DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Valjean

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom
Talk page negotiation table
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT

"The quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them."[1]

When all else fails, AGF and remember that

We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.
There's only you and me, and we just disagree.
by Dave Mason (Listen)
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.


Draft categories

[edit]

Hey, I did not know about {{Draft categories}}. I saw it in your draft article. Thanks for teaching me something new. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Det var så lidt! Did you notice my current trials and tribulations at MfD? It sucks.
I don't know where I picked up that code, but like most of what I do here (regarding HTML, templates, shortcuts, rule interpretations, etc.), I learn from other editors. I used to just use nowiki all the time. I feel privileged to even work in the same place as you. There are so many intelligent, talented, wise, and kind people here. As an older retired aspie-lite person who is largely physically inactive (and right now recovering from surgery), I treasure that.
My passive nature is like my long-lived father (100) and grandfather (101). They were both very intellectual, academic types. The whole family is college educated. Not much physical exertion (I am not recommending that), yet they lived long. They kept mentally very active by studying, writing, researching, and preaching.
I'm a PK and MK, now atheist. My grandfather (b. 1880), who went to Korea in about 1908 as a missionary, left Korea before WW2 and went back to college to get his degree, which didn't exist in his young days. The local Koreans in Southern California often reminded him he needed to go back and visit Korea, even promising him they would pay his trip when he turned 100. Well, he did that. After a couple days in Korea, the language was coming back so good that he did a tour of churches and preached in Korean. My father followed in his footsteps as a missionary there. Unfortunately, I was only 6 years old when we left there and have forgotten what I knew. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MfD, use of primary sources, IAR, etc.

[edit]
I later inserted this heading so I can keep track of the changing topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. If the locus of the dispute is poor sourcing, one way to temporarily resolve this is to cut everything out of the draft that others find to be poorly sourced and put it in a file on your desktop. Another thing to consider is to just wave the white flag and request deletion of the draft and work offline. I've been experimenting with offline editing as of late, and I really enjoy it. I don't know if you use macOS, Linux, or Windows, but there are solutions for each one. Lately, I've been using split editor screen in Visual Studio Code (VS Code) with the Wikitext extension.[2] I find it far more immersive and conducive to writing. And with the split editor screen, you can work on two different sections of the same document at the same time. You can also create different profiles for different article topics. The other neat thing about working in VS Code is that you can do a lot of things with your content, more so if you are drawing on multiple documents and need to analyze the material. In the example of your draft, this could come in handy by allowing you to work with two versions at the same time, a clean reliable version and the original. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Responding directly to itemised concerns is what I have often done, but on a smaller scale. This is a comprehensive view of the topic. Because the topic is so sensational, it lends itself to speculation and sensation, much of which is not worth including. It has been covered in every imaginable manner in every type of source, good, bad, and ugly. We stick to the better end of the spectrum.
I fully believe this: "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." (Baseball Bugs) I fully believe that. Since understanding this type of topic literally hangs on small details that can tip the understanding of the topic 180 degrees, it behooves us to include small details when they are crucial to covering the necessary nuances. They should resolve allegations, clear up confusion, and not leave any blind spots that then lend themselves to creating more conspiracy theories. We should provide the information that completely debunks conspiracy theories. When there is so much good coverage, it can be done.
Regarding sourcing, there are very few RS on the topic that I have not used. I have a list of them. Is using every single RS absolutely necessary? Of course not, but in my aspie-lite pedantic fever dreams, I love to be thorough, know everything about a topic, and provide most of it to readers so they don't feel Wikipedia has failed them.
I know our articles don't always have to do that, but just like Encyclopedia Britannica had short summary articles with 2-3 paragraphs and long articles covering several pages that were full of extreme detail that left nothing out, I tend to favor the latter approach because "we are not paper".
If we don't rid ourselves of the old, limited, pre-digital mentality, we will never live up to Wikipedia's full potential as a different encyclopedia that is in a totally different league than any previous and limited encyclopedia. It is a shame to not provide what good sources have said by just providing a simple comic book version with only basic and limited coverage. That's wrong.
I use ordinary mainstream RS freely, and a few "generally unreliable" (GU) sources on a case-by-case basis, mostly to document the existence of specific points. It appears I use more than I do. I use Youtube videos, and they are initially rated GU, but when they are from official RS, they adopt that sources rating and are no longer GU, so they should not be counted about the GU sources.
Stykkyy accused me of using deprecated sources, but that's a misunderstanding. I don't use a single one, even though it is allowed to use deprecated and blacklisted sources in some extreme cases. That is not necessary here.
I do use some GU sources among the mass of fully reliable sources. I use those GU sources carefully, but some may disagree, and I will certainly explain why I felt that my case-by-case use is justifiable. If I can't defend it, I won't keep it. Such sources are allowed careful use for specific purposes. Have I maybe crossed a line in some cases? Maybe, and I am willing to revise or delete unnecessary content and sourcing on that basis. This is a standard editing problem not resolved by banning creation of an article.
I have always listened closely to criticism and suggestions, and I usually adopt the suggestions in some form, resulting in improved content. Isn't that the collaborative way it should be done here? What I will not do is make changes based on broad, non-specific, with no specific examples provided, false accusations, poor reading comprehension, and misunderstandings of our PAG. OTOH, experienced editors who have a clue find me easy to convince.
So I welcome specific criticism from anyone. Just let them contact me in a non-adversarial manner, provide exact quotes, name the issue, and I will examine it and gladly revise it. That's what I consider help, and not angry threats. (Threatening is not collaboration or collegial.) I welcome such help. I love to work together with others.
@Viriditas: if you share the belief of others that the topic is notable, I would really love it if you would use some of your time on this. No obligations. Please spot the problems. At the MfD, I wrote: I promise not to "go live" with this ever again without seeking review, advice, and approval from several other experienced editors who agree it's good enough for publication. You are a super editor whom I fully trust and highly respect. We are both among the old timers here. A collaboration would be great. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use Windows and Firefox. If I'm forced to do so, I'll have to check out your suggestion, but it should not be necessary to do this off-line. The disadvantage is the difficulty of not working collaboratively with others. I'd be back to working alone, make little improvement or progress, and therein lies the problem. I need other eyes who spot the problems.

