This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Good morning. Technophant (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user that you have interacted with in the past, has requested restoration of his talk page & email privileges. You might want to chime in, for or against, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Standard_offer_for_Technophant. Cheers, HiDrNick! 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to counter your reversion, I was attempting to reposition and cite a source. My source is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1612580, which includes the following in the Abstract: "Fetal and adult nasal mucosa showed a pattern of immunohistochemical staining almost identical to that of CCs." Is that a legitimate and sufficient source?DaBunny42 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You can give it a try, but the part about "in contrast" is considered OR editorializing. Let the reader make the connection. You could just state that Carson has used fetal tissue in his research. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, An unintended consequence of your edit (which otherwise was an improvement) is that it now suggests that Bell neglected to seek parental consent for a septic abortion. I don't have time at this moment to figure out and implement a fix, hence this message. Best, --JBL (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, in commenting at AfD, I noticed this snippet:

• Well, if CMP is only notable for their role in this controversy, then it should not have its own article, per WP:INHERITORG. StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:StAnselm has a point. The solution would be to merge relevant CMP content here and delete the CMP article. This is all they are known for. They are self-admittedly a bogus organization created only for this purpose, so the hollows out any claim to independent notability. But, let's get this article accepted first and then deal with this idea in a later RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are saying that, correct me if I'm wrong:

• #1. CMP is only wiki-notable because of PPUVC (likely true as of July 2015... but perhaps not in 2016 should they initiate another sting ... cf the Long Action group, which Dadelian also worked for, that had a series of stings)
• #2. therefore a merge is prolly needed (Binksternet and myself say PPUVC -->> CMP ... you say CMP -->> PPUVC ... but generally we agree about the merge being correct even if we differ on directionality)
• #3. then you say, that CMP is a bogus org, created only for this sting.

My understanding is that CMP is not the bogus org; CMP created bogus org Biomax Procurement Services (redirects to CMP article) aka BPS for the sting. Now, that said, I'm not deeply involved with the gory details... so it could also be the case, that BPS was a bogus org, to be retired after the 2015 sting, and also the case that the parent-group CMP was itself another bogus org, and will itself be retired now that the 2015 sting via bogus-subsidiary BPS has finished.

  I'm guessing you probably know the answer to my confusion, so I came here to suggest that you clarify your AfD comment of 06:13, 10 August, to either specify that not just BPS but also CMP was a bogus org, or alternatively, correct your comment to reflect that although BPS was a bogus subsidiary-org of CMP that will be retired after this one sting event, parent-group CMP itself (in cooperation with OperationRescue), might / is expected / will probably not / whatever-the-truth-is, continue to exist. Or perhaps there are third/fourth/etc possibilities, which I failed to detect; in any case, I found your bogus-org comment confusing, since I thought BPS was bogus but CMP was likely to stick around, so others at AfD might also be confused. (Or maybe it is just me.  :-)     Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Thanks for the notification Slakr. I of course know about this. Was there any special concern about my editing which motivated this? I certainly don't want to run afoul of any policy or guideline. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope; I was just going down the recent edits to Planned Parenthood leading up to and/or including the current dispute(s) that got the page protected. I think I stopped at around early August, and you just happened to have also edited something about abortion on that page. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Slakr: All good, but note that there are a range of articles on the topic of abortion - it would be helpful for the people you template to explain why you are notifying them (eg which article in question you're looking at). -- Callinus (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that would be ICD-9 293.000000000000000000000000000001. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

LMAO! Good one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "I will take your advice seriously and will try to back off." in WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (21:07, 28 August 2015). I suggest as part of that disengagement you collapse (with {{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}}) the rest of the posting (with the exception of you signature after the initial paragraph):

"Oppose (This is a withdrawal of previous support.) ... Now I regret doing do." collapse top|some suitable bland neutral comment}}

and that you do the same for the second posting (collapse it after the initial paragraph with the exception of your signature):

"There is definitely no consensus ... You have really shot yourself in the foot." collapse top|some suitable bland neutral comment}}

This will give a visual indication that you have heeded Adjwilley point and P-123's concerns. PS. This is advise from an experienced editor not an administrator. -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS It's not working. It collapses everything afterwards. I'm not sure what to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}} before you signature. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did. I've never seen it do that before. I also tried {{hat}} and {{hab}}, and they didn't work either. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, well. As you can see, the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} sometimes behave very strangely. This is the first time I have seen this at WP:ANI, but I have seen it before at WP:DRN and in other places. Robert McClenon 16:10, August 29, 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes, it's odd. It usually works fine, and I'm willing to follow PBS's suggestion.

