User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Comments to Paul Siebert

You are the only one misrepresenting the source, as already explained. Please come up with a credible rationale before removing again

This is appalling language to use in a revert, particularly to a respected and meticulous editor. It is not for you to say who is misrepresenting what, and it is not for you to assert what is and is not a "credible rationale". I know you feel strongly about one side of this argument, but you need to cool your jets here. In the interests of good faith, I expect that revert to be reverted when I come back to the page tomorrow.

DublinDilettante (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

TTAAC, please, be cautious with edit summaries. If I remember correctly, you had already been topic banned once for your edit summary. I recall, I tried to defend you, and I myself was sanctioned for that. This time, we may appear at the opposite sides of a barricade, an outcome that I by no means want to achieve.

I answered to your post at the talk page, and I explained why my interpretation was correct, and your interpretation was wrong. You didn't respond, which implied that you were satisfied with my answer. If you disagree, then you were expected to explain this disagreement. Instead, you just reverted me and supplemented it with an offencive edit summary. In that situation, it would be correct if you took some steps demonstrating your good faith.

Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DublinDilettante, I am not going to remove long-standing, well-sourced material that is fully backed by the citation based on your vaguely threatening appearance here on my talk page, especially when you have not discussed the relevant content on the article's talk page. Paul Siebert, please see my response. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I know you didn't find my "appearance" threatening, so let's stop with that stuff. That's what I mean about cooling the jets. Have a think and see if you feel the same about your wildly inappropriate edit summary tomorrow. If you don't, do the decent thing and revert and apologise to Paul. DublinDilettante (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DublinDilettante, if you find "You are the only one misrepresenting the source" to be "wildly inappropriate," I'd love to know what you think of comments such as "Nug sometimes, I have a feeling that you are acting in bad faith, and all what you write is a pure demagogy.", "XavierItzm totally misinterpreted my words. I didn't mean to keep all those ridiculous figures.", and "this 'well written and well sourced' article contains tons of misinterpretations or a direct lies." by Paul Siebert, not to mention such gems as "Nug, that's the second time today you misrepresented someone who used the term far right ... The term seems to hit a raw nerve in you." (The Four Deuces). Wait a minute... is this the same DublinDilettante whose pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric has manifested in especially serious breaches of Wikipedia's civility policy, as seen in outbursts like "the Keepist camp is attempting to 'win the peace' by locking in a hard-line, POV intepretation of history ... There is no good faith being exercised, and none is possible in these conditions." and "I think we're all probably a bit embarrassed for you after that puerile little outburst, so I'll simply remind you that you always have the option of deleting it, and of thinking about what you're doing with your life, and your time on Wikipedia."—which, needless to say, go far beyond questioning whether a user is accurately parsing the contents of a source? Honestly, DublinDilettante, I don't think that Paul Siebert (who I agree with much more often than I disagree and who has not asked for an apology over my disputing his interpretation of Kotkin) needs you in particular to speak (or make requests for apologies) on his behalf. You should probably take your own advice about "cooling the jets," though.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I think you know perfectly well that the context you have chosen to omit, while trawling for the above, is week after week of extremely provocative, insulting and intemperate language (as well as outright disruption) being directed towards the users quoted, in breach of every Wikipedia guideline (which are not being enforced on that Talk page, at least in relation to one side of the argument, for reasons that we would all do well to reflect on). My interest is in seeing fairness and accuracy applied to what is effectively a test case for the future reliability of Wikipedia. Whether Paul Siebert needs or wants my input on this matter is irrelevant. DublinDilettante (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For doing some great, painstaking copyediting at the Steele dossier article. You have worked seriously and well, and your edits really improve the article. Thanks so much for that. Keep up the good work! -- Valjean (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I love the page number refs. I didn't know how to do that, and they seem to work well. While I'm here, I have a few questions.

1. I noticed on this edit, you removed a part that really needs to stay. Otherwise the conspiracy theories are only lent support and that's not right. That's a situation for both the old and your new addition to stay together. Would you like to do that or shall I?
2. On this edit, you added more of the page refs, but left a number with the old format. Was that on purpose? I can fix those if you want.