Working on a notable topic like this in user space is specifically allowed. It is not indexed by search engines, others can easily help, and as long as there are no BLP violations that cannot be fixed, it's a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia to ban such work which is normally allowed. All these essentially "I don't like it" complaints are a spot on the integrity of the project. That type of complaint, couched in wikilawyering, poisoning the well, bogus accusations, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith, is not allowed in deletion discussions, but in this MfD it's the main course being served and consumed. Someone needs to warn them for such personal attacks and close the process down. If I accused an experienced editor of lacking competence I'd be blocked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this from an outcome POV for just a moment: the draft will be kept or deleted; and you may face future sanctions or not. My initial comment up above was an attempt to remind you that you still have autonomy and options. In other words, you can take action right now. That's all. There is this relentless push and pull on what you are trying to achieve. You want to go in one direction, and someone or something is trying to get you to go in another. It may not seem obvious, but you can adjust for this by changing your trajectory. Trust me, I understand what is going on. I ran into the same thing while trying to write about the Arizona town of Canyon Diablo. I discovered, quite to my surprise, that the literature had been contaminated by a single author, Gladwell Richardson, and his nonsense had in turn infected dozens of other sources, even making its way into the official state of Arizona history books. This meant that I had to disentangle the knotted threads somehow, but it became a huge task. So I understand what you are dealing with here. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have considered other options. One is to alter the scope of the article. The only reason the pee tape is of serious interest is because of the blackmail and national security implications, and many excellent sources and people deal with that. They believe that Trump is being blackmailed, and that partially explains his subservience (their word) to Putin.
The two topics are closely connected, leading to its current and logical scope, but that creates a huge article, which in itself should not be a problem, but some editors place more weight on article length than the nature of the topic. I like to do the topic justice and let RS steer length and coverage, rather than editorial feelings of what some pre-digital editors think a proper article should look like: short, not very many pages, no nitty gritty detail, only a summary, no opinions, etc.
So separating them to some degree is an option. The kompromat section is large and could be greatly reduced and used in a separate article at some other time. I think that's one good place to start. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can only share what I'm dealing with by way of comparison: User:Viriditas/sandbox47, User:Viriditas/sandbox52, and the main talk page where I'm still trying to square the circle: User talk:Viriditas/sandbox47. Two issues that have me perplexed right now is 1) why haven't any of the more modern reliable sources cited the account of Will C. Barnes, and two, why haven't they accessed the primary sources of the court case, which are available to scholars? I'm sure you have also been hung up by similar questions about your sources. One thing that helped me get to this stage in the draft process was to assume that everything was false first, and then to attempt to find the best sources that agree upon the basic facts, giving me a baseline to work with. This has helped me greatly, and it may be an approach that might also interest you. For this reason, I eliminated any overt unreliable source, even one that was partly unreliable, at the start. You should consider doing this as well. The honest truth is that my current draft is about 90% complete. This means I could go live right now, but I choose not to, because dotting the i's and crossing the t's is important to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have some guests now, so I'll get back to you later and examine this issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. To summarize my experimental approach with the Canyon Diablo train robbery topic: I provisionally reject claims until they are supported by converging, independent evidence. This still presents a problem for some of my sources like Barnes and the court cases, as most sources don't cover it. So I am still in a pickle, but I managed to work my way out of the original problem such that only 10% is left to fix. So this process is necessary, but insufficient, as there is still an element of uncertainty in the sources, a strong element in fact, and this is paralyzing to some extent. I'm still looking for disconfirming evidence. