User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,TB, RS stash

On June 8, 2018, CNN analyst covering national security, crime, and justice and Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Josh Campbell tweeted:

Many RS have described his desperate attempts to obstruct justice as "consciousness of guilt". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full Panel: After president's statements, 'apparently it's not illegal to lie to the American people'. MelanieN, thought you'd find this interesting. We're living in near-constant gaslighting times, where the WH is not trustworthy. In the cyber, propaganda and espionage war with Americans, most Republican politicians and Fox News have sided with Russia. Scary times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The open secret: (check the image)

Thesowismine, you asked a question which is best answered here because it would get into forum territory there. The international, not just American, intelligence community is in possession of much more knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia and its proven interference in our election than you or I know, and we already know a lot, unless you watch Fox News. If so, then you've been kept in the dark. This involves him, his family, and his election campaign team, all of whom reported to him and acted in ways they knew he would like. Trump has always run a tight ship and no employee dares do anything that he does not order or which he might not approve. He is always "in the loop" about what they are doing. Many of the actions of his subordinates are being revealed, but it's more difficult to prove that he ordered their actions. That's what the investigation is trying to do, but just like with mob bosses, Trump always uses others to do his dirty work. They take the fall.

Here are some articles to read:

• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Trump–Russia dossier
• Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)‎
• Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign
• Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia
• Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
• Trump campaign–Russian meetings
• Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election

The American intelligence community and its leadership is traditionally composed of Republican, right-wing, conservatives, with some exceptions, but their work is strictly non-partisan. Many of the intelligence leaders, who are Republicans, are skeptical of Trump because of his relationship to Russia, and even Trump appointees are involved in investigating these Russian ties. A number have publicly stated they believe he is a pawn of Russia, and that Putin is blackmailing him. Many of his actions only make sense when seen in that light. He acts like a guilty man; he does things which help Russian, not American, interests; and he never criticizes Putin. The Trump–Russia dossier details some of the things he and his campaign have allegedly done which make him vulnerable to blackmail by Putin: secret meetings, illegal payoffs, use of bribes, perverse sexual acts, conspiracy, collusion, etc.

If you were a red-blooded, flag waving, patriotic, intelligence operative in the CIA or FBI, even if you were a Republican, and you had evidence that Trump was acting to further Russian interests and had received Russian help to win the election, would you like him or be skeptical of him? What's the patriotic attitude? That's the situation Strzok found himself in. His personal POV was obviously slanted against Trump because of that knowledge, and he saw/sees Trump as a traitor, or something like that. He was also skeptical of Hillary Clinton, and he pushed for a much harder investigation of her, so, in spite of the comments he privately made to his lover, there is no evidence he misused his position to actually harm the Trump election campaign, and as soon as his texts became known to Mueller, he was fired and was no longer in any position to do anything to influence the investigation, which is strictly non-partisan. Mueller, who like Comey is a Republican, and many other Republicans, are now doing the right thing and investigating whether the accusations of collusion are true, and whether Trump is a Manchurian candidate or not. Unfortunately, most GOP politicians are not doing their duty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BullRangifer, as you noticed, Mr. Verhofstadt has quite a reputation for his peculiar sense of humour. — JFG ^talk 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. That image is ideal for a "write a caption" contest. Is he known for his wit? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes he is! Go to europarl.eu and watch some debates between Verhofstadt and Farage: epic trolling all around! — JFG ^talk 19:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Your TP has become almost as entertaining as the TP of EEng but much easier to navigate. You really should cite some RS to validate your claims, especially in light of what the OIG just revealed in a 500 page report, which none of us have read in its entirety. How about waiting for some common sense, unbiased analysis before Mueller completely runs out of ways to prove unprovable conspiracy theories? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OIG report is out: Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election: "President Trump rejected the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him, and he falsely claimed that the report "totally exonerates him" with respect to the Special Counsel investigation." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my hatting of off topic discussion about editors and not content here with the summeray "Please don't do that". Why should this content not be hatted? PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other comments more worthy of hatting, so it seemed inconsistent with the atmosphere in the discussion. Sometimes we allow a bit more, and sometimes a bit less. User:Drmies comment seemed pretty spot on. It addressed exactly the views expressed by several: anti-science, refusal to accept views because of supposed bias, anti-Obama, etc. Hatting should be reserved for truly egregious behavior. This wasn't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was whining and opining about other editors that added nothing to the discussion except the chilling effect of an admin bitching about specific people and casting aspirations aspersions. As to others doing the same, feel free to hat those as well if they are not related to the discussion, that is the purpose of hatting. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to disagree on that. It's better to leave other editor's comments alone, except for egregious situations. This was minor. Griping is allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Was the admin casting turbocharged aspirations? — JFG ^talk 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL now that IS an embarrassment! PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm still baffled by how y'all see "opinion" in a medical journal and think that it's worth no more than an opinion you can have. I have yet to see one of you three (you know who you are) evince knowledge of how such journals work. You can say "it's not based on a formal peer-reviewed study and therefore it's worth less than something based on a formal peer-reviewed study", but you simply cannot say "the article is not peer-reviewed and there was no editorial oversight" because that is incorrect, and if you say that you don't know how it works. Nor can you say "oh it was written by someone who etc."--you might could say that if it was on that person's blog, but not if it is in a solid journal like this one. I mean, you can, and y'all did, but it lacks knowledge of reality. That sort of primary disassociation is allowed on Facebook, but here we shouldn't make judgments based on it. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Just going by what secondary sources and the EPA call that essay. Also what RSN says about specific text purposed and WT:MED had to say about it. As explained before the peer-reviewed and all that come into play if it qualifies for MEDRS, which imo it does if you follow a strict interpretation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, bro, we were almost having fun here.^[FBDB] I'm tempted to hat the above followup about content, so we can have a chance to hold Bull's talk page to the exacting EEng standards of drollery! — JFG ^talk 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought you said droolery. EEng 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I am strongly offended at your egregious WP:COPYVIO of my likeness. Cease and desist, or prepare to endure the wrath of WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious issue, not fun. It's blocking progress at any number of AP-related articles. And it's no accident that would happen. Confusion, equivocation, misinformation, and half-truth are all in the interest of political actors who are inconvenienced by real scrutiny. So making light of it is actually the same thing as the initial obfuscation and the initial denial of Wikipedia sourcing and content policies. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so long as you don't call me fat again, that one hurt. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While myriad very RS describe Trump's constant stream of falsehoods as "gaslighting", I find that term to often not fit the bill. What other terms better describe it?