Someone should get Technophant to also withdraw (by hatting or striking, not removing) his IBAN request, and forbid him from repeating his libelous accusations against me. I have not issued any death threat against him. He is perseverating again. That's a serious BLP violation against another editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is getting anyone to do anything, (besides Technophant has caused enough problems already with refactoring his comments this month). Other editors can judge if what he says is valid or not (and implying BLP is OTT). -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically agree, except for the BLP issue. It does apply to editors (all living people). -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Catch 22: Threatening legal action (to prove and enforce the reason for BLP) also applies and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS, of course. I would never make a legal threat here. I've been here since about 2003 and know all about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a hack (and uses a smaller font, centres the text and I've added coolour using a style extension) but it is a work around, if you decide to use it. But if you think it looks bad then don't use it. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS, darn, that didn't work either. I'm no whiz at this type of thing. Maybe someone can suggest another solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Try putting {{collapse bottom}} at the beginning of a new line. (Make a hard return first.) Having it in the middle of a paragraph seems to screw it up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Adjwilley, it works! Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kim Davis (county clerk). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

He is good at playing the guitar and has a cute cat. 208.54.70.204 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors must not exercise prior censorship, they must document opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"^[1][2] and censorship seriously undermines that goal. Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but is often about political correctness and suppression of political points of view (think China, North Korea, the USA, and Iran), and, although we oppose it, we do see censorship at Wikipedia. It is extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic.

To illustrate how this works, let us look at a notable example. The Koch brothers are well known to have a fetish for secrecy and self-concealment, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities.^[3] Their activities are not limited to manipulation of the media, politicians, and legislation to favor their polluting activities. In 2011 they were caught red handed using employees of a public relations firm as sock puppets to whitewash their reputations at Wikipedia.^[4]

Since the mainstream media is increasingly controlled by very few people and companies, and Fox News sides with the Koch brothers, mainstream coverage of their activities is very limited because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. This severely limits the number of reliable sources which editors can use for documentation of these activities.

This lack of information from mainstream media sources places editors in a quandary. What should they do? Should they just accept a hole in our coverage of "the sum total of human knowledge" created by this censorship from powerful individuals and corporations, or should they use other sources? Fortunately we still have a somewhat free press, and other types of sources do exist. They are often activists and subject experts who work independently of the larger media.

WP:PARITY is designed to help this situation. Why? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject, in this case because of successful media censorship, editors must use other reliable sources from the opposing side, usually partisan activist individuals and organizations whose points of view and criticisms can be cited as their opinions.

The same principles which apply to dealing with pseudoscience and other fringe subjects apply here. If we don't use PARITY to help us cover the activities of powerful and secretive entities, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Wikipedia must not become an accomplice to such deviousness. Even though some editors constantly defend them, their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one man, one vote) does not work in their favor,^[5] so they are constantly using their wealth to subvert democracy, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them.

OK, probably a good call there[1]. Still, kinda weird not to use a photo of the person as the lead photo. Lemme search to see if the is a free alternative anywhere. Darx9url (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand you. It is weird, but we've been over this ground many times and a strong consensus exists. You didn't know that. Please find a more neutral image. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you let me know why you decided to take it upon yourself to hide my comment at the Kim Davis talkpage? What policy justifies such an action? AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You must be talking about this one. Do you think your comment was helpful in that thread? It was a general gripe, and did not contribute to the RfC, so it was a violation of WP:TPG. We often delete such comments. Instead I just hatted it. It can still be read, but this way it won't interrupt the flow of constructive comments or get people off topic. At best it was off-topic, and at worst it was a policy violation. Our article talk pages are not a forum for such complaints. If you rephrase it in a more constructive manner, with suggestions for article improvement, then start a new thread with such a comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are actually agreeing with me. Yes, they are symptoms of many other ailments. However, if you believe these are vague and nonspecific symptoms, then the correct course of action would be to edit every other medical condition to include vague and nonspecific. Otherwise, you are creating a double standard. I wasted 15 min trying to find a username (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I recognize your point and have included it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making edits against consensus, like you've been doing at Carly Fiorina. The consensus at the talk was clearly in favor of the removal of the quotes and statements by Sonnenfeld. Just because certain content is "excellent" does not mean it can stay even if there is consensus against its inclusion. Frankly, I'm disappointed, someone who's been here as long as you have should know this. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You should know that 5-3 5-4 is not a consensus, it's a simple majority that is not conclusive. In a borderline case like that, more input should be sought from outside editors, usually by using an RfC. I have added a comment to that section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, Just a quick note to let you know that I've undone your changes at WP:NOR, w.r.t "sentence" v "paragraph". I see the underlying reasoning, and agree that the current text might be somewhat confusing, but don't see that changing to "sentence" is less confusing; given that the SYNTH example contains multiple sentences. Hope this makes sense. If not, please let me know. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, thanks so much for catching that goof up! I must have been tired. I may try to tweak some other wording or the format to make it clearer that the first instance of "paragraph" refers to both of the following paragraphs. I'll take a look. Please watch my edits there and correct them if I don't get it right. I'll appreciate it. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I'm done with several changes which should make it easier to understand, and make it even clearer that it's improper editorial synthesis we don't allow. We love synthesis performed by other authors in RS, and we use it gladly. Let me know what you think. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, and definitely clearer. The only suggestion I could make is minor - change the "the"s to "this"es; e.g. "This first sentence...". I also concur that we love synthesis performed outside Wikipedia, but see that that section has now been removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I undid some of your edits to Liberty Counsel. The capitalization would only be correct if the wording was like, "Chairman Staver did x," or, "the media said President Staver x." The title on its own should be lowercase. Thanks π♂101 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought I'd pass this along: while you are technically correct, pages in all browsers I've tried so far work with or without the "default spacing". If a user—you, me, or anyone else—were to edit-war over it, sanctions would most certainly follow. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit war over it, and I hope you don't do it by reverting me. We should try to help each other here.

