My tenure here
editI started editing as an IP in 2003, before the English Wikipedia had 200,000 articles. My fingerprints are still in our most important policies and guidelines.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years. |
This editor is a Master Editor IV and is entitled to display this Orichalcum Editor Star. |
This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature. |
Just hold your mouse pointer over each barnstar to read each greeting.
Barnometer™ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
n00b (as IP in 2003) | involved (registered 2005-12-18) | been around | veteran | seen it all | older than the Cabal itself |
The Sitting Duck Award. | ||
Wikipedia is not a sitting duck for quacks. In recognition of your efforts the sitting duck award. JFW 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC). |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 1 | ||
Presented to BullRangifer on September 25, 2006 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. A true wikipedian! Dematt 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
The E=MC² Barnstar 1 | ||
To BullRangifer, for being a scientist in the very best meaning of the word; been proud to work with you Gleng 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer) StoptheDatabaseState 20:58, 11 December 2006
The Resilient Barnstar 1 | ||
I award the Resilient Barnstar to BullRangifer for his continual good nature and his willingness to persist in improving Wikipedia despite continual personal attacks. It's great to have you here. Maustrauser 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For pushing through trials and tribulations to become a better editor Shot info 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar 1 | ||
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland. That is a fantastic article you created there. - Angelbo 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
This notification appeared on my talk page:
This was posted on the article's talk page:
This was posted on the nominator's (MeegsC) talk page:
It was also featured for three weeks (18-20) at the Danish Portal.
The Original Barnstar 2 | ||
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
Angel Heart Barnstar | ||
This is for all the kindness and help you have given to me and others. -- CrohnieGalTalk 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar 2 | ||
I, Durova award BullRangifer the Resilient Barnstar for starting a new article that got into Template:Did you know after a hard journey through arbitration. Here's to a strong comeback! DurovaCharge! 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (Referring to Reindeer hunting in Greenland.) |
The E=mc² Barnstar 2 | ||
To BullRangifer: for fairness and knowing your stuff. Sincere thanks for all your contributions here. Jim Butler(talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For doing some great, painstaking copyediting on several articles. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
The Peace Barnstar | ||
For continued handling of contentious areas in a helpful and civil manner, and especially for the ability to find and encourage solutions to disputes. Shell babelfish 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC) |
The Content Creativity Barnstar 1 | ||
For everyone here - you've done an incredible job working hard at working together. The section is coming together without any edit wars; there've been no personal remarks and in general, everyone has been incredibly civil and helpful. This is a very impressive way to turn things around - feel free to yank this barnstar and put it in your own user space :) Shell babelfish 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 1 | ||
For your contributions to medicine and science articles, and those articles that would otherwise make claim to be such. Verbal chat 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft (cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiMedal for Janitorial Services | ||
The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services shall be awarded to User:BullRangifer for good janitorial work, shown by adding an appropriate and much-needed image to this article. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
The Surreal Barnstar | ||
Great addition to the new essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Sebwite (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 2 | ||
For your assistance in the recent Certifiedallergist case. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- See also
- User:Certifiedallergist
- Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Certifiedallergist/Archive
The Special Barnstar 1 | |
Thank you for filling me in on the information I was unaware of. It's nice to meet you. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar 2 | |
Thank you for your help with the Burzynski issue. Tow Trucker talk 03:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar 3 | |
For your tireless work on articles with WP:FRINGE problems. bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar 3 | ||
For doing good work in difficult areas! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!
Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation -- 19:15, May 4, 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar 4 | |
Thank you for your outstanding contribution WP:CREATELEAD ! Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping me deal with stalking and harassment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC) |
The Minor barnstar | |
Thank you for defending the Timeline. X1\ (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar 3 | |
For your time, patience and calmness with people, Compared to me atleast you have the patience of a saint and so I wanted to say thank you for always being so patient and calm with everyone :), Happy editing :), |
Precious | |
Flora and fauna of Greenland Thanks for quality articles such as Spinal disc herniation, Charlotte's web (cannabis), Flora and fauna of Greenland, Vis medicatrix naturae, in service from 2005, for encouragement, for changing your username to your hero, for "Let freedom ring!" You are recipient no. 2368 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar 5 | |
Just wanted to say thank you for your essay at Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, which I've find quite useful in explaining some concepts to other editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar | ||
I've never seen an editor go above and beyond to help another Wikipedian on the topic of fringe personal beliefs like you did for Stiabhna. Great stuff. ––FormalDude talk 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
The Content Creativity Barnstar 2 | ||
For advancing the state of the art. Andre🚐 01:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 2 | |
Never forget you are a valuable editor and human being, and we all would miss you if something were to befall you. so take care of yourself. Andre🚐 02:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
My articles, essays, and other creations
editArticles and other stuff
editA few of the articles I have entirely written, started, or added significant content:
- Consciousness of guilt (legal)
- Topics of the Mueller special counsel investigation
- Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions
- Hunter Biden laptop controversy
- Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections
- List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations (now merged into Steele dossier)
- Charlotte's Web (cannabis)
- Reindeer hunting in Greenland
- Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations
- Spinal disc herniation - Together with Dematt
- Joint manipulation
- Flora and fauna of Greenland
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Greenland/Greenland nature galleries
- List of osteopathic colleges
- Chiropractic treatment techniques
- Matchbox sign
- Template:ArbComPseudoscience
- Category:Vitalism
- Category:Alternative medical diagnostic methods
- Wikiproject User Rehab
- X Femmes
- The Girl on the Bridge (1951 film)
- List of Cannes Film Festival juries (Feature films)
- Wee Kirk o' the Heather (My parents were married at the one in Glendale.)