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Okay, guests are gone. Now back to your issue. I'm not sure what the key factor here is, but let me see if I can get close. Do you have an issue with a fact that is important, but not well described in good secondary sources, IOW somewhat ignored, but easily documented in primary sources like court documents? If it's not a potentially borderline BLP sensitive matter, then I'd tend to think we should be allowed to use primary sources without a nonexistent secondary source, because documenting reality is far more important than leaving a hole in our knowledge here because of a rule that should have exceptions. Am I even close? I have such a situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just providing you an example of what I'm dealing with, in the hopes that you could apply it to your own struggle. I do think you should start clean, basing the foundation of your article only on reliable secondary sources, if at all possible. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, and I want others involved in that effort. Working alone suits me fine with my aspie tendencies, but it's not ideal for Wikipedia.
The situation with primary sources I mention is related to an important situation where IAR would apply, IMHO. If leaving out what a primary source says, only because of our rules, damages an article by leaving a hole which leaves a false narrative, IAR should be invoked. The fact from the primary source should be allowed, so the article does not push a false narrative on our readers. Accuracy is paramount, no matter how you get there. Inaccuracy in the service of liars and poor information should not be allowed. When I say "primary source" here, I'm referring to impeccable legal stuff. When a judge speaks about the topic, we should listen, and our rules should not prevent such mention. (Of course, BLP and its WP:PUBLICFIGURE still apply!) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The way I usually work with primary sources is that they must be uncontroversial to begin with. If there is any controversy at all surrounding the material, they must be prefaced by secondaries. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly the safest way to do it, and that's been my practice too. I provide the primary source as a service to readers who have read the secondary source that mentions the primary source.
My idea above would need to be applied on a case-by-case basis, as merely being "controversial" should not automatically prevent the provision of crucial information (only found in a primary source) that, for example, would prevent an article of ours from pushing a false conspiracy theory. Such theories often root themselves in a small information hole, where the lacking true fact would debunk the conspiracy theory.
It would really violate ethical norms to allow the prioritising of a rule when doing so degrades an article. That's exactly what the IAR policy is for.
I can share the situation with you off-line, if you don't mind. I'll email it to you, and you promise not to share it with anyone. Okay? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary. I just don't think IAR has a role to play when we are talking about controversial articles. The burden of proof and the necessity of rules takes precedence. IAR is helpful when dealing with certain bureaucratic tendencies, but in terms of content, it isn't really applicable. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I wanted to share: the new Firefox browser (since ver 149) now has split view (which I mentioned up above in relation to VS Code). This means you can now edit two pages side by side without having to open separate browser windows.[3] You can also restore closed split view windows with "Open previous windows and tabs", which is probably the coolest part, as you don't have to keep recreating them. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds cool. I'll have to check it out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice. I've been using it here and there. I still find VS Code a bit easier with the color coding scheme of the Wikitext extension. I think I remember someone saying they got that color scheme to work here, but I need to look closer into this. That's the only thing stopping me. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I turned on syntax highlighting and get a similar style, but the editing experience is terrible as it doesn't give you the same color schemes, and there's no way you can edit different sections of the same file at the same time without saving two different versions. So there's that. It's too bad, because if there was a way to do that, you wouldn't need VS Code at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