Valjean (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!

I'm conflicted on the first point. Even if Gaetz and Jordan made more definitive statements than Hill and Horowitz, accursing them of "push[ing] a conspiracy theory" in wikivoice for suggesting that the dossier contains Russian disinformation, while making no similar claim against Hill and Horowitz (who asserted that it is either likely that the dossier contains Russian disinformation, or at least that the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team should have examined this possibility more thoroughly than it did), comes across as a borderline WP:BLP violation. I doubt that a single Vanity Fair source, which predates Horowitz's report, is sufficient to justify including such an allegation (let alone in wikivoice). At worst, the viewpoint being espoused is a minority opinion (unproven but not yet disproven, as you like to say), not a "conspiracy theory" akin to September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories or Climate change denial. That said, it is not clear that Priestap's cursory dismissal ("Priestap explained, however, that if the Russians, in fact, were attempting to funnel disinformation through Steele to the FBI using [Oleg Deripaska], he did not understand the goal." p. 194 [emphasis added]) is even the majority view in recent reliable sources, given Horowitz's conclusion ("However, in view of information we found in FBI files we reviewed ... we believe that more should have been done to examine Steele's contacts with intermediaries of Russian oligarchs in order to assess those contacts as potential sources of disinformation that could have influenced Steele's reporting ... this issue warranted more scrutiny than it was afforded." p. 386). Regardless, the essential problem I see is that we have a duplication of content in the "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered" and "Conspiracy theories" sub-sections. I trimmed the duplicate text to focus on Horowitz's finding, but the duplication remains; ideally, if it were widely supported by unimpeachable sources, we could just say that "Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan have pushed a conspiracy theory" and leave it at that, but since the sentence is thinly-sourced, omitting the context that credible authorities have similar concerns to those raised by Gaetz and Jordan would only serve to compound the potential WP:BLP issue. My two cents: You should consider removing the entire discussion of Gaetz and Jordan from the "Conspiracy theories" sub-section, possibly moving it to "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered" and attributing the "conspiracy theory" accusation to the Vanity Fair author if you think that it is still important enough to mention.

With regard to your second point, it seemed like the old page number format worked better for blockquotes, but I'm certainly not wedded to it if you can find a better solution. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now added attribution to that Eric Lutz article about the conspiracy theories. The wording would not be in wikivoice if it were unsourced or there was any doubt, but we are forbidden from presenting facts as opinions. This is a "factual opinion", akin to "the sky is blue". We should not word it to leave any doubt. I'm still processing this, so be patient with me.

I am not proposing "omitting the context that credible authorities have similar concerns". Not at all. On the contrary. I'm proposing we keep the old and the new together. That presents a more balanced view of both sides. Gaetz and Jordan push the view that "the dossier was "based on Russian disinformation". That's too extreme. That there was risk that some of it was is a different matter. Maybe, maybe not. Right now you have left only one side. The new lends some support to the suspicions raised by Gaetz and Jordan, while the old from the expert FBI source shows that the FBI had considered this danger and more or less downplayed it as unlikely, with no evidence for it. Nothing has changed that.

The part about "intermediaries of Russian oligarchs" refers to Oleg Deripaska, who is mentioned there. While performing legal services to aid Deripaska's visa problems, Steele (and Fusion GPS?) actually tried to flip him to work for US intelligence. Some see these contacts as a problem, but there is no evidence that the contacts with Deripaska had any influence on the dossier. These were two very different and separate projects. It was the "appearance of evil" that raised suspicions. The fact that the FBI was warned that sections of the dossier could be part of a Russian disinfo campaign is not the same thing as saying it was part of such a campaign. I'm open to it going either way, but we'd need to know which parts and have multiple very RS.