- Ancestral Quest
- Canadian Family Physician
- Manipulation
- Lucilia (wife of Lucretius)
- Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
- Vis medicatrix naturae
- Chiropractic education
- Talk:Quackwatch/Use of Quackwatch as a source
- Template:Talk abuse
- Template:Trump–Russia relations
Essays
edit- My media diet (personal essay)
- How to create and manage a good lead section (how-to guide)
- NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content (essay)
- Factors that influence article size (essay)
- Why Wikipedia documents opinions and nonsense (personal essay)
- How to increase Wikipedia's credibility (personal essay)
- WikiPurpose (personal essay)
- Short BRD (essay)
- Thoughts on sources (personal essay)
- The essence of Wikipedia (essay)
- Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here (personal essay)
- Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations (essay)
- An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (substantial contributions to this essay)
- Unidentified Flying Reindeer (humor, not essay)
A basic citation template I like to use
edit- 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
bycite news
, and usenewspaper=The Guardian
instead ofwebsite=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 typework=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]
, not justwork=[[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)
- 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
Sources
|
---|
|
What's in a name? Valjean, the hero of Les Misérables
edit-
Woodburytype of Hugo by Étienne Carjat, 1876
-
Portrait of "Cosette" by Emile Bayard, from the original edition of Les Misérables (1862)
-
Jean Valjean disguised as Monsieur Madeleine. Illustration by Gustave Brion.
-
Classics Illustrated issue #9, March 1943
"So long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use." -- Victor Hugo, preface
"To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Victor Hugo
"It is either Valjean or Javert." Grace versus the law.[1][2]
Unfold to read | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
HeroeseditJean Valjean used several pseudonyms: Monsieur Madeleine, Iltime Fauchelevent, Monsieur Leblanc, Urbain Fabre, or 24601 and 9430 prisoner numbers.
Obviously, social justice lies close to my heart. John Rawls is a renowned exponent of the principle of Justice as Fairness. Other heroes of mine: Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Victor Hugo, D. H. Lawrence, Douglas MacArthur, Adlai Stevenson, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama Username changeeditOn 14:30, March 23, 2020, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean. I have desired a username change for some time, and after some waiting, it has finally happened. Jean Valjean is the hero of Les Misérables, my favorite book, which I have read in several languages. His virtuous character is worthy of much admiration and emulation. He is portrayed as a remarkable man combining incredible physical strength with remarkable virtue. I'm also a fan of the 1980 musical. I also considered a username associated with Atticus Finch, another hero of mine, but Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean were already taken. Valjean was available, so I chose that one. I know that this is offensive to some very religious people, but if I had to choose a book to give someone, and I had to choose between the Bible and Les Misérables, I'd give them Les Misérables. The principles of honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, kindness, selflessness, simplicity, heroism, and social justice found in the Bible are portrayed in a much clearer manner in Les Misérables. Jean Valjean was completely transformed from a hardened criminal into a virtuous man by the kindness and grace of Bishop Myriel. After his fateful meeting with Myriel, Valjean modeled his own life after the character of Myriel. We all need heroes, and they should be chosen wisely. I used to own the book, CDs, and DVDs of the movie and musical in several languages. I even found an ancient 12-volume leather-bound set of Les Misérables (De Ulykkelige) and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Copenhagen, a great city for old books and cultural events, where we also saw the musical in the round Østre Gasværk Teater, with its revolving stage. A great experience. My wife and I especially loved the 2019, six-part Masterpiece Theatre adaptation:
I especially loved the DVDs for the 10th Anniversary "Dream Cast" concert at the Royal Albert Hall and the 25th Anniversary concert in The O2 Arena, but lost them, along with everything else, in the 2018 Camp Fire. After the fire, my dear daughter, who knew how much that book meant to me, gifted me a nice copy of the book. A home without any books is a sad place, so that book started my now-limited and budding collection of favorite books. All my medical textbooks, in at least five languages, are gone. I have no plans for resuming any large-scale collecting of books. I used to lug over forty, very heavy, banana boxes of books around the world whenever we moved. No more of that! Now I am picking very carefully, and Amazon, eBay, and local thrift stores and used book stores love me. My old nameedit
Concertsedit
Linksedit
Actors who have played Jean Valjean in movieseditValjean was born in 1769 and died in 1833 (aged 64) Full name: Jean Valjean Aliases: Monsieur Leblanc, Monsieur Madeleine, Ultime Fauchelevent, Urbain Fabre, Prisoner 24601, Prisoner 9430
Actors who have played Jean Valjean in the 1980 musicaledit |
Things that "Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility"
editFascinating stuff! Well worth the read.
Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience.[5]
The Four Freedoms
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. |
Notable quotes
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:MastCell/Quotes
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:MastCell/Quotes Awesome! -- Valjean (talk) PingMe 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) |
Trump's dubious relationship to truth
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts. Here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):
Trump's falsehoodsedit
As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,[2][3][4][5][6] and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"[7] because he's a "habitual liar".[8] In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".[9][10][5] Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency.[5] According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office,[2] 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post,[11] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day.[12] After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.[13] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."[14] Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."[3] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."[15] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[16] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[16] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims.[17][18][19][20] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[21][22][23] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[24] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[25] Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."[26] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".[27] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."[28] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[29][30] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York.[31] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[32] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[33] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[34] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;[35][36] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[37][38][39] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[40][41] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[42][43][44] A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".[45] The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."[46]
Fact checking TrumpeditTrump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."[52] Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."[70] As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:
|
Fox News should be deprecated
editSee the excellent information here: User:François Robere/sandbox/Fox News
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In keeping with our purpose to build (add), rather than break down (delete), the encyclopedia, we have an editing policy to follow. It's called PRESERVE. Basically it means that content and sources should be moved or tweaked, rather than deleted. Don't trash the work of editors who have, in good faith, worked hard to build Wikipedia. Find a way to use that content and the sources somewhere at Wikipedia. At the very least, park that content on the talk page where other editors might find a good way to use it. |
Opinion: How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I can hardly put it any better than David Goodman (DGG) does on his userpage:
The attempts one sometimes sees by certain skeptics to AfD quack articles are often attempts at deletionism which violate the principles of the NPOV (which does not allow censorship) and notability (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to exist here). Since fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream POV, the basic POV of the quack view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. |
Vindicated regarding AE case and Quackwatch!
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quackwatch and I have been vindicated by the Arbitration Committee:
Do I have a COI with regard to Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett? No. A shared POV is not a COI. Having sent a few emails to Barrett and received no or unpleasant responses does not create a COI. I have never had anything to do with the website, and it's been over 12 years since I had anything to do with, or any contact with, a healthfraud discussion group or Barrett. |
My short block log explained
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My short block log has some history that should be connected with it. Unfortunately it isn't possible to attach notes to a block log, so I do it here. |
Quotes. Let freedom ring!
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us
It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us
It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the
It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the
It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and
Who gives the protestor the right to burn the flag. -- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC, Marine Corps chaplain
|
Spinal manipulation research collection
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of helping to avoid duplication. If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. -- Valjean / talk |
Hope for Wikipedia as a reliable source
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following comment points out something that needs to be taken care of before Wikipedia can ever hope to be considered a reliable source by its own and other's standards:
|
What Wikipedia needs
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here's another interesting comment I found by chance. Note the significant wikilinks:
|
Some wise words: The problem with that ... (anecdotes are not evidence)
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
.. is you don't provide any sources. Anecdotes, like yours, are not evidence, nor is anything you said. Wikipedia is not about trying to determine the truth, but putting together an encyclopedia of stuff that other sources have amassed. Those who try to promote their agenda, their view, are against the NPOV which is the standard for Wikipedia articles. This is why original research is prohibited. If all the information is available, from all the credible sources, then that is the knowledge on a subject. Those who want to edit out sources, and decide what is true, rather than let the reader have all the facts, are trying to promote their view, not help build a free encyclopedia. You know who you are. Those who fight to restrict information, are the enemy of knowledge. Those who want to spin things their way, are the opposite of a NPOV. If CBS or CNN or any real News outlet does a story, and you think they are wrong, you don't get to delete the story reference. If another credible source disagrees, you put that in as a counter. I know, some idiots think they should be the arbitrators of what is allowed to be read on the Internet. They are not only stupid, they are small minded. To them, I always say, you are not the authority. You don't get to decide. Get a clue and quit trying to control information. It is not your job to censor the Internet. |
