User talk:Valjean

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Compare Wikipedias How to find word count

Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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)
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Invitation to discussion of Trump's "Grand Conspiracy" theory

[edit]

User talk:Valjean/Grand conspiracy

I welcome ideas and suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is RS and please be more specific about the Trumps Grand Conspiracy then I can investigate more formally. Apologies if my opinion offended but you did state ideas. ~2025-31061-00 (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS refers to "reliable sources". All articles must be based on them. Go to the linked page and you'll get an idea of the direction I'm going. MAGA is pushing a grand conspiracy theory that all of Trump's problems are because of a political witch hunt, that he is an innocent victim, that the Russians did not interfere in the elections to help him win, that he and his campaign did not welcome that interference with open arms, and that he did not do everything in his power to aid and abet it. The facts (RS), and even the Russians, say otherwise. They claim they helped him, that he would not have won without their help, and that he owes them. We document such conspiracy theories here, and there is a lot being written about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Moscow Trump Tower letter of intent proves Trump lied about having no business dealings with Russia so he may well be compromised by Putin ref https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-moscow-russia-investigation-giuliani-ivanka-cohen-mueller-a8690226.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com In my opinion most other things are presently just conjecture but that could change of course; but this a start for your Grand Conspiracy article as the Independent is one of the better UK legacy media outlets. ~2025-31061-00 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TALKHEADPOV

[edit]

Please find ways to make your headings more neutral per WP:TALKHEADPOV, bullet 1. Your position begins after the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Size reduction efforts should focus on presidential content"
What policy does that violate? It's a talk page heading, not article content. It doesn't violate NPOV (which does not apply in that situation) or BLP. It's not a !vote either.
Please suggest an improvement. I have no doubt you can do it, and you know I VERY highly respect your opinions. Maybe I'll better understand your point when I see an improvement demo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [2] ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That misses my primary focus which is that we should reduce the presidential content to the barest minimum required by summary style. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. This is by design per TALKHEADPOV. Editors will just have to read some of the text to know your primary focus. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense in this situation. There is nothing sensitive going on here. There is nothing offensive in that heading, and the heading should describe the content. This is bizarre. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre but true! :D Your position begins after the heading., sensitivity and offensiveness notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my dense aspie brain, but I don't get it. What does Your position begins after the heading. mean?
What is so special about this situation that the heading must not mention the focus of the content? This is new territory for me. I don't recall anyone ever citing TALKHEADPOV to me. I have had potential BLP violations in the heading mentioned, and non-neutral RfC headings mentioned, but those are very different matters than this. Editorial POV in the heading in this situation is perfectly acceptable, especially just a suggestion to focus more on presidential content. That isn't even a "POV" but a suggested topic. We normally do that with headings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TALKHEADPOV is not well-known or widely-enforced. It's still part of WP:TPG, which is the bible for talk page usage. It still represents a de facto community consensus merely by the duration of its existence.
Your position begins after the heading. means that the heading should not convey your desired goal, which is your position.
Try a BOLD edit to TALKHEADPOV and see how far you get, or raise this at WT:TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 01:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. I don't find your wording (Your position begins after the heading.) there. I do find this heading:

  • Shortcut
    Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.

Then there is a short list of four points describing what that means, and I do not violate any of those four points. I really think you are misapplying this guideline where it's not really an issue. This is creating needless complication and stymieing communication. It renders my heading meaningless. We are all trying to find a way forward and making suggestions is legitimate. My point is lost. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence at bullet 1 is: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. The subsequent bullets are additions to that, not examples of it ("for example" is conspicuously absent). An arbitrary matter of structure. Your specific view is that Size reduction efforts should focus on presidential content. I don't see how this could be any clearer. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what heading would get the "downsize presidential content" across? Please suggest something. I am literally afraid to try anything. If you were some jerk, this would be easier for me because I wouldn't care about your feelings, but because I respect and admire you so much, I fear disappointing you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what heading would get the "downsize presidential content" across? None. That's the point. Editors have to read some of the text. If an editor can't be bothered to do that, they probably don't have much to contribute anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach seems to ignore another point there: "Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed:" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't go to WT:TPG for other opinions, I'm at my DGAF point on this issue. You may have worn me out. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 06:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. However, until we get on the same page, this will continue to be an issue if you hang around that article much. I won't do it any different the next time. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 07:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump process