The two sections are justified, so that involves some repetition, especially since Gaetz and Jordan are notorious pushers of such things, and they don't stay moderated; they make extreme claims, often contrary to evidence. -- Valjean (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to address your last "two cents" suggestion. Don't downplay your reasoning powers. They are worth far more to me, and I am considering your suggestion and may well do just that. What exact wording would you go with? If it looks good, I'd bless you for doing it yourself. -- Valjean (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI

In Jan 2017, you predicted some meatpuppetry. 5 years later, there is concrete evidence that one of the accounts you accused is engaged in exactly that.VR _talk 09:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

SPA for Majid

Hi, I wonder if we should make a COI report about the User that is in my opinion pushing Majid's work here on WP. It looks very much like the account is either used by Majid himself or someone very closely linked to him. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not really sure how that works, to be honest. To my knowledge, Wikipedia seems to rely on a trust system in which conflicted editors are obliged to self-report their affiliations. Without overwhelming evidence or an admission from the editor, raising a potential conflict could be construed as casting aspersions, a form of personal attack. So, yes, Moretonian's editing is problematic in the sense that it lacks neutrality, and often verges on promotional with regard to Majid's self-published/fringe work, but I'm not sure if there is enough there there to file a formal report. I wish that I could be of more help, but I have never reported anyone for a COI in my time on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for this . Managed to fat finger rollback trying to click a link on the recent changes page . Kpgjhpjm 09:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged misrepresentation

Howdy, you accused me of misrepresenting. I answered that accusation under your complaint. But in short, you need not worry, I will not again “misrepresent” Zbigniew Brzezinski by asserting he used human rights as a “pretext” and will leave the article alone. May the wikipedia say the very sponsor of the mujahideen/taliban terrorists is a “champion of human rights”, just as you want. It’s somewhat comical, but alright, edit wars aren’t my thing and everyone who can spell his name will see through this nonsense anyway. Cheers Lokkhen (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On Cambodian genocide denial removal of the Workers' Communist Party (Canada) point of view mention

The undue weight doesn't apply here, the Workers' Communist Party (Canada) had an ex-member in the House of Commons of Canada, and I am just citing their point of view since it might be of interest. They also were pioneers on its denial. Anyways, the Cambodian genocide denial page cites small communist parties in example.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pol revision at 09:03, 26 January 2022‎

There is no way to conclude that the Workers' Communist Party of Canada "were pioneers on its denial" or that the party's views "might be of interest" (i.e., WP:DUE for inclusion) based solely on a 1979 primary source. Any such inference constitutes original research through misuse of a primary source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, original research would be considered if I would write something like "this happened like this", not "these people said this". I'd agree on the "were pioneers on its denial" can be considered original research, but stating examples of genocide denial, which is the purpose of the section, is not. Do I need, I don't know, some online newspaper from a small town in Canada to reference the sources that I gave so I can use that newspaper as a source so it is not considered original research? I don't know I don't think it works like that.Pol revision (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would expect that you would use a secondary source, preferably an academic book or journal article focusing on Cambodian history in general or the Cambodian genocide in particular, as the basis for any analysis regarding Cambodian genocide denial. If the comments from the Workers' Communist Party of Canada are only covered by "some online newspaper from a small town in Canada," then they are probably not WP:DUE for inclusion in the main article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes 0 sense. Wikipedia is full of statements told as objetive facts, from sources like Twitter. I am just stating "hey, this famous party thought this about this thing", and I am using a reuploaded PDF about that matter they wrote about as a source. Should I create my own newspaper just to cite something objective (that they said that)? If I create a web in 5 minutes would then my source be valid? Or even to post a twitt and use it as a source? That is not how Wikipedia works. Pol revision (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is full of statements told as objetive (sic) facts, from sources like Twitter." I don't believe that that is the case, but if random tweets are being cited for factual claims in wikivoice then such poorly-sourced statements should certainly be challenged and removed as a violation of Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Stalin was a Dictator?

how you can say Stalin was a dictator? Joysriramsarkar.manathetiger56 (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The description is not controversial in reliable sources; see, for example, the many sources listed in the third paragraph here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet-Nazi Alliance