How a browser behaves has nothing to do with it. It's just a help to editors while editing, especially those with poor eyesight. If you open an article in editing mode and scan the article, looking for a particular heading, or all headings, it's much easier to find them when they don't blend together with section content, as they do when there are no blank lines. The default spacings also include a blank space immediately before and after the words in each heading, but that's not an issue that makes a difference, at least not to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No reverts from me; it's why I brought it here. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. It's appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be difficult to actually effect any real change in a guideline, and even more difficult in a policy. I have made changes to NPOV and other policies and guidelines which have survived for many years, but this one isn't worth the bother. "Merit" is a subjective word. It could make a huge difference in my editing experience, but if other editors don't consider that as important, then no change will happen, regardless of the merit to me. I can't force others to walk in my shoes, and my vision is probably a lot better than many other editors. I'm almost 65 and use progressive glasses with relatively low strength, but by the time my father reached 100, he had lost one eye to glaucoma and was legally blind. His father reached 101, and his father's brother also 100. I could have another 35 years ahead of me, and my eyesight is very important to me! -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This reasoning assumes that the Wikipedia community is a collection of individuals who can't see beyond their own noses and care only about their own experience. That is contradicted by all the attention we give to accessibility issues. I find it maddening sometimes. If you have an accessibility case, it shouldn't be hard to sell on those grounds. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with boldly trying this edit in the occasional article, provided you don't re-revert. It looks like that's what happened in this case, and the talk page discussion was premature and unnecessary. In an ideal world, it would be made clear that the discussion burden rests with the editor who wishes to make the disputed edit. If that editor doesn't care enough to open the discussion, it's a simple BR and out. Unfortunately, there is no community will to make things that simple, so we end up with a lot of unnecessary confusion and conflict. It's the Wikipedia Way. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point. There really are a lot of great and thoughtful people here. I sometimes forget that because I edit lots of controversial articles. Warriors, trolls, and sock puppets tend to flock there, and some are pretty nasty. Thanks for bringing me back to the bigger picture! Maybe I should try to suggest a slight change of wording at MoS. I have nothing to lose by trying, and maybe some of those nice people will read what I write there. I'll think about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bull, are y'all chatting about putting a line-break before and after headings? Checkingfax (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, it appears that there is no merit in improving the editing experience. It's only what the article looks like to readers that counts. Where are those nice editors when you need them? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. Although the project is about accessibility for readers, that would be the highest concentration of editors likely to be sympathetic to your cause. If they aren't, I'd be interested to hear their reasons. I wouldn't give you better than 50/50, but it's a better shot than the one you took. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Even though you may not see much merit in this, I do appreciate your helpful spirit. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually some resistance might reasonably come from fear of the slippery slope. There are many things in editing that are hard to read, and if we start down that road where does it end? Also editors with such issues can always choose to learn VE. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What's VE? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever since I learned WordPerfect, I've always worked directly with the HTML code in the editing window. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Bull, when I have the time I like to put a line break before and after each heading, template, or image. They do not render. However, don't add a line-break before a no-include in a template as that line break will render in to all the pages that transclude that templete. I got hooked on this add line breaks option after reading WP:MOSHEADINGS. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's good to know, although my concern is only related to articles and talk pages. On talk pages, if one uses the "new section" tab, it happens automatically, but that formatting isn't carried over into articles because there is no "new section" tab, and editors don't realize that the default blank line under the section heading makes it easier for many editors to edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

