User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #24

Editor banned from this talk page

Johnvr4 is banned from this talk page. The aggression and personal attacks are too much. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Convenience links:

• Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 71.47.124.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Message for IPs

If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information

Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game for use as sources (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject because of successful censorship, we must use other sources, usually partisan activist organizations whose POV can be cited as their opinion.

The same thing which applies to pseudoscience and other fringe subjects applies here. If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide

Please do not revert valid, reliably sourced contributions as collateral damage in order to make a WP:POINT in a content dispute, as you did here. This is vandalism and will be reported. K7L (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

When you make so many edits and sneak consensus violating content into the mix, it's simply easier to revert to the consensus version. You are welcome to gradually reinstate edits which do not challenge or overturn the consensus arrived at in your failed attempt at a name change. BTW, please keep this discussion at the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You just unilaterally deleted a third of the article, much of it existing, validly-sourced content. So much for a "consensus version" of anything. When your vandalism was reverted, you repeated the offending edits in an attempt to make a WP:POINT despite being explicitly warned. I've taken this to WP:AIV. Don't do this again. K7L (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

1. The two reverts had nothing to do with each other. They were different types of content and I used different reasons for removing them.
2. The second revert did remove properly sourced content that had been there for some time, but it didn't belong in that article at all. It was off-topic and OR.
3. Based on those two explanations, I hope you can see that there was no POINT violation. I NEVER make POINT violations. It's childish and stupid. I have an excellent track record, in spite of editing lots of controversial stuff all the time, and I don't want to spoil that record.
4. If you had followed BRD, instead of defiantly trying to reinstate the content, we could be discussing this peacefully on the talk page and work this out. Instead you chose to edit war and do battle. That's not good. Be more patient.
5. If you had AGF and just asked, there would be no problem, but your failure to AGF, which is a serious policy violation, only creates disruption. Don't create such disruption again. Try being collaborative, instead of going to battle.
6. I've been here a heck of a lot longer than you and have much more experience here. I don't make such reverts lightly, and you really should treat other, more experienced, editors with more respect.
7. Having said that, I know I can make mistakes, and I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter on the talk page. Let's do it there.

Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of WP:BRD is that it only applies to other editors while you repeatedly remove a third of the article for unknown reasons in an edit war? Wow. I don't care how long you've been here, if you think that WP:BRD is a club with which to hit other users over the head while repeatedly re-instating your preferred version then you clearly do not understand, or choose not to understand, BRD. Unilaterally removing a third of the page was dumb, edit warring this was dumber. If you want my respect, earn it instead of disrupting to make a point. K7L (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Repeatedly"??? I made two very different reverts ONCE. You should have then started a discussion on the article's talk page. That's how BRD works. The first reverted all your BOLD edits. My REVERSION was the R in BRD. You were supposed to then start a DISCUSSION. Instead, your next edit reverted mine, which was the beginning of an edit war and I warned you to keep you from persisting and getting into trouble. Since you didn't start a discussion, but reverted my reversion, I took it back a notch to give you another chance to then start a discussion. You didn't start a discussion on the article's talk page, but you at least didn't continue an edit war. Next time do that, instead of starting lots of drama all over the place. My talk page and notice boards are not the place to do it. Follow BRD and do it on the article's talk page ALONE. Nowhere else. That's keeps things much simpler. That's how we do things here. I know this can be confusing, so let's just deal with this on the talk page. It's all spelled out very simply there, with separate sections where you can express your concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to drag me into this [1] dispute you're having with K7L. Please do not do this again and poison the well I made a mistake, owned up to it and moved along. This is my only warning. You've accused me of a lot of things lately, and are personalizing our professional differences. Diffs are adding up and both you and I don't want to see this go any further than it needs to. Thanks. Neuraxis (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about doing that, but I was only replying to K7L, who is the one who brought you into it. I would never have mentioned you if he hadn't done that. Don't worry, I have no desire to escalate this. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014

Well you know that many edits are politically or ideologically biased, and like i say that are not sourced, unnecessary edits. And that's why Rangifer. Adn1990 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow BRD and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't edit war. Your explanation doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of edit war at New Azerbaijan Party

Moved to editor's talk page since he is blocked and this doesn't belong here. I added more to the comment there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable .com sources

Where would I go to get a reading on whether the following are reliable sources:

• http://emedicine.medscape.com/
• http://www.webmd.com/
• http://www.about.com
• http://www.answers.com

there are others. I notice that these sources are cited occasionally, but they dont seem to be particularly convincing, esp answers.com and about.com doing so is equivalent to citing Wikipedia as a source, which I understand is not acceptable. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your suspicions are correct. There are differences. The first two are generally considered RS for general medical information (but not as good as reviews), but the last two are practically never considered RS, and many uses should probably be substituted with better sources; IOW, don't just delete the content, but check for RS, since the content might be okay. If there aren't any RS for that content, signal the need for assistance using a {{cn}} tag. Of course, if the content is obviously bogus or doubtful, remove it and leave a good edit summary. Be prepared to follow BRD if necessary by discussing the matter. That's my general M.O.. I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow your conscience

Dear User:BullRangifer‎, We (Saharadess, BonjourMM, TopGrad/JoeEverett and me) are all new or relatively new to wikipedia. Please follow your conscience and help us in whatever way you can (for now, with the Shang, Egger et al. clinical trial) on the Talk:Homeopathy page. I promise to follow all the rules. Thank you!—Khabboos (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)