[edit]

Re: [3]

No, you can't require prior discussion before a bold edit, as I said. The exception is when the bold edit violates an existing consensus, which Bill's did not do. All other reasoning is irrelevant here, and I hope we won't make this another Valjean issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I also said, you can challenge with a different rationale, just not that one. Something more than a simple "I disagree", please. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning the first time, but I then invoked BRD. Regardless of my reasoning, BRD was still in play the first time, so an admonition to use a better edit summary would have been enough, rather than reverting my revert of his bold deletion. So...I agree with your first edit summary about my edit summary. I should not have said that, but my revert of his bold edit was still good.
He is also violating his topic ban. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying that "I invoke BRD" is sufficient rationale for a revert? It isn't. All challenges invoke BRD whether you actually state that or not. It's an implied part of process at that article, which is strict BRD per ArbCom. Any topic ban considerations are separate from this point, which affects far more than Bill Williams. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with any local consensus, you can propose a change to consensus 43, using whatever reasoning you want. I would be there to oppose the proposal. Until the change passes, #43 remains in full effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Valjean made false accusations of me violating my topic ban in his edit summary, the Donald Trump talk page, and here is quite astonishing. Not once did he come to my talk page to ask me, to which I would have immediately said that my topic ban was lifted almost 5 years ago. This is in addition to him unjustifiably reverting my edits. Bill Williams 04:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, I did not know your topic ban was lifted, so I retract what I said. Sorry about that. There was nothing in the block log to indicate the topic ban had been lifted.
As far as my revert goes, I recognize that you have a right to make a BOLD edit, in this case a deletion, but you need to recognize that I also have a right to REVERT your edit because I disagree with it. That is in harmony with "consensus 43". Mandruss, it does not need to be changed, and Bill, you need to respect BRD by not claiming my reverts were "unjustified". BRD is a legitimate process we use to avoid edit wars and stop heavy-handed, undiscussed, destruction of content. Such changes should be discussed, so we are at the "D" in BRD. That is no surprise or unusual. This is normal, collaborative, editing.
Per "consensus 43", I had just as much of a right to boldly revert your bold deletion as you had to make it. Now the ball is in your court, so start a discussion on the talk page and argue for why you should be allowed to violate PRESERVE by simply deleting large swaths of content without expecting anyone else to disagree with you.
What did you expect would happen? Seriously. In what world can an editor do such a thing and not expect to get some pushback? You have been around here long enough to know it would happen, so why are you acting shocked and surprised? Instead, play by the rules of the game and argue for your position. Convince other editors. We will listen. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per "consensus 43", I had just as much of a right to boldly revert your bold deletion as you had to make it. Not with a rationale like "I disagree" or "I am invoking BRD", or (per #43) "Not discussed". Those are not rationales for challenge, not at that article anyway. This is how it's worked there for years. Watch Space4T and see how he challenges. He does it right. I also do it right, on the rare occasions I challenge political content. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 07:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Consensus 43. I had forgotten that previous discussion is not a requirement for a BOLD edit. Therefore, my reasoning and edit summary were not good. I took your comment to heart, so when I redid my revert, I stated why I disagreed with the huge deletions while also citing BRD. I disagreed with those huge deletions that violate PRESERVE. If that content is found elsewhere at Wikipedia, then removing it from the Trump article might be okay (if there wasn't the appearance of whitewashing based on Bill's complaints about negative content. Trump should not have entered politics if he wanted to avoid negative coverage.).
I also mentioned the topic ban, but I was apparently in error as I did not know it had been lifted. (I will go and strike my "topic ban" comments now.) The spirit of the topic ban lives on, so Bill needs to be careful to not repeat the types of actions that got him topic banned in the first place, and it appears to me he is doing just that. He shouldn't get anywhere near such behaviors.
Can we move on now and just discuss the matters (rather than the editor) on the talk page, instead of focusing on process? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There was nothing in the block log to indicate the topic ban had been lifted." Why were you looking at my block log in the first place to find ways to personally attack me? It's pathetic, and you still haven't removed your comments from the Donald Trump talk page. Secondly, as I said in the Donald Trump talk page, you are the one violating WP:PRESERVE. It recommends that editors transfer bloated or unnecessary content to other articles instead, which is exactly what has happened for the Donald Trump article. Everything that I've deleted is in his second presidency article or even more specific articles on his second presidency actions. Bill Williams 13:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that content is found in other articles, then that is a good reason for deletion as we are trying to reduce the size of this article. So try that as an edit summary and I won't object. Deleting content because you don't like negative content about Trump is a horrible reason for deletion. We do not allow whitewashing or OTHERTHINGS arguments here. Avoid that type of thinking and you'll do much better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that in this case, the "OTHERTHINGS" are every other article. No article across the entirety of Wikipedia is as bloated as Trump's. It's a serious problem that requires cutting lots of content. And much of that content is only included because it's negative about Trump, even if it's negligible compared to his entire life and presidencies. Bill Williams 22:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have various options available for size reduction, and we should start with those areas which are obviously unnecessary and bloated, and that is the presidential content. Take a look at my User:Valjean/sandbox/Trumpsizetest: Revision history.