• The Wild Acceleration of Trump's False Claims

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kombucha. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michiko Kakutani on Her Essential New Book ‘The Death of Truth’ BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rusf10 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at MfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The result of the discussion was: keep . Its SNOWING" -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rusf10 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Arbitration Enforcement--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you never give up, do you? BullRangifer, let me give you some advice: don't respond at AE. Others can judge for themselves what's going on. EEng 05:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a place where I'm supposed to respond, but yes, I've said what needs to be said. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the Sandstein comment. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and another one while I was writing that. Good grief. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's for ONE comment! If I were a fringe editor who habitually was uncivil and pushed fringe POV, that would be another matter. Wow! Normally an ordinary block for 24 hrs suffices. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could supply supporting diffs for every so-called "aspersion". I don't use such wordings lightly. They are precise, accurate, and can be vouched for by other editors, but that response, which does not AGF, but assumes the spurious accusations are true, leaves little hope for justice.

I considered providing a couple definitions for my use of the terms "fringe" (editors who hold minority positions based on uninformed POV and dependence on unreliable sources) and "snowflake". The latter has nothing to do with the common epithet used in American politics. The context in which I use it shows I'm referring to editors who can't take any form of criticism, even the lightest forms of instruction or disagreement, as is the case with the one who started the AE. They also scream "aspersions" whenever anyone responds negatively to their POV pushing. They can't take any form of opposition. I see now I should have done it, but I received advice to not comment anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dream of advising on a course of action for you, and I agreed with EEng's advice initially. For instance, I have never heard of the term 'Snowflake' in american politics, and I wonder of a small refutation by supplying the aspersions diffs you mention above ... ? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never use the term snowflake, so I'm not really familiar with its other meanings. I just see Trump supporters accuse liberals of being snowflakes. Not sure what they mean. My use is totally unrelated to that context. I used it to refer to someone who is overly sensitive to any response other than complete agreement or silence. Such editors melt like a snowflake if one even looks at them, and admins usually tell them to grow thicker skin, at least that's been the historic practice here at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me restate what I said earlier, more simply: IT'S GOING YOUR WAY SO CLOSE YOUR TRAP BEFORE YOU SCREW IT UP. EEng 04:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True dat. Thou dost protest too much, including by email. "I'm not being DEFENSIVE, you just MISUNDERSTAND me, let me EXPLAIN AGAIN." — JFG ^talk 07:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm reminded of a comic I saw once. A large, burly, hairy guy in a biker's vest is sitting at a bar, speaking. He says "I am a special snowflake and I am very sensitive. If you hurt my feelings I will kick your ass." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious about WP:HOTHEADS. Applying it avoids unbelievable amounts of DRAMAH. Takes some practice, and some re-reading before clicking "publish", and sometimes some ex post facto revision. I also didn't write it as some kind of stuck-up "grandfatherly advice", but as an exercise in moderating my own behavior. I made myself read it at least once per week. It's why I've gone from being, only about 4–5 years ago, frequently at ANI, AE, etc., and often recommended for year-long T-bans or blocks, even indefs, to being seriously considered by many people for ArbCom last election, and frequently getting "why aren't you an admin yet?" taps. I'm still a hothead (which is why I'll probably never actually be an admin or an arb), but no one's tried to "prosecute" me in years, and my wikilife has gotten much more pleasant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I read your comment, I thought it quite good (and I gave you a "thank") and looked at the essay. Pretty wise words. Thanks. I'm not someone who is commonly at dramaboards, and being dragged there by someone who does this to people for slight disagreements is disconcerting. A comment like mine in a discussion would, at worst, call forth a warning, not even a 24 hr block. For the clear evidence that the AE accusations are spurious and false to be completely ignored and a topic ban even considered is far outside normal procedure, even in the DS realm. It rewards misuse of AE and encourages spurious and false accusations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Thanks for your email. You are wise to take some rest and some time out; don't let wikidrama affect your personal life. SMcCandlish's essay is indeed good advice. Also, if/when you decide to post further, try and stop being so defensive: it weakens your arguments. — JFG ^talk 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT BEING DEFENSIVE! STOP SAYING THAT! EEng 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! Thanks for the light relief. Much needed. On a serious note, how does one defend oneself without being defensive? Seriously. My Aspergers gets in the way here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, don't say "I apologize for the way I voiced my concerns, but I still have those concerns. And they are big and legitimate concerns. Am I not allowed to be concerned? Gee, of course everybody should be concerned! Why the hell am I being attacked for being rightfully concerned? This is so unfair and chilling." (paraphrasing from your latest post in Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink").[1] Just say "I went overboard and I understand your concerns. Sorry." — JFG ^talk 15:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I think the overly harsh stance Sandstein is taking with you has more to do with the rising frustration many of us are feeling with AmPol. I've unwatched every political page on my list, except those also dealing with fringe or conspiracy theories, and I still start to seethe a little when the topic comes up.