One more tidbit: BG19bot is a bot that strips out extra line breaks below headings when the bot is performing more vital maintenance. I brought it to the bot owners attention, that the bot was stripping out purposefully inserted line breaks but got no traction with changing the bots behavior. At one point I was told to take it up with the AWB team. Sigh. Checkingfax (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A user going by the name hampsterlichios (spelling) keeps deleting your edit about Cosby not being a person who has been accused of serial rape. I do not know how to make him stop deleting it, so i asked you to look into it. You can see his revisions in the history of that page as well as he staryed a new discussion, i think this matter should be closed per your addition and reverted back to it. If you can't, i understand. You can delete this post here on your talk page as i want to get this matter resolved once and for all if possible. Thanks. Wwdamron (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I left a couple comments for him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for publishing WP:CREATELEAD ; I understand it was published a couple of years ago. It is immensely helpful. I see it has been nominated to be linked from the MOS:LEAD page . Once again, my appreciation for helping to make Wikipedia better.--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalie! -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 06:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the essay. It is very well done and documents wisdom. Hugh (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hugh. Much appreciated. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your outstanding contribution! Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! That's very kind of you. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 07:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Carly Fiorina/Summary sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2, thanks for the notification. Go ahead and delete it. It was a mistake. Just KEEP the talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 16:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I updated the boilerplate of the {{lead extra info}} maintenance template to more accurately reflect my understanding of what it means to have a lead that includes information that does not appear in the body of an article. See this diff. Your thoughts? PS: I added a non-breaking space between the name and the talk portion of my signature so my signature does not wrap on to two lines between the two sections of my new signature. I have no way to prevent the date/time from wrapping. How's your header line feed suggestion going at MOS? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I have now tweaked my sig after your good suggestions. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I would leave out the last part ("or it should be removed from the article.") If it's good enough for the lead, it should be kept, but also included in the body. It should not be discarded. See WP:PRESERVE. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:OpenIndiana. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Central discussion has started; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought we were having a civil and productive talk page discussion, when seemingly out of the blue you started to lob personal attacks my way. Writing that "spouting off your ignorance is pitiful" is not constructive. I would appreciate it if you redacted the personal attacks you directed at me and I hope that you will focus on content in the future rather than resorting to personal jabs. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, when you reveal gross ignorance of American political terminology, I'll call you out on it. You can help by providing some clues about why you are having trouble understanding this. It's a basic language matter, and not one of opinion. Either try to clarify things better, or don't edit matters of which you are ignorant. There is still plenty good you could do in the article and elsewhere, but just stay out of discussions when you are speaking from ignorance. That's simple wisdom. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to hear me the first time, I'll ask you one more time: please stop making personal attacks against me. It's not productive. Insulting my reading comprehension is not going to help us improve the encyclopedia. If you truly believe you're on the right side of a content dispute, there's no reason to resort to personal attacks and to insulting the intelligence of other editors. You should be able to convince others solely on the merits of your arguments, not on your ability to attack other editors. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I did try reasoning, several times, and you obviously don't understand American political terminology. Why?

The reason I mentioned your lack of reading comprehension is because you obviously hadn't read the answers I had supplied before you commented. A discussion is supposed to build toward a conclusion of some sort: The first person says this, the second provides an answer, the first person refines their next response based on that answer, etc.. You aren't doing that. You are ignoring replies and just commenting. That's WP:IDHT behavior, which is very disruptive and raises questions about a lack of competence. Don't comment until you have read the previous comments, and then reply to them, don't ignore them and just repeat what you have previously said. That's not working. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like for you to stop rewriting the history of the discussion that has been had in the Bill Cosby talk page. It is very dishonest to create new sections between existing sections and move different editors' comments around to suit your point of view. If you would like to say something, create a new section and say it. Don't hijack other editor's discussions and move the comments around and place them out of order. I don't understand why you are doing this? Why are you so passionate about this topic to the point that you would do such a harmful thing? I think we all just want the article to be better, but there is no need to play games like this. We all have the same goal. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who did that. I did add a heading to make it clear that there had been a change of subject. I don't recall changing the order of people's comments. Where did I do that? If I violated WP:REFACTOR, it wasn't intended. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I checked when I saw Hamster's comment earlier. You haven't violated WP:REFACTOR. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's good. I would never do it intentionally. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 18:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh My. I just had a flash of what your new sig does! That snuck up on me. Props indeed. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you copy and paste it, I get pinged. Thanks to CheckingFax. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, an examination of your editing history is very damning. You falsely accuse me of something I have not done, and then you immediately proceeded to alter my heading, and then totally reversed the order of talk page sections, placing them in the opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. You thus refused to accept and participate in the existing discussion, and hijacked it.

Your change of heading was done even after I had warned you for doing it before. You also created an improperly formed and non-neutral RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored, but you have wasted a lot of our time. We had a consensus until your disruption occurred.

It's not my fault that you acted without reading or comprehending what had been discussed. You just ignored it, plowed forward, massively forum shopped on BLP/N and a long list of talk pages (I had to explain it to each of them!), and you also had the nerve to repeatedly falsely accuse me. WTF?? What kind of awful person are you?

This is massive IDHT behavior, and you should be blocked for this. If you so much as utter a peep in defense of your horrible behavior, I'll make all this the subject of an RfC/U and get you blocked, topic banned, and maybe indef banned. Your only recourse is to apologize and retreat from this whole topic. You have disqualified yourself from this topic. Don't touch the Bill Cosby article or talk page. If you do, the RfC/U will hammer you into the ground. That's a promise. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The only editing I did was to revert your WP:REFACTOR edits. You squeezed a new section between two existing ones so I moved it to the end. Check the history. Finally, you seem to be an incredibly aggressive editor making threats to everyone who disagrees with you. You are driving good editors away from editing and improving articles. You are harming Wikipedia. Please stop. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I only added a heading because the discussion was changing topic. You, OTOH, actually started an RfC and then moved the whole section up above the existing sections. You did what you had falsely accused me of doing.