It should be easy to include reality here
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC) [13] |
An interesting compliment
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Reading a comment like this makes me feel very humble and appreciative:
|
Skeptic quotes
editBelow are a few quotes that express some of the guiding principles behind my skepticism: |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Science & EBM versus so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM)editAccording to notable skeptics and physicians like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, James Randi, Marcia Angell, Phil B. Fontanarosa, George D. Lundberg, and Stephen Barrett, the concept of "alternative" is often being misused in a misleading form of marketing, implying something that is far from the case:
Other quotes:
Skepticism, logic, and critical thinkingedit
|
My POV on NPOV
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. One must:
IOW, just tell the story without taking sides. When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately. One should:
This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV. NB: The reason that I have just labeled "truth" as "subjective & personal," is not because I don't believe some truths are objective facts, but because in controversial issues, both sides believe that their opinion is based on objectively true facts. Since "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and Wikipedia must not be used as a soapbox to "sell" various POV, then editors must stick to telling the "facts about both POV." Let the reader take sides after reading all viewpoints on the subject. In the end, readers will end up making their own decision as to what is the "truth" of the matter, and just like editors from various POV, those opinions will likely be at odds with each other. The following comment has been allowed to remain on my talk page because I think it's good:
The good doctor brings up a good point, because editors who are unwilling to "write for the enemy" are not capable of understanding or abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems. Writing for the enemy is an important mark of a good editor. There is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in a NPOV fashion just because they have a POV in real life. And everyone has a POV, now don’t they? But just as
My goal here (especially regarding chiropractic) is to contribute to the best article about chiropractic ever written. Most articles suffer from being one-sided. Skeptical articles write only from the skeptical viewpoint, and articles written by most chiropractors and associations naturally write from a promotional viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia deserves and requires much more. There is much to write about this fascinating subject, and readers should feel that they have been well-informed by the finished product. Wikipedia editors should consider it scandalous if a reader, after reading an article here, discovers totally new or unfamiliar significant information on the subject outside of Wikipedia. They should become so familiar with the subject here that they will not be surprised by, unprepared for, or unfamiliar with any issues or information outside of Wikipedia. They should be able to respond with "Duh! Didn't you know that already? I knew that because I always read Wikipedia first!" Another editor has commented:
Which inspired me to reply:
What can we conclude from all this? That the NPOV policy is not about preserving or protecting my POV, but about presenting all significant POV, which is what's required for making a great encyclopedia! |
Criticism and undue weight
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An interesting discussion found here: There is alot of debate in talk pages about handling a criticism section. I feel it is important to address this issue specifficaly. I think there needs to be a policy on how you address sections like this. --Zonerocks 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This form of "undue weight" is an inevitable result of the "notability" policy for inclusion. Some people and subjects are notable because they are notorious. This automatically results in a large amount of negative information, since most of the verifiable information from reliable sources is negative. Other information would be original research or from unacceptable sources. That's life. As long as the information is properly sourced and worded in an NPOV manner (simply presenting the POV, without advocating or attacking it), then there's no problem. For controversial subjects, with editors on both sides of the issue, this can still end up with an unbalanced article. In scientific and medical matters this is because the scientists usually have better sources and are better at presenting their arguments than the quacks, pseudoscientists, and true believers, who don't have very good sources (just anecdotes or hate sites), and whose arguments are often filled with logical fallacies. The way forward in such cases is as suggested -- to build up what's lacking, not to exercise bad faith towards other editors by deleting their hard work. Bad people or subjects should not be whitewashed by deleting valid and well-sourced information. Suppression of opposing POV is a very unwikipedian thing to do. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must allow presentation of both sides of any controversy. To leave out or suppress one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Valjean |
Alternative medicine critics
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please help develop this. Use the talk page there and notify me. |
My Wikipedia Library
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How to edit a page
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Excellent tips and tricks. |
Wikipedia:Five pillars
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
All of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be reduced to these five pillars that define Wikipedia's character:
Note This page describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. These principles predate the creation of this page. It is sometimes said that all or most policy is based upon this page, but most policy also predates the creation of this page. |
Wikipedia's principles
editThis discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How to: Help, Cite sources, Manual of Style, Style and How-to Directory, Wiki Markup, TeX, Utilities, Picture tutorial, Extended image syntax, Tables, Table help. Policies and guidelines: Policies and guidelines, verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, Assume good faith, What Wikipedia is not, Banning policy, Three revert rule.. |
Talk | Contributions | Userboxes | Gifts | Watch |
Information for "User:Valjean" Namespace Totals
This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valjean/Leftcolumn. |