User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). "Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn". NewsBusters. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as "conspiracy theories" and "part of a cover-up," even "when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA." Valjean specified that "Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted." Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name "BullRangifer" has been "previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation."

Welcome to Valjean's talk page! TB IP PT SP

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Recent talk page discussion[edit]

I don't like that I felt I had to disagree with you during our most recent talk page discussions. I feel bad about it. Hopefully, my feedback was not too harsh. Lately, we've actually had some laughs right here on Wikipedia. It is good that we have been able to do this and I hope we can continue. Maybe in the future if I disagree with you on one of your pages I will just ignore it. Frankly, I think I prefer doing that. Well, if I need a quick chuckle I can go over to Doug's page. Oh, bye the way, I have an idea for your most recent page! I think Oedipus Rex will fit nicely as one the examples. I will post it soon when I have time. I have to research it a bit before I post. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no serious gripe with you. Just a bit of disagreement, and that's okay. How else can we help each other move in a better direction? We all need help at times. You expressed your disagreement soberly and without assuming bad faith and accusing me of creating an attack page. Neither did you attack me personally, as in the forbidden usage of my political affiliations as a means to disparage me. No, we're good, and I really do appreciate this thread. It means a lot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Addition to Chiropractic History Page[edit]

Dear Valjean,

I'm writing to you regarding a recent edit I made to the Wikipedia page on the history of chiropractic. I noticed that you removed the reference I added the History of Chiropractic.

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral and credible Wikipedia page. My intention in adding this reference was not to promote any particular viewpoint, but rather to provide additional context and information to support the claims made on the page.

The reference I added offers valuable insights into the History of Chiropractic. I believe it would be a useful resource for readers interested in learning more about the topic.

If you have any concerns about the validity or appropriateness of the reference, I'd be happy to discuss them further and provide any additional information you might need.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Shantoahammed Shantoahammed (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use chiropractors' websites as sources here. It's considered promotional. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]