User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Talk page negotiation table

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

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

When all else fails, AGF and remember that

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

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, an ABC News documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele.

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary aired on Hulu. It is a legitimate primary reliable source that contains content usable at the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele articles. That which is primarily about Steele would only be used at his biographical article, while some other content may be used at both articles. While most content should be sourced to secondary reliable sources which comment on the documentary, our rules for the use of primary sources allow the careful use of the documentary for some details. I suspect the right place for some of the content would be in the "Legacy" section (maybe after changing it to "Legacy and later developments"), possibly as a subsection for the documentary. We'll see out it works out, as the topic dictates the location. It may end up being nothing. The documentary revealed little real news of consequence, but it does reveal info about methods, motivations, attitudes and consequences.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

I am starting a list of RS for possible use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ABC News coverage Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred The four pillars In defending his work, Steele describes his intelligence reports as resting on "four pillars" of information that he believes have held up over time as accurate. "One was, there was a large-scale Russian interference campaign in the American election in 2016," he said. "The second was that this had been authorized and ordered at the highest levels, including Putin," he said. "The third had been that the objective of this was to damage Hillary Clinton and to try and get this rather unorthodox candidate, Donald Trump, elected," Steele said. "And the fourth was, there was evidence of collusion between people around Trump and the Russians." Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview "Steele continues to defend ... a claim that Michael Cohen ... traveled to Prague in 2016.... 'I'm prepared to accept that not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate," Steele said. "I have yet to be convinced that that is one of them.'" Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others), "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI." This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report. Here's what we already have in this article: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public". Other coverage Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report While the tape itself has never been revealed, Steele said he thinks it “probably does (exist), but I wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.” When asked why Russia has never released said tape, Steele said: "Well, it hasn't needed to be released. I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the U.S." ... Steele said Mueller's overall report reinforced the contents of his dossier. “There was a wholesale campaign that was organized by the leadership in Russia, that its aim was to get Donald Trump elected,” he said. “And there was a lot of evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, which they didn't report on and didn't admit, and in fact lied about.” ... When asked why Cohen would not admit to the alleged meeting despite already being convicted of other crimes, Steele replied: "I think it's so incriminating and demeaning. … And the other reason is he might be scared of the consequences." Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat' https://www.axios.com/steele-defends-trump-russia-dossier-abc-interview-5bedc6db-254a-4979-9d82-0ac8041c2398.html "I stand by the work we did, the sources that we had," he tells ABC News Trump's "golden showers" reaction Trump's "golden showers" reaction to news of the documentary was a seemingly unprovoked rant that he "wasn't into golden showers". Several RS made the connection; his rant wasn't something "out of the blue". Sources, with attribution, for that event and connection.... https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-golden-showers-denial.html https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-thoughts-golden-showers-080306066.html https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/donald-trump-golden-showers-denial https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-golden-showers-republican-donor-event-1242797/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/brings-up-golden-showers-unprompted-during-private-event-with-donors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gop-fraud-claims/2021/10/14/f37887fe-2cfc-11ec-985d-3150f7e106b2_story.html "Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president. “I’m not into golden showers,” he told the crowd. “You know the great thing, our great first lady — ‘That one,’ she said, ‘I don’t believe that one.’ ” Own thoughts A major objection to the golden showers allegation has been that some of the reports alluded to by Danchenko, who apparently didn't have the best sources for this info, came from "word of mouth and hearsay" "conversations with friends over beers" (IG Report). So be it, but people and RS often ignore that some of the seven sources were within Trump's own orbit (Millian and Cohen took it seriously) and workers at the hotel, not hookers and people joking in Moscow bars. It's a BS objection, because how else would any normal person talk about such a sticky, dripping, allegation? Of course, they'll make Trump the butt of jokes. When Moscow (and Saint Petersberg) hookers told of how their colleagues were involved in the incident, those rumors spread in the hooker community, and people always make such a topic into a joke and scorn. That doesn't mean the allegation isn't true. It's pretty much the only way such an incident would become known. So is it true? We don't know for sure, but it fits with Trump's character (he's known for sexual escapades and acts of hatred) and his own history with urolagnia (liking the sight of peeing). He liked it in Las Vegas, shortly before going to Moscow. Also, his own hatred of Obama is well-known, and it's entirely in character for Trump to come up with the idea of defiling that bed because of Obama. The Mueller Report contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen". So Cohen did his job as fixer. He knew what Trump was capable of doing and took the rumor seriously, treating it as a real risk. He began to investigate, using his friend Rtskhiladze, who then started researching the matter. He also treated it as a real risk. We don't know how much back-and-forth correspondence there was between them; we only get one side, but there was obviously previous contact. After a while, Rtskhiladze reported back to Cohen with the good news that he had "stopped the flow of tapes". They believed there was a risk, enough to try to avert exposure. That was part of Cohen's job as Trump's "fixer". So whether it occurred or not, there was enough risk that Trump had done such a thing that Cohen treated it as real. Innocent people don't do this. Millian was also one of the sources for the pee tape allegation, and he was inside the Trump campaign. These actions lend much weight to the evidence that the incident may have happened as alleged. It remains one of the many unproven claims, but one that is likely true. Steele still allows that the pee tape allegation may not be true. This has always been his view, often expressed as a 50-50 likelihood. Steele's partner at Orbis, Chris Burrows, as well as Steele's wife, tried to talk him out of including it, but Steele followed standard MI6 practice, which is to include everything from all sources in your original notes. Later it gets checked for accuracy, and a final report might not include it. BuzzFeed short-circuited this process by publishing the unfinished notes without permission. The fault is BuzzFeed's, not Steele's. Steele knew that Putin's FSB often included sex tapes in their kompromat, so he couldn't ignore the reports. (I don't know if Steele also factored in Trump's personality and thus the likelihood of such actions. No one who knows Trump would be surprised if this turned out to be true.) Regarding sources, Steele shares the exact same view as the FBI, revealed in the IG Report, that when a source is exposed, they get scared and try to minimize their involvement. The "confidential source will often take fright and try and downplay and underestimate what they've said and done". (Steele) That's also what the FBI previously told Horowitz. Both Danchenko and Millian did that, and Steele agrees with the FBI. Those who accuse Steele of faulty logic should accuse the FBI, but I doubt they know better than the FBI. Steele wrote 17 memos which are now known as the "Steele dossier". He doesn't like the term "dossier" "because it wasn't a dossier. It's a series of reports on a live issue, the election campaign, running through time. These reports were not collated and presented in one offering, nor were they analyzed in detail by us. Effectively, it was a running commentary. It wasn't a dossier." Steele still believes that "the evidence suggests that" "Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians". Something different Steele included in Vanity Fair's The 2018 New Establishment List] "Golden-shower glory: The former head of M.I.6’s Russia desk compiled the infamous dossier that raised the possibility Donald Trump was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Steele even grew a beard and went into hiding—merely adding to his mythic reputation on the left." Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times' "The former spy, Christopher Steele, wrote to Vanity Fair shortly after he was named to the magazine’s “2018 New Establishment List.” ....[his comments follow]" Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it' "The 100-person New Establishment List featured Steele, the former intelligence officer, at No. 38. He has been in hiding, but he broke his silence by sending Jones a thank you note. He said he would have liked to attend the summit, but could not given his “present legal and political situation.” Template <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref> References

