one revert and then had to restore parts which were good. I guess I missed that. It appears others have taken care of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC) I don't count this edit as a revert since it did not undo some previous edit. Your second revert was removing of Clapper statement, which still has not been restored. You need to self-revert that. Politrukki (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Ah! That one was discussed on the talk page. It's perennial slow edit warring by Aceruss and should be removed on sight. We already discuss that issue with more updated wording. At the time it was fresh it was good content, but now it's outdated as a time specific and incomplete statement. Further events have shown it to be incomplete and incorrect. It said nothing of what happened afterwards. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank You Achapman102002 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Who are you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)