Bull, I think your comments were beneath you, but as I said at AE: they're well out of character for you and not something that demands harsh penalties. I suggested a 1-week topic ban there as more appropriate than Sandstein's suggested indef one, mostly because I think you deserve a break from the dumpster fire that is AmPol, and I know exactly how hard it is to just step back on one's own. You've done very good work, and IMHO you're one of the best editors working in that topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words... and thanks. It's a shame that I have to goof up to get such good advice, but that's life. My whole life has been that way. I'm not a super genius Aspie, just a normal genius one, but I don't have that gene that helps me understand the impact of what I say. I have only learned (quite imperfectly) through life's experiences, and it's been fucking hard! I sometimes joke that I'm the product of my parents' fucking mistake, quite literally. My two brothers are much older, so I grew up alone and managed myself from the time I was about nine years old. My parents were 40, and completely tied up with their careers, when I was conceived through their fucking mistake, and I grew up alone, rather clueless (wasn't even allowed to watch TV), and without help in many areas. It's been tough, but I fortunately married well. At least one person loves me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing a man can do for himself is marry a good woman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Even though Aspergers runs in both families, my wife seems to have escaped the worst aspects. Her niece and our son are both invalids because of it. They can't work, so they receive pensions in Denmark. Her aunt and uncle never married. The aunt was a college professor and super genius, speaking many languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German, English, French, Swahili, Russian, and more). She loved to travel and learned the languages where she traveled. We figure she died as a virgin. (Isn't that sort of a living death? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has a strong tendency to run directly to one-year or indef sanctions. In my post up top, guess who was proposing those for me? Seemingly every other time I stop by AE, he's doing it again to someone else, usually a long-term valuable contributor, while letting obvious disruptors escape. I just don't get it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I chime in with these editors. (Just to point at the first one--I knew SMcCandlish as the hothead they said they were, and I always thought that got in the way of the good work they did. I feel very differently about them now.) I found the comments to be uncharacteristic of you (though I don't know you that well) and probably spurred by the moment, but they deserve to be addressed. I don't agree with Sandstein's proposal but I do think there are things you can do to help yourself, esp. in regard to Melanie. Take care, and take it easy. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I have to leave now and will respond later. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, maybe I'm reading your comments wrong at the article talk page, but I'm guessing you wrote what you did to MelanieN because you were concerned for her and were not trying to belittle her. It seems maybe that stemmed from you respecting her as an admin as well as an editor. Your comments were well-meant just not well-expressed (and not in the right venue). Is my assessment correct? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got a minute here... Yes, that's exactly what's happening. I'm not worried or concerned for others, but it's because I respect, admire, and care about her that those types of feelings got involved here. I never express myself that way for other editors. No attack was intended, just genuine concern. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't expect to see an actual thread here. Anyway, wanted to say this is a helluva good essay, very well backed-up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WP:AE, I have closed the enforcement request regarding you without imposing sanctions, but with a warning that if you persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, you may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions. This is not a joke. I was shocked that a veteran editor like you would make comments like that. We all must absolutely treat other editors with respect and civility under all circumstances, just like we would our co-workers or our family, even if we think the others are absolute idiots or malicious disruptors, or if they are incivil themselves. If you think that your personal circumstances, some of which you allude to above, can make this difficult, then I advise you to consider not editing in politically charged topic areas at all. Regards, Sandstein 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]