[edit]

Hi Valjean.

I’ve received a few notifications that you sent me an email, but none have been received.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe:, that's really odd. I did send one message and received no notification that you had received it. I then sent a couple tests and received notifications that you had received them. I need to explain something that you have misunderstood, and I can't do that at the MfD, as that is considered bludgeoning, and doing it at your talk page might be considered inappropriate. Yet, the misunderstanding is serious and poisons the well against me at the MfD. Please try sending yourself an email. Let me know if that works. Then I'll test again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I have received one email from you. I have read it, and I understand, thank you.
I don’t think the system will give you a notification that I received an email. All the system knows is whether the email was sent, and I suppose, whether a bounce notification was received.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MfD result

[edit]

For the record:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, just responding to your comments on my talk page. If editing Wikipedia is giving you PTSD, you need to find a less stressful hobby and also reach out to some real life support networks. I don't say this to be mean but it's absolutely not right that you should be feeling this way about what is, at the end of the day, some bytes on a screen. Spartaz Humbug! 12:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia that causes the insomnia. It's a general tendency anyway. My circumstances are such that Wikipedia is my only social outlet, and a it's a very constructive activity. My brain buzzes with a lust to learn and has to have an outlet. Just the editing is worth it. Any social contact is a minimal factor as my aspergers makes me a loner who doesn't mind little social contact. Take away my only outlet and you see the problem. The place should not be one that causes anxiety. PROFRINGE editors who hound and pester mainstream experienced editors should not be allowed to get away with it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email

[edit]

I'm responding here since I've seen most of the body of your email reiterated in your recent edits.

Wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source. You quote, up above: "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." (Baseball Bugs) I disagree with this. It is true that the online format accomodates much more than the print books of yesteryear, but if we obliged by the quote, we would have to send WP:GNG out the window, possibly taking WP:NOR and WP:NOT with it as well.

As I said in the MfD, there is no reason why the alleged pee tape cannot be covered using the highest-quality sources. If you stripped the article down to its WP:GREL sources, taking out the opinion pieces, primary documents, and extensive block quotes, what we would have is an article a third the length, with 99% of the encyclopedic content, and no irate editors.

If you are insistent on keeping the sources, then what you're trying to do is investigative journalism – connecting the dots. In that case, is Wikipedia really the best conduit for your writing? Self-publish a book, or better yet, setup a free Substack. If you can write well, then the community will naturally come to you, and they'll probably be a lot nicer than the rogues' gallery that inhabits every WP:CTOP. Stikkyy (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am investigating other venues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: there are several people that are making a decent living (while residing in LCOL areas, however) by generating revenue from a combination of a podcast and a substack. It's a lot of work, though. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are doing that. I also know that you have not felt comfortable with setting something up outside of Wikipedia, but I think the idea of a Substack is a very good one, and one that's worth looking into. It can be rewarding to find something new to develop. And as for the rogues' galleries here at Wikipedia, true that. (One factor to consider is about whether or not you will want to use your real name, because the trolls here at Wikipedia will potentially try to dox you.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ec... I am not insisting on using all the sources available, even though most of them qualify as RS for their uses. They are not all essential, so I am taking that criticism and advice to heart. I'd like to see a very different version that is pared down a whole lot. The topic is still very GNG notable, so there should be an article. I am also investigating other venues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ec... I do like to write. Many years ago, I had a medical textbook deal (by request) that I was forced to abandon when we were suddenly forced to move and go into hiding for many years. That was a bummer. Doxing and death threats are a real thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something just occurred to me. Publish some investigative stuff elsewhere, and play your cards right, and that might become a source we could cite here on Wikipedia. Just sayin'. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a possibility. The thing is, a lot happened between November 2013 and January 2017 that has never been covered in one place. Only when one person collects all the bits and pieces described in myriad scattered and disconnected public primary, secondary, and legal very reliable sources does one get the full picture, and Wikipedia is rejecting attempts to do it.
There is a whole "pre-dossier" history to this. What happened during the three plus years from when Trump first learned of the pee tape rumor to when the dossier made the old rumor public? Myriad RS tell us. Those events need to be covered.
The story has previously only been told from the post-dossier angle, as if it all was a story first created from whole cloth by Steele or his sources, and the dossier the origin of it all. Well, that's utter BS. Steele was just documenting what Russian sources were saying, and the story has been a public secret in Moscow since the time Trump left Moscow in November 2013, long before the dossier was a twinkle in Steele's eye. I suspect the hookers gossiped together, and the golden showers incident story slipped out into the public sphere.
I could document that story from a slightly different angle than our PAG will allow, and do it elsewhere. Then, if journalists and authors pick up on it, their writings could be used as RS. If I choose to do it somewhere with a similar CC copyright situation as here, it could be copied directly to here with minor modifications. Hmmm... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, check out how other people do it. Climate historian Marc Hudson has an interesting site called All Our Yesterdays where he goes into detailed, in-depth postings on every aspect around climate change.[4] The length of his posts varies, and he will often do a follow up or a series. His material is highly readable, as he tries to reach a maximum number of people. I only found out about him on Reddit, where he or someone else advertises his work. His reporting helped me flesh out an almost unheard of and unknown part of climate history related to Carl Borgmann. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to Steele dossier issues and length