Why do you speak before reading what has been written about this above? The diffs are right there. Use them! Others were also telling you to stop it.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. If English isn't your mother tongue, that would explain part of the problem, but it doesn't excuse your repeated failures to abide by the existing consensus or read explanations before acting or writing. Your forum shopping was also wrong. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 18:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, you keep repeating a false claim, so I'm going to assume you don't know how the timestamps with the comments and the page history show your version to be false. Let's get specific. You keep repeating the following false claim in various places:

• "You squeezed a new section between two existing ones so I moved it to the end. Check the history."

I have obviously checked the history some time ago and shown, with use of diffs, that YOU are the one who did that type of thing, not me.

Now prove, using diffs, that your claim is true, or retract it. To make sure you get this message, I'm going to copy it to your talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hamster still refuses to provide evidence to prove his false claims. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Already as far back as October 7, problems with Hamster's editing were noted above on my talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, your reversion of my strikethroughs creates a problem. I would rather avoid taking Hamster through an RfC/U and getting them blocked and topic banned, but your action may force that to happen. That would waste even more time.

BLP applies to editors too. Unsourced negative claims MUST be removed! This isn't a mere difference of opinion. It is very disruptive actions I am protesting, and they are compounded by repeated and strong lies. Proven lies are often stricken or even totally blanked as libelous. I took the quickest option by simply striking the lies, not removing or changing them. This is standard practice. Complete blanking of the history would be problematic, because that would completely remove the evidence of their wrongdoing. I don't want that.

Please don't inject yourself into this, thus becoming an accessory to the problem. By doing so, you do not simplify the matter, but inflame it. You are assuming bad faith in me and assuming Hamster is innocent by choosing to side with someone who repeatedly lies about me and refuses (see their talk page) to provide any evidence of my supposed wrongdoing.

Please reverse your edit and stay out of this. I don't want to drag you into this. You need to keep your record clean. If you don't revert, you will become part of the RfC/U. Don't force me to do that. I have nothing against you.

There is a vast difference between trying to clear my name (my accusation against Hamster) and their disruptive behavior and repetition of lies. I have provided clear evidence of their disruption (using diffs) and lies (the strikethroughs), but they refuse to back up their false claims against me (see their talk). You really need to examine the diffs I have provided. If you have any trouble understanding them, I'll happily explain, and if necessary can provide diffs of other editors siding with me against Hamster's actions. I'm all for openness and clearing this up, unlike Hamster.

If you really want to help, then side with the other editors who have told Hamster to quit their disruption. I'm not the only one protesting their actions, but I'm the one Hamster has repeatedly attacked in various venues and lied about. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, BLP applies to editors too. Criticizing other editors' behavior during a protracted dispute does not constitute a BLP violation, just because the editor does not consider the critique to be well founded. You need to drop the stick and find something more producitve to do with your own and other editors' time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is not about content. It is about editor behavior. If you don't look at my diffs documenting their lies, why are you even getting involved by taking sides? That's not wise. Differences of opinion about content are fine, but what Hamster has done to me is not okay. It must be rectified. Please help by appealing to them to provide some evidence. They refuse to provide even a single diff.
• ·maunus, look at this diff and tell me what you see (it's not as simple as it looks!): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Cosby&diff=prev&oldid=687883598 -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus has made some extremely poorly thought edits clearly out of line with the talkpage policy. That does not however mean that you get to do the same. The wise thing to do in such a case is to step back and let uninvolved editors and/or administrators handle the problematic conduct. For you to try to police this on your own a user with whom you are in a heated dispute does not lead to anything but escalation and disruption.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, I sincerely appreciate your efforts in cooling down this situation. I also think that it doesn't help improve any article. I want to avoid engaging with User:BullRangifer as it's clear from his talk page that other editors trying to reason with him end up in an escalating altercation. I just wanted to say one thing about this (I hate having to defend myself as this is exactly what he wants): That edit that BullRangifer is quoting is me trying to revert what he did. If you want to understand what really happened, just look through the history to see the order of events. That is all I will say. Let's just go back to improving wikipedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, thanks for at least admitting that he did some bad things, but your victim blaming is not helpful. You have no evidence I have done "the same", ergo, I did not change the order of content or sections on any page, as accused, nor did I shut down discussion. It is Hamster who reordered content and sections so they were out of chronological order in an effort to hijack an existing discussion, rather than participating in it. I proved it with diffs, but he still won't admit he did it, and won't prove that his accusation against me is true. Where is the proof I changed the order of sections? It doesn't exist!

Does this seem like a just situation to you? Here are more personal attacks, but still no evidence provided for the charges he has made above. When will this end? It's apparently hopeless dealing with such a delusional and dishonest person.