The bulk of the evidence, as discussed in part on the WW2 talk page, suggests that the Soviets began WW2 as allies of the Nazis against Poland. The arguments made against this position have been quite weak on here. For instance, {ping|Nick-D} said there was no support at all for this position when it was, and still is, transparently obvious that there is. {ping|Paul Siebert} has been dismissing whole histories because, as he implied on the talk page, he doesn't like the historians' respective nationalities. For these reasons, the edits made by {ping|3 Löwi} need to be seriously considered in light of the evidence. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that consensus has changed in the eighteen months since the previous RfC.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only has the consensus changed for a variety of reasons, there is evidence of external problems with the RfC from 18 months ago. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CIA activities in Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symantec. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Ritter page

I feel that "Veej" has junked-up the lead under Scott Ritter. I feel that it's way too long and sloppy as it looks now. I'm wondering if you feel the same way? BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The current lede is far from perfect, but I don't have the time or inclination right now to revert it back to an older revision (thereby risking an edit war) or to draft a new version.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary Board Notice

Hello, where is the proper link to the Notice that involves me? None have been provided. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The link should work now; my apologies for the delay. (Short delays are common when filing AE reports because notification must be provided prior to submitting the report in order for it be correctly processed.) Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Taliban insurgency

I saw you reverted me on this page here saying I didn't explain the edit.

The reason why I didn't explain is because I was reverting yet another sneaky vandalism by long term abuser Hassan.guy (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hassan Guy).

As for the content itself, you can read the last paragraph at Taliban insurgency#Pakistan. Former President Pervez Musharraf too made similar admission.[1] Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you have no objection with me restoring the content. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Georgethedragonslayer: I mean, I think it's pretty clear that Pakistan has officially denied supporting the insurgency, however much weight we might choose to place on those denials, but I will not stand in the way of your reverting the disputed content again at this time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hey there, Your continuous deletions on the article of Afghanistan is in violation of WP rules. The deletion of information with citations and links is in violation of those rules. As well, deleting entire paragraphs because you have taken issue with one sentence is also uncalled for, and a violation. Discuss on the talk page before making those edits; if you can continue to do so; a report will be filed with the administrative board here on WP. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thetimesarechangin has been doing the same thing to my edits even though I have made extensive use of the talk page and even had the topic up for months before I made my edits. He even gave me positive feedback which I complied with and still deleted my edits. Clam chowdah (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg Kaye

I strongly agree with you regarding Greg's problematic editing, and I feel he really needs to be banned from the topic to allow others to productively edit that page. You can see my venting my frustrations on his deletion of entire sections of content to support his political agendas on spurious bases on the talk page. He refuses to listen even when several people tell him the same thing I do (perhaps more kindly), and just creates countless new talk page sections to cover his tracks when he is criticized. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble with the reverts.

This was something that, after some mixed responses, it looked like I was heading to do anyway after input from the Project Law group. It's something I should have shouldered. GregKaye 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Gamergate

I would like to clarify that I never doubted Gamergate being a harassment campaign. I just doubted its position on the political spectrum after seeing one study, but after other users showed me the study's flaws on the talk page of Gamergate, I changed my mind, which you seem to have not noticed. X-Editor (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you for clarifying.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: No problem. Thanks for hearing me out. X-Editor (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary to Depp v. Heard that did not appear to be appropriate, civil, or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Apologies if my usage of a template comes off as rude and thank you for your time. Originalcola (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Reasons?