Instead of making small and controversial attempts to reduce size, why not do something that really counts immediately? The presidential content is the motherlode of "too much in the wrong place", and that is not controversial at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations

[edit]

Do not claim "Please respect your topic ban" to me again. It's completely inappropriate to bring up a topic ban that hasn't been in effect for 5+ years. Bill Williams 04:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If true, Valjean, that's a lot of egg on face that calls for apology. You've been around too long for a mistake like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss- Valjean made this false accusation in three separate places: a Donald Trump edit summary, Valjean's own talk page, and the Donald Trump talk page. As I mentioned in the Donald Trump talk page, the last mention of my topic ban was almost 5 years ago: ""Let's just consider the sanction rescinded and see how you do from here on out. Good luck! Best, El_C 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]"[reply]
Additionally, if you want the full discussion:
"@El C: I am currently subject to the editing restricts in the message "You are now prohibited from reverting without gaining consensus first (excluding obvious vandalism), are topic banned from American politics and abortion, and may only use an individual article talk pages once per day. Subject to appeal in 3 months. Finding a mentor is advised but is not mandatory. Good luck. El_C 17:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)" and I was unblocked on November 23 of 2020, so it has been three months since then. Am I now allowed to appeal my editing restrictions? I haven't felt like editing much since I'm always scared that I will accidentally violate them, and I don't want that mistake to be possible in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Bill. But don't bother appealing. Let's just consider the sanction rescinded and see how you do from here on out. Good luck! Best, El_C 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Bill Williams (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, Bill. But remember, sanctions can be re-imposed as easily as they're rescinded — please don't make me send Buck Flower after you. He is not nearly as gentle as yours truly. El_C 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, if an edit of mine is rejected, I wont start an edit war like I did on some occasions in the past. Bill Williams (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)"
Since that discussion with El C in 2021, I have engaged in zero edit wars. I have disagreed with editors multiple times, but I have never broken Wikipedia's rules while doing so. It's unacceptable for Valjean to attack me for my mistakes almost 5 years ago. Bill Williams 05:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, with a sincere apology and any necessary corrective action, we can put this behind us. I know Valjean and assume his good faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDC on vaccines and autism

[edit]

Here is RFK Jr's anti-science push. He's determined to bomb us back to the dark ages and let epidemics become our daily reality, killing and maiming mostly children. The rest of the world is looking at this in horror. There may well come a time when they will have to quarantine America and not allow Americans to visit their countries.

Those are not just misleading statements but gross and dangerous lies. The CDC website is no longer a reliable source for information on the topics of vaccines and autism. America is no longer a world leader in this area.

A couple responses:

This is a sad day. We will have to revise our evaluation of the CDC website and classify it as an unreliable source on this topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CDC_revises_stance_on_vaccines_and_autism -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]