To maintain my sanity, I'm going to take the high road by not replying there. I now see that you have no sense of fairness, so I hope that other editors will deal properly with him for his dastardly actions and not allow such lies remain without being stricken, which would normally be done. They violate TPG. I'll seek justice in other ways. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer your version. That said, it looks to me like littleolive oil is editing in good faith, and is here to improve the encyclopedia. As such, your edit comment is a little uncalled for. It's just a difference in opinion about the tone of voice to take, not about policy content. FYI, littleolive oil is taking the issue to WP:NPV/N. Regards LK (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

??? Did I insult them or something? Definitely unintentional. I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 13:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

LK, I have seen that NPV/N thread. They were all having a very good discussion. I discovered it quite late and left one comment. I have no doubt about Littleolive's good intentions.

In my first reply to you above, I misunderstood your mention of "edit comment". I see you meant "edit summary", and you are probably thinking of this: "Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV." Yes, that was poorly worded. I didn't mean that Littleolive was doing it, but that their edit would tend to enable those who do it. I'll ping Littleolive oil so they can come here and see this conversation. I totally apologize to them for that poorly worded comment. They are definitely acting in good faith. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please create this account (using Special:CreateAccount or by logging out first) before having its userpage locked. As long as it is possible for someone else to create an account under this name, its userpage should not be locked. —Kusma (t·c) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that I can't log in. It is apparently owned by someone else. Very odd situation. I guess I'll have to get creative. In that case, please also blank the talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 22:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Kusma, I have created another solution located here: User:BullRangifer/User:Censorship. Please permanently protect that page. Then it can be linked to in this fashion: User:Censorship. (For a redlinked user, he sure has a lot of edits! Thanks. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Kusma (t·c) 22:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

subscription=

via=

These are now needed for citations that derive from subscription sources, but can be included in your generic sample. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, I noted you add a reference to my biography article. Thanks! If you are interested in improving the article further, I have a WP page with dozens of sourced factoids and references that could easily be ported over. -Reagle (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reagle, I'll take a look at it. I assume that the reason it hasn't happened yet is because you are very conscious of your COI. Very wise. I found and used your WP NPOV article as an External link in an essay I'm working on: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. I'm nearly ready to go public with it. I would appreciate your thoughts about it on the talk page there. BTW, is the semicolon in the title proper punctuation? I'm American, but have lived in Europe for so many years that I'm a bit "language confused", so my punctuation rules are bit rusty. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct on the COI, and I'll look at it ASAP. I think semicolon is fine; OWL is a great resource on stuff like that. -Reagle (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. They have a great website which I've used quite a bit. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed two templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays/Templates, and would appreciate comments. Because no one seems to have noticed, I have chosen to notify several editors who have edited the project page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left comments. I like the personal essay one, though not the standard essay one. Thanks for having a go at making them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To run your usual fine bare URL repair scripts at Brighton Beach, it would do a world of good. Thanks. Note, in not being sure how much of your work was manual versus script, I converted near-bare-URLs to fully bare URLs, to make this easier on you. Let me know here if this is not necessary in future. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I do it all by hand. It's very time-consuming, so I only do it where I'm already involved. If there's a better way, teach me how. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are tools to automate this process, such as Refill and Yadkard. It would make your work a lot easier. ;) epic genius (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bull. Article still needs work if you have time, and I am looking into better ways as well, but @Epicgenius: seems well-informed on this. WIll look to his tech suggestions. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your recent comment and absolutely agree with you. I've had their talk page watchlisted since notification of this ANI discussion. I'm amazed no one has indeffed yet. I mean, look at that. If Realskeptic deletes your latest comment, I suggest bringing this to ANI (or I can, if you don't want to deal with that forum). His/her block ends tomorrow and I'm afraid the disruption will resume. APK whisper in my ear 05:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

APK, what almost bothers me the most about this is that we have so few courageous admins. Discretionary sanctions gives a strong permission to block/ban/whatever, without any complicated processes or discussions, yet few actually do it. They should. It's like a prior permission allowing one to put a suffering animal out of its misery, without first seeking opinions in the neighborhood about what to do. If one finds a dog or cat in the street that has been run over, but is still alive, and is so seriously injured that it cannot be saved very easily, then the most merciful thing is to kill it by any means necessary, as quickly as possible. It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A shrewd observation regarding Admin courageousness BR. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had Admin rights so I could help, though if course it would be unethical of me to do so, given my known views on the subject matter. This is one of the most egregious examples of cluelessness, arrogance, self-justification and Talk page abuse I've yet seen on WP, and that's saying something. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

APK, Roxy the dog™, and DaveSeidel, "clueless" is really a good description. Let's see what happens. We even have admins who practice victim blaming, bullying, and piling on, so they may even side with Realskeptic's bullying attacks on me.

The disruptive removal of other editors' comments from a user's talk page, edit summaries which attack them, and requests for banning of other editors from the talk page, are characteristics of disruptive, cowardly, and uncollaborative editors. User:Technophant and User:Worldedixor come to mind as egregious examples.

I am not disputing the right of productive and collaborative editors to delete certain types of material from their own userspace (note that no one "owns" their own userspace completely), but this situation is different and battlefield behavior should not be rewarded. We're dealing with an editor who reveals a very negative learning curve.

Here's a good quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:

• "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education." [2]

At Wikipedia it's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia's myriad PAG. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about.

