User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

A citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is good practice indeed. I also like that you use some breathing space between parameters, that makes citations much easier to read and update. Let me suggest an improvement: when you cite a newspaper, replace cite web by cite news, and use newspaper=The Guardian instead of website=The Guardian. There are handy substitutes for "newspaper": you may equivalently use "magazine" or the generic "work" (which I tend to use because it's shorter and always valid). It's also nice to link to the article of the cited newspaper, such as [[The Guardian]]. Be careful that piped links in citations need to be made explicit, so that you need to type work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]], not just work=[[Time (magazine)|]]. Finally, ISO date is better practice because of the confusion that often arises between US and British ordering of months and days. Hope this helps; feel free to discard this message. — JFG talk 06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Heck no! I'm keeping this great message. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR

Please comment on Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Special discretionary sanctions

Please be aware that you are now subject to the following sanctions:

• The No Personal Comments sanction and Thicker Skin sanction outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions#No personal comments sanction

These sanctions are for the topic area of post-1932 politics for a duration of 1 year. The sanctions have been imposed based in part on your actions leading up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive239#BullRangifer and continued comments about users who had been 1-way interaction banned from you.

These sanctions are imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and will be logged here. Violations of the sanctions will trigger the enforcement procedures outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions#Enforcement: 1-week non-escalating topic ban. Note that you are extremely unlikely to be topic banned or blocked for accidental violations of the sanctions, provided you are willing to correct your own mistakes without administrative intervention. Also note that these sanctions are intended to enforce good behavioral norms that you should probably be observing anyway.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here, or directly to me. Please contact me with questions or if anything of the above is unclear. P.S. Apologies if this seems a bit out of the blue, it's something I had decided to do weeks ago but only now had the time to finish up. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)}}

• @Awilley: I'm dubious about this result of that AE discussion. IMO it was a vexatious gotcha filing, and closing it with a warning seemed unnecessary to me at the time. Opinions can vary, of course. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but would you mull over it, please? Bishonen | talk 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

Bish: You've been adminning politics for at least a couple years now. The whole area's worse and it's about to get a lot worse with the midterms. Maybe a new team with a new approach isn't the worst idea. My 2¢ 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, that's not the only reason for the sanction. One of the other reasons, that I didn't mention above, was that essay in their userspace that has been the cause of much bickering between factions, with some editors misinterpreting the essay as saying Trump supporters are unfit to edit Wikipedia. While the essay does contain some good arguments, I wanted to make sure it didn't again find its way into Article Talk space [1]. I would have very similar concerns about User:Lionelt (apparently on wikibreak) pushing that userspace scorecard purporting to show that admins on Wikipedia are biased because among other things they haven't topic banned Volunteer Marek despite him being frequently reported to administrative noticeboards. There is probably a place for material like that, but it's not on article talk pages where things work best when editors focus on content instead of each other.

Anyway, I'd like to hear from BR. If they intend to do all the stuff in the sanction anyway then the formal sanction and logging might not be necessary. ~Awilley (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, I take note of your comment: "I wanted to make sure it didn't again find its way into Article Talk space [2]." Don't worry. Even though it was a SNOW KEEP (opposition to the essay is thus against Wikipedia's interests), because the essay is very relevant to Wikipedia and accurately describes a systemic bias and constant problem (read the comments at the MfD), I don't think I've mentioned it since that diff in April. I have also revised it since then. Practically no one knows it exists or looks at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in no condition to reply right now, as I'm recovering from severe jet lag and 28 hours without sleep. At my age that's tough. I will provide this diff showing the result of the MfD on my PRIVATE essay was a Snow keep. When I'm feeling better, I'll try to reply here. I'm still in a state of shock, having discovered this on my cell phone during a moment while waiting for our baggage. Needless to say I have no idea why this appeared and what or who motivated it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Take care and get some sleep. Sorry about the shock. ~Awilley (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Knowing you, I'm sure you put some thought into this, and I'll consider your good intentions when studying what this is about. I'm sure there's some good advice in there. Can't get too much of that! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been convinced that the sanction is not necessary in this instance. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bless you. Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Did you mean to strike the whole thing or just part of it? PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All. Weird that didn't work. I guess there's a difference between <del> and <s>. ~Awilley (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with Awilley striking these sanctions. I'm fairly convinced that you would abide by them of your own accord in any case. You've always been one of the "good ones" and the incident which sparked this was very much the exception, not the rule. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)