User talk:Valjean

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

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
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."

Welcome to Valjean's talk page! TB IP

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

"In the 7th century, the Etymologiae states..."

"In the 7th century, the Etymologiae states that remains of the Ark are still at Mount Ararat in Armenia"

I'm pretty sure that's what the source said.[2] [3] It's actual location is irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have now added a quote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lies vs. falsehoods

Hi! Some poor analysis in your answer. That doesn't make logical sense. Because, as you said, "falsehoods" includes "lies", it can be clarified that a particular falsehood is a lie, but there's no point in clarifying that a lie is a falsehood, as that is per definition. To make it easy: if I ask why an article says "fox", and the footnote says that the RS only said "animal", you cannot tell me that it's because animals includes foxes. If the RS says "falsehoods", it's not necessarily saying that it was a lie. Also, if you don't care about the concept of truth, you cannot lie. That is instead called bullshitting. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 86. It would be nice if you provided a quote from me, as well as the URL for the place I make the quote, IOW a diff. I'd be happy to explore this topic with you. Talk page comments often fail to do that, and I sometimes write things clumsily.

BTW, your point about bullshitters is spot on. Harry Frankfurt explains why bullshitters are far more dangerous than ordinary liars in his book On Bullshit. A few sources actually make that point about Trump, The Bullshitter-in-Chief. Here are a few more: [4][5][6][7] We barely touch on the distinction here: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. I don't recall whether fact-checkers make the distinction, rather than just saying "falsehoods", "lies", or "untruths". It would be worth going deeper into that topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far left

I'm not sure if you were saying Marxist and communists are far-left or not. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug! Nice to have you here. I suspect you saw my comment here. Right? Let's continue there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not getting involved there. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! I've already answered there. Am I going to get into deep water there? Is there some big debacle attached to that topic? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, don’t want to get in with the editor. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider far left to be revolutionary, most Marxists aren’t, think particularly about academics I admit but a lot of others. A lot of Communist parties take part in the democratic systems of their country, especially India where they govern some states. Not far left. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. They become pragmatic just to survive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Hi. In response to your edit summary at Melania Trump's article, I should point out that both Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox person have TemplateData that clearly specify family members that are notable or of particular relevance should be listed in the infobox. Her father is clearly not notable enough to have his own article, so I fail to see why he should be given space in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I'll self-revert. Thanks for the info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I took your word for it, but I'd like you to quote the words on this page that back your statement: Template:Infobox officeholder -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have to open the TemplateData and there if you look at the parameters individually you'll find that for "Spouse(s)" it asks that they be listed "if [they're] notable"; same for "Partner(s)" and "Domestic partner(s)". Now I had not noticed this before but it does not provide any descriptions for "Parents" and "Children" but I think we should follow the same rule. Keivan.f^Talk 20:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this Template:Infobox_officeholder/doc and saw "notability" only connected with ONE item, "cause of death". Nothing about spouses, children, etc. If that's not the right page, please provide the URL. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Template:Infobox officeholder. It's under "TemplateData for this template used by TemplateWizard, VisualEditor and other tools" which is right above "Tracking categories". It provides you with parameter "name", "description", "type" and "status". Keivan.f^Talk 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Valjean/Archive 32

User:Valjean/Archive 32, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valjean/Archive 32 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

Obituary: JamesR

Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

I have already expressed an opinion in support of keeping the content you are concerned about. I am surprised that you chose to email me about this. I communicate by email only when I perceive a compelling need for privacy. I see no such need here. Advance your convincing, policy based arguments right here in the open. I do not engage in behind-the-scenes intrigues. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want someone to provide evidence of the claimed BLP violations and don't want to bludgeon the MfD. I'll go ahead and make a direct request for evidence on the talk page there. I guess that's allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nickps (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]