The following profound prose from User:Hoary is worth repeating here:

• "Neither humility nor perfection is required. But a combination of confidence and error will not persuade."[3]

That last sentence describes this editor quite well, and none of us have been impressed or persuaded. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Bull, Tonight at 00.00 UTC this TOTD is going to pop out of the rolling TOTD queue.

That is the "raw" tip without the pretty wrapper. You can edit the tip to refine it, then click on the Talk tab and declare your edits to the editors that monitor the Talk page. Have fun. When the tip is presented on various editor Talk pages it is displayed in different wrappers for size and style, but the content remains the same. PS: Editor JoeHebda added the WP:CREATELEAD shortcut link to the TOTD today. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thanks for the tip! I'm wondering if the essay's "rule of thumb" could be added? If so, feel free to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow's tip is already live because of UTC offset:

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks so much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As suggested at Jimbo's talk, this needs developing for use at WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest. (See also here and here.)

COI editors, like all editors, should be approached in good faith, unless there is very obvious proof to the contrary. They are often subject experts, and often are newbies, so we shouldn't bite them.

Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:

1. He did declare his COI. Good.
2. He did use the talk page. Good.
3. If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
4. If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
5. Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
6. Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
7. A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.

So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipediocracy. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Title: Fact factories: Wikipedia and the power to represent

Abstract:

Wikipedia is no longer just another source of knowledge about the world. It is fast becoming a central source, used by other powerful knowledge brokers like Google and Bing to offer authoritative answers to search queries about people, places and things and as information infrastructure for a growing number of Web applications and services. Researchers have found that Wikipedia offers a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others so that representations on the platform have repercussions for the subjects of those representations beyond Wikipedia's domain. It becomes critical in this context to understand how exactly Wikipedia's representations come about, what practices give rise to them and what socio-technical arrangements lead to their expression.

This ethnographic study of Wikipedia explores the values, principles and practices that guide what knowledge Wikipedia represents. It follows the foundational principles of Wikipedia in its identity both as an encyclopaedia and a product of the free and open source software and internet freedom rhetoric of the early 2000s. Two case studies are analysed against the backdrop of this ideology, illustrating how different sets of actors battle to extend or reject the boundaries of Wikipedia, and in doing so, affect who are defined as the experts, subjects and revolutionaries of the knowledge that is taken up.

The findings of this thesis indicate that Wikipedia's process of decision-making is neither hierarchical nor is it egalitarian; rather, the power to represent on Wikipedia is rhizoid: it happens at the edges rather than in the centre of the network. Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented. Wikipedians are no amateurs as many would have us believe; nor are they passive collectors of knowledge held in sources; Wikipedians are, instead, active co-creators of knowledge in the form of facts that they support using specially chosen sources.

The authority of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is garnered through the performative acts of citation, through the ability of individual editors to construct the traces that represent citation, and through the stabilization and destabilization of facts according to the ideological viewpoints of its editors. In venerating and selecting certain sources among others, Wikipedians also serve to reaffirm traditional centres of authority, while at the same time amplifying new centres of knowledge and denying the authority of knowledge that is not codified in practice. As a result, Wikipedia is becoming the site of new centres of expertise and authoritative knowledge creation, and is signalling a move towards the professionalization of the expertise required to produce factual data in the context of digital networks.^[6]

Heather Ford, Mark Graham, Eric Meyer

• http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b34fdd6c-ec15-4bcd-acba-66a777739b4d

TY for this introduction to the newly minted Dr Ford, who is now a Fellow at Leeds. Scholarship worth watching. Cheers. Le Prof. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bull, http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section shows a spike on the 23rd, FYI. PS: I saw a dead moose wrapped up in a tarp in the back of a pickup on the highway the other day. Only the antlers were poking out of the tarp it was tightly bundled up in. I suppose it had no legs, and was bled out. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is quite the spike! I suspect it's thanks to your promotion of the essay. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[4] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't this [5]. Striking means the original editor is withdrawing the statement, and it doesn't really help the project. NE Ent 01:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, seeing as you added an explanatory note, striking is fine and helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why can't people just mind their own business? Siding with a troll is serious business. I have replied. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Heya BFF - Wanna help me on the Articles listed here User:LeoRomero/scxc? And could you please add yourself to the list of persons involved, and the Articles you'd think I could help you on? - Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 17:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bull, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Let.27s require citations in the lead section Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I wonder if you have read Falun Gong before. If so, what are your thoughts on its neutrality?

Falun Gong (FLG) is a highly controversial spiritual movement. Falun Gong and its creator Hongzhi Li contains content related to spiritual healing. Whether it is a cult or not, is still up for debate.

See the Britannica [6] entry, which provides a more balanced view. I encourage you to read the comment section as well. And a thesis [7], which reviews the healing and alt medicine teaching in FLG on page#155 (pdf page#163). There are more articles on http://www.culteducation.com/, but I am not certain about their neutrality.