Great RS essay!

I've only just gotten to the end of the section on "Sources: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and have gotten so much out of it. Thank you for putting together this piece of research. Like! Platonk (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Platonk. Thank you. I assume you're referring to this essay. A couple others that are even better are these:

• How to create and manage a good lead section
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Valjean (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent investigation

For this section.

(after the Mueller Report) Subsequently, the Republican-led U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that interactions with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 election by Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort posed a "grave counterintelligence threat".

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacted to the report by writing an article titled "Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?" He described how "the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort."

References

Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era

Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about the following proven facts is not a RS:

1. that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion;
2. that their goal was to put Donald Trump in power by harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton and increasing political and social discord in the United States;
3. that Trump and his campaign had myriad, illicit, secret links with Russians which they kept hidden and lied about;
4. that Trump and his campaign welcomed and cooperated with the Russian interference in myriad ways;
5. that the Steele dossier had no role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation;
6. that Trump did not win the 2020 election;
7. that it was not stolen from him by Biden;
8. that Trump attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 United States presidential election;
9. that the 2020 United States presidential election was the most secure in American history, and its results were not affected by any widespread voter fraud;
10. that Republicans have largely defended Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud;
11. that climate change is caused by humans and is serious;
12. that vaccines are safe;
13. that Donald Trump is rarely truthful in any sense.

Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and The New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Caution issued elsewhere

Caution issued
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Caution about pushing fringe theories Mr Ernie, please don't advocate for the "Trump is the victim of a hoax" idea in any way, shape, or form, whether you tie it to the dossier or other aspects of Trump/Russia relations. The dossier is not a "hoax", and Trump is not the victim of a hoax or witch hunt. The suspicions and investigations of Trump and his campaign are all inspired by his own dubious activities. You wrote: "The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier." The "hoax" aspect of that comment of yours was improper at Wikipedia and false everywhere. Here at Wikipedia, advocacy of fringe theories is forbidden activity. It's tendentious and unwikipedian. Keep that in mind. This response to soibangla, which you edit warred over, is a case in point: Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. While the former can be somewhat fun for people who like to argue, you'll eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it. So go with the latter. I don't choose which media I consume based on what Wikipedia says, but by what interests me personally. (18:59, 3 November 2021) Let's unpack all the meaning packed in that fateful quote, because you are indeed a reader "who thinks Wikipedia is biased". "Readers who think Wikipedia is biased" are those who do not agree with RS. You even recognize that to do what you want would be to "go against Wikipedia policies". You then advise to not "Argue with the editors on the talk page" and instead "go with the latter" ( "just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these [unreliable] article subjects") as if the latter are legitimate options. They are not. That was horribly unwikipedian thinking. Why deliberately go with unreliable sources? Why not agree with RS so there would be no need to argue with other editors? Instead, you violate your own advice all the time and argue with mainstream editors who get their views from the RS you don't like, You then admit that if you follow your own preference, you'd "eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it." So you admit that your preferences are blockable offenses. It appears that "what interests [you] personally" is what you read on unreliable sources. That's the only way I can interpret what you wrote when compared with your frequent pushing of views found in unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. (At least you're consistent and follow your own beliefs.) Instead of "ignoring" our articles, you should read them and their sources to learn what is factual. Let your mind be guided by evidence, not by "what interests [you] personally". After a long edit war with several other editors over that content, you restored it with an alteration: Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. Continuing to just complain about reliable sources and article bias isn't productive. (16:52, 4 November 2021) I guess you realized what part wasn't wise to utter out loud here, but you had already expressed your real disdain for our articles, for RS, and how you favor using unreliable sources. That cat is out of the bag, and we all know it. Please(!!) alter your beliefs, and, even if you don't, don't allow them to affect your discussions and editing, because it's quite evident when you are allowing that to happen. You can still do good work here if you're careful and avoid the political articles. IIRC, you have been warned several times by several admins that an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban hangs over your head if you continue to do as you are doing now. Some of your comments (like the ones above) violate our Advocacy and Fringe policies, so, if you want to avoid a topic ban or stay here at all, please follow my advice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AldezD (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The article survived the AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Nominating an article for deletion is not the same as tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the consensus is to delete the article, it is not deleted until at least seven days have elapsed. I don't spend a lot of time at AfD because I find the discussions to be often contentious and uncivil. However, I don't generally see articles deleted because they are not "perfect". Finally, although there is no policy requirement as to what should be done before the nomination, generally people expect some research by the nominator as to the notability of the subject (WP:BEFORE).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, WP:BEFORE may have been ignored as no mention of notability occurred, and there was no use of the talk page at all, as suggested at WP:BEFORE. The nominator also complained about lack of mention of all possible strategies used by contestants, accusing me of "picking and choosing". (Can you imagine an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with stratetgies used by Jeopardy! contestants? A new article can only do so much, and then other editors are welcome to add more if they see fit.) Fortunately, other editors are speaking out against their attempt. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't provide the example of what is bothering you, so it's hard for me to judge.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm sure you have lots more important things to do. BEFORE is enough for me to know about. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Today, December 18, 2021, is this user's 16th WikiBirthday as a registered editor

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years and 11 months.