[edit]

Now that the MfD is over, I feel some relief, as that disruptive process is done with. It's a necessary process, but like drama boards, it creates nasty ripples in the water and is disruptive to normal, peaceful, editing.

Now I can get back to the BLPN issue about TTAC and his complaints about the Steele dossier. I do not like to leave hanging chads. If another editor sees some sort of problem or issue, I like to pursue it until they feel it is resolved or at least been dealt with, even if the end result may not be exactly what they originally hoped for. We all find issues at articles which other editors and the community deal with, and that doesn't always end up where we personally would like to end, but at least it was dealt with and not ignored.

I'd like TTAC to at least feel that. In this case, I actually agree with several points made by TTAC, and one of them was partially settled, and I thanked him for improving the article and did not reject his change. The thanks I got for my civil collaboration on that matter was the BLPN nastiness.

The problem was that he did not properly stick to using the talk page to deal with the issue, but immediately went straight to BLPN. I didin't even know he had left a comment on the talk page before I was hit with the BLPN accusations. A drama board discussion, even at BLPN, creates drama where I am not allowed to write much because I then get hit with accusations of "ownership" and "bludgeoning". BLPN should not be used to settle content issues, just serious BLP violations, and not NPOV interpretations either. On the article talk page, we can have a civil and collaborative back-and-forth discussion that fine-tunes the issues, and that more nuanced discussion leads to improvements of the article.

Using any drama board to avoid and bypass talk page discussion is just wrong. It immediately personalizes the issue and cripples the opponent. It's a dirty trick. Now I am going to return to the Steele dossier talk page, take the issues mentioned by TTAC at BLPN, and try to resolve them. I think TTAC will be pleased with the outcome.

The desired outcome of some MAGA-inclined editors (total deletion of the article, like Atsme tried to do more than once) is of course not going to happen. Lacking that option, many pro-Trump editors would like to censor it and hide its revelations. That's where all the wikilawyering, purportedly aimed at reducing the size by deleting lots of the content, comes from with a number of editors. That fact is made clear by the fact that if it wasn't negative about Trump, they would not be so concerned about the size. Like it or not, it's a super notable topic, and the fact that it's controversial and the subject of sustained lying campaigns and conspiracy theories makes it a large and detailed article. The sheer amount of coverage of all kinds of RS requires a large article. Removing certain details lends support to lies and conspiracy theories.

My solution is to split off some sections into sub-articles. At the talk page, I have suggested three candidate topics, but not gotten support yet. I hope to also return to that "length" topic. If only some other editors would say "yes" and "go for it", I'd do it. Without that explicit support on the talk page, I fear any efforts by me would lead to accusations of "ownership" and solo editing. So everybody who reads this, please go to the article's talk page, to the Article length section, and there tell me explicitly to go for it and perform some splitting off. I have done this many times over the years with many articles, including at the Steele dossier article (the legal stuff). I just need permission.

@Tryptofish, Viriditas, and Spartaz: I will try to start working on this today. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may get delayed because of this happening: User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Unblock_request -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TTAC blocked

[edit]

Holy crap! Doug Weller blocked TTAC: User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Unblock_request

Now SFR and Tamzin (both from that other website) are attacking me and threatening AE. User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Unblock_request -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

[edit]

I have opened a report on your behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Valjean. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. It should be at FT/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]