Unlike most religion pages, Falun Gong somehow has no controversy section, plus very little criticism throughout the entire page. Asides from vandalism, there were multiple attempts of adding contents of critical nature, but all of them were reverted by a few editors guarding the article. IMO, the article fails to withhold NPOV rules. Ironically, the article is nominated for GA.

Both sides, namely Chinese government vs FLG (See Epoch Times), have been conducting agenda push for over a decade. The reporting of FLG is very difficult due to censorship in China. Therefore it is difficult to find non-biased references for this topic. An expanded view of mine can be found on Talk:Falun Gong.

I stumbled upon your page by accident, and noticed that you are a critic of alternative medicine. I hope Falun Gong can be of interest to you. Thanks for your time. Zebrasandrobots (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glyphosate. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Constand until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer: yeah, let's delete the chart that lists each of dozens of alleged victims. Their cases are barred by the Statutes of limitation. The text of the article that discusses lawsuits is quite up to date about the most important suits such as Green et al. v. Cosby. OK, after thinking aobut it, please leave the text and delete the chart of all victims ... just list their names (and a bit of info) in one paragraph. That will dramatically condense this article and get the warnings to stop. If you are willing to do the work, I for one will strongly support the deletion! Cheers! Peter Peter K Burian (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SPINOFF moves it. No deleting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

…earlier this month appears to have never made it to you. As always, thank you for generous, patient engagement with this cantankerous SME. Cheers, Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please review WP:REFB. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. I like to use the basic citation template at the top of this page. Is there any particular reason you left this comment? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the link to the Disturbed cover removed from the singles section? It did link to the cover. Daerl (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realize that content had just been added. I have reverted and agree that content should be there. It's a great cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#Investigations

http://time.com/4193294/planned-parenthood-videos-indictment/ ^[1]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/index.html ^[2]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/planned-parenthood-video-indictment/427014/ ^[3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html ^[4]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/grand-jury-indicts-leader-planned-parenthood-videos-36512019 ^[5]

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-grand-jury-indicts-pair-behind-Planned-6782865.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop ^[6]

Thank you for Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section. I think it is amazing and my smile today is as wide as my face. Really glad to see this happening for our growing mobile audience!

I wonder if there is anything technologically we can do to help support this initiative e.g. VisualEditor or the standard wikitext editor could alert editors to these kind of guidelines by providing hints when an editor expresses an intention to edit the lead section. I also question whether an ambox could be used on articles where lead sections do not seem to be the right quality? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. This search turns up a number of templates for the lead. Maybe some of them will help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

…at Elaine May, where I have finished checking and formatting a little more than half of the citations (first 12, and a few more downstream), but where I have noted (1) full sections with no sources, via section tags, and (2) the need yet for formatting, just described, via an article tag, and (3) the over-reliance on Gerald Nachman's book (43 citations to it alone, in a total of 23 sources, so about 2/3 of all inline citations).

I have had those tags reverted by another editor on the argument that the sections have wikilinks, and those suffice. I have pointed out that this is against WP:VERIFY, and returned the tags, also returning the "one source" and "formatting" tags (until the formatting is done, and until some other books begin to balance the over-reliance on Nachman).

I'd appreciate if you might have a look in. I am concerned that between telling him IMDB was not an acceptable source (he used it three times to support award nominations, when there are ample real sources for those sentences), and returning these tags, it may end up contentious. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This is what comes from watching a Mike Nichols retrospective at my wife's invitation, on PBS. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why has an obviously notable website's article been deleted? Hmmmm.....

• A short history of Loser.com, the Internet’s best troll, Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post, March 3, 2015
• Loser.com Now Redirects to Donald Trump’s Wikipedia Page, Daniel White, Time, Feb. 2, 2016
• Loser.com Redirects to Wikipedia Page for Donald Trump, David Mikkelson, Snopes.com,Feb 2, 2016
• Loser.com Trolls Donald Trump By Redirecting To His Wikipedia Page, Ed Mazza, The Huffington Post, 02/02/2016
• Type Loser.com Into Your Browser and See Where It Goes, Robert Hackett, Fortune, February 2, 2016
• Loser.com now directs to Donald Trump’s Wikipedia page after Iowa caucus, Jason Silverstein, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, February 2, 2016
• Loser.com now redirects to Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, Jim Watson, The Week, February 2, 2016
• The Internet Is Trolling Kanye West: Loser.com Redirects to Kanye’s Wikipedia Page, Marlow Stern, The Daily Beast, March 1, 2015
• Meet Kanye West’s No. 1 Online Troll: Loser.com Owner Brian Connelly on Shaming Kanye, Marlow Stern, The Daily Beast, March 4, 2015

"Connelly would always gab about the “Loser Wall” with his wife, so eventually she registered the domain www.loser.com for the grand sum of $35 as a joke.

“I am the original registrar of www.loser.com and have owned it since 1995,” he says. “I’ve never really tried to monetize it, per se. I’ve used it for fun and games over the years. It’s a universal term that’s known in every language, not just English.”

While current coverage is mostly about Trump, the website is old and has been described for many years. This is about Brian Connelly's website, not Trump or Kanye West. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)