That's as a registered editor. Before that, I started editing as an IP in 2003 before we had 500,000 articles. I vividly remember when we hit the first million mark. That made me realize that this project was really going somewhere. -- Valjean (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 V. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Good faith

Hi Valjean, remember to assume good faith in other actions. Best, Whizz40 Whizz40 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes? What's up? -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Whizz40, I have discovered that you have previously tried to improve the coverage of climate change denial at the article. Why are you now opposing it? -- Valjean (talk)

I am taking into consideration the RfC and explained further on the ANI page. In short, I think we need an RS that says this in order to include it in the article as it may be controversial otherwise. Whizz40 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Whizz40, I am relieved to learn that you are not another COI afflicted editor in regard to the CRA article and the subject of climate change. Your initial undoing of my edits seemed to indicate otherwise, and I suddenly saw the article as a well-guarded walled garden.

So, is there hope? We do not need a source that uses the words "climate change denial". We just need a source that describes it, and we certainly have that: "Economists at CRA have sought to weaken, delay and defeat policies designed to mitigate the effects of climate change." Weaken, delay and defeat is a good definition of climate change denial. While it would be nice to develop that subject better, it's not an absolute necessity. We edit based on the content and sources we have, not on what might be. The lead should mention significant topics in the body of the article, and therefore the climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead. See my essay about How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a specific RfC about including this point in the lead of this article and the consensus was to exclude it. In order to include it, I think we need to expand the article to provide good coverage of the topic and then write a balanced lead. Examples of articles about other consulting firms with the leads at various stages of development are McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, Boston Consulting Group, and Oliver Wyman. Only the first, which is most developed, mentions the controversies described in the article in the lead.

As for the climate change denial, I understand it fits the broad definition of this topic but if RS haven't used these words exactly then I think it's better for Wikipedia not to add this. I changed the wording of the subheading in the article which I think succinctly summarizes what the sources are saying. Whizz40 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your examples from other articles is an illicit WP:OTHERTHINGS argument. Boston Consulting is one where something should be mentioned in the lead, but its lead is also lacking in many other ways. It's very incomplete. I am finding very limited mention of CRAI's climate position online, yet it's denial activities are pretty strong and show a longstanding pattern, not some isolated instance unworthy of mention in the lead. It's methods are similar to the efforts of Big Tobacco, where all negative mentions on the internet are (were) suppressed by SEO activities that push negative content down beyond the normal reach of those who only search the first two Google pages. The mention we do have is pretty strong and perfectly describes climate change denial, but if you aren't willing to back such mention in the lead, there isn't any hope because then it is indeed a walled garden with COI afflicted editors guarding it. If we don't mention it in the lead, at least the category and the "see also" hatnote should be restored. Maybe the other editors will allow that.

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored, but it does happen through whitewashing. Unfortunately, there are companies that successfully use Wikipedia for promotion and get away with it because they have many editors who work for them and remove anything negative sooner or later. This affects articles related to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and politics (a notable example is the Koch brothers' group of paid editors who got busted here but were not blocked). (Read this.) Powerful companies guard their images very aggressively. -- Valjean (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the article relate to the period 1991-2009. It's up to you on the See also note in the section and the category. I have reverted once to express my view but won't revert again as there is no policy violation and other editors need to express their view. Note the syntax of the category was broken. Whizz40 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I goofed when adding the category. I'm not going to bother with that article anymore. Without active support from other editors, it's not worth the grief. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

"T***p" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect T***p and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#T***p until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ping

Hey, just pinging to demand that you have a good day. I figure there is a better chance your day will be good if I demand it vs just hope it. Springee (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do my best to obey. -- Valjean (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia, AfDs and GNG

See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § I don't like it

When approaching an AfD, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only ONE question: "Does this pass our General notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the ONLY relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, can it be rescued by finding more RS? Then advocate for that before !voting Delete. All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE.

Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose" here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.

Editors who create articles often deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing.

We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically I don't like it. While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.

Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal.

Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.

Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mention in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

User:Valjean/WikiPurpose

Your recent edit on Peter Doocy

You give POTUS to much credit.Nerguy (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So do RS, and you're supposed to follow them and not use your own OR interpretation. Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions that just irritate smarter people, so "Stupid question, stupid answer" applies. That's known as "sarcasm" in English, and Biden has a long history of using it on idiots. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Your statement "Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions" is clearly your opinion. For someone so careful about RS, you seem pretty biased.Nerguy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I share the opinion of others, such as Senator McCain, whose response to Doocy is immediately above Biden's response in the article. Now stop treating Wikipedia like a social media discussion and follow what RS say. ABC News said "sarcastically", and we should write that so readers don't make the same mistake you're making. -- Valjean (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you revere Senator McCain.Nerguy (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you User:50.212.96.74? See Talk:Matt DeHart. The IP is trying to make a huge edit without any discussion or consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not that IP, please don't be quick to assume that i'm a sockpuppet. If you really need to make sure please see a checkuser. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Then what is this warning about? On what basis do you put it here? It seems bogus. -- Valjean (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@HelixxUnderscore: Please read WP:EDITWAR in full before you warn anyone about this again. Continued misuse of warning templates may result in a loss of editing privileges. ––FormalDude talk 18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to help HelixxUnderscore (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Adèle Exarchopoulos

Mind elaborating about this revert? I'm interested in hearing what in the talk page post you disagree with, and also – and especially – why you apparently believe that replacing a broken link to the Google translate page for a French news item with a properly formatted bibliographic entry for the actual news item is not an improvement. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Uanfala, you're absolutely right. I was viewing it on my cellphone and that gives a very limited view, so I oversaw the good part of the edit. I have now restored it. I hadn't seen the talk page entry. -- Valjean (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

BLPN

Thanks for nice, civil resolution. Recognizing when you have tunnel vision is one of the hardest things to do, and I really respect that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The history around here with Barrett and Quackwatch is what lay behind that tunnel vision. There is an intense hatred of both here, and too often they have been removed leaving a hagiography to a quack or some pseudoscientific BS. In this case, there were other good sources doing the job, so they weren't essential. -- Valjean (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I try not to remove things like that if there's no other balancing text in the article, and when I trim, I make sure to leave enough to fully balance any fringe or woo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As an FYI, you actually weren't too far off at all. I've tried to work with ScottishFinnishRadish on related behavior issues at BLPs on their talk page, but that obviously hasn't helped much. Generally if you see someone ignoring parts of BLP policy such as WP:BLPBALANCE or WP:BLPPRIMARY and blanket reverting, it's usually best just to follow the latter and look for sources citing the SPS. I fixed the article in this case, but there's also a point where it's on the person reverting the content out to improve the references (especially if relatively easy to do) rather than edit war. KoA (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I land firmly on the side of BLPRESTORE in situations like this. If there is a good faith BLP concern, we lose nothing in keeping something out of an article while it's discussed. In this case, a secondary sources was found, so problem solved. A bit of civil discussion would have resolved this toot sweet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest following what you suggest about civil discussion instead of edit warring and talking past people. There was no reason for your last revert (or even the first if you were doing due diligence) or the blanket edit warring mentality (i.e., shoot first, ask questions later). I don't want to take up more of Valjean's talk page, so I'll again warn you that you need to stop cherry-picking only parts of BLP and stop creating timesinks for the community with tendentious editing and avoiding the article talk page. You're barreling past how much WP:WIKILAWYERING you're doing misusing BLP, and this isn't uncommon for newish editors to have trouble recognizing their own behavior issues. That's why I'm trying to spend some time with you.

Especially in controversial topics like fringe ones, it's best to slow down in situations like yours, not charge through, especially since your behavior is under scrutiny at ArbCom. Knock off the tendentious attitude in comments and you'll see most editors are much easier to work with. KoA (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi, Valjean. Thank you for helping me see the light about the things that’s going on in the world. I didn’t have a clue about 99.9% of the stuff you gave me to look through on my user talk page. I’ve even had a chance to read up about vaccines and found out that they aren’t so bad after all. I have since scheduled for my first COVID-19 vaccine on Monday. I don’t know why I didn’t know this before, but I at least do now, thanks to you. I want to completely change my ways of thinking, but I’m going to have to do it in stages. One step in the right direction at a time. Thanks, again! Cheers. -Stiabhna (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)