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, in the recently raised discussion on Talk:Depp v. Heard#Social Media Reactions Edit Warring regarding "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" you responded, in regard to this talk page section, to add despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion." with reference to a response to me. Descriptions I give for my edits as found in Depp v. Heard&action=history have excellent clarity. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your reference relating to me from your response. GregKaye 08:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Except that I did not mention you in my comment, at all, and explicitly informed Gtoffoletto that "it was actually this thread's OP, Originalcola, who cut any mention of Depp v. NGN from the lede"—to be clear, that's Originalcola, not GregKaye. (Of course, my comment did not specifically address the merits of Originalcola's edit, either, beyond pointing out its highly misleading edit summary. Despite the misleading edit summary, I have yet to opine on whether the U.K. trial is lede-worthy.) So, no "reference" to withdraw, and please read more carefully.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your reference relating to me from your response." What relevance do you think your link to a response that had been made to me (regarding my having made a general application of your WP:Coatrack argument) has to "a chaotic revision history" - unless you just wanted to get the "wikilawyering" mention in? What relevance do you think any of this has to "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja"? I'm hoping that a mistake was involved but otherwise you're doubling down. GregKaye 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, Greg, you seem to be very confused, but I do not have unlimited time to deal with your confusion, so I will not respond here again, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from WP:BLUDGEONing my talk page. My comment speaks for itself: The whole point of my response to Gtoffoletto is that Gtoffoletto literally could not find the diff of an edit which he considered objectionable because the revision history is such a mess, which I used to illustrate a very simple point (and see if you can follow me here), namely that the revision history is a mess and difficult even for experienced users to follow. Logically, the merits of the edit itself, its author (Originalcola), Originalcola's edit summary, Gtoffoletto mistakenly attributing the edit to you until you (and I!) corrected him, etc., etc., etc., has no bearing on this extremely simple, direct, straightforward observation, which has no hidden meaning or coded message. Sometimes, not everything is about you. As for why I reframed Originalcola's section title by talking about the broader context of edit warring and the repeated, sustained attempts to water down the "Social media" subsection in particular, why would I be obliged to simply accept another editor's framing in my response? (NB: Please do not posit an answer to this clearly rhetorical question... Seriously, please.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI third party ANI mention

Greetings, as a third party I mentioned you at ANI here Feel free to comment, or not. The complaint is made by someone else against someone else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Miles Copeland

Thanks for pointing out that your citation on the Miles Copeland Jr. page applied to the whole paragraph. Would it be superfluous to include that citation after first sentence as well?

Regarding the internal link to Internet Archive, I changed it because I personally prefer PDF links where available since they are downloadable, but I’m happy to defer to your style choice. Do you happen to know if there is a Wikipedia guideline that specifies that internal links are always preferred over PDF links, or if that’s a style choice determined by consensus on each page? Just curious if this is something I should start correcting this on other pages too.

Regards, Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Would it be superfluous to include that citation after first sentence as well?" I don't feel strongly about the issue, but yes, if there are two or three sentences on the same topic (e.g., Copeland's relationship with Burnham) followed by a citation, it probably isn't necessary to repeat that citation multiple times. "Regarding the internal link to Internet Archive, I changed it because I personally prefer PDF links where available since they are downloadable, but I’m happy to defer to your style choice." I objected to your formatting change because it broke the functionality of the bluelink to "Wilford 2013." Readers should be able to click on (or hover over) "Wilford 2013" to access the full citation in compliance with WP:V. I have no reason to think that this functionality is related to the Internet Archive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump revert

Hey, just a quick question about this revert this revert. Your note stated change to the lead required consensus, but that sentence is not specifically tagged as requiring consensus, and per the current consensus on the Talk, number 43, if it is not specifically tagged as requiring consensus, it does not require prior discussion, and in fact, the fact that an edit has not been discussed first is not a reason for reverting. Did you revert believing it did, or did you revert to dispute the removal yourself? Fbifriday (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to +1 the comment from Fbifriday above as a point of clarification, per point 43, do you need more of a rationale to revert my edit? "Long standing consensus" doesn't seem like a good enough reason? (I was on an extended wikibreak and wasn't editing actively in 2020 when this consensus point 43 was added.) Andrevan@ 06:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus, or at least can (and probably should) be reverted absent consensus, as the lede reflects years of work by prior contributors. More importantly, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states: "A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination." In sum, Andrevan's edit removed important context from the lede, despite it being fully supported by the article body. That's not a good edit, even if my subsequent edit summary may have been a bit terse. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. According to the point 43 above. Please adjust your process. Any bold edit does not require consensus. Andrevan@ 20:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasons2?

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, Do you have any reason for believing that my edits here were driven by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and weren't A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits? GregKaye 20:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Do you have any reason for believing that my edits here were driven by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH"? Yes.

Starship.paint pointed out that your edit of 05:26, 12 June 2022 created a (WP:SYNTHy) "Differences between the US and the UK trials" section based on the following sources: "A few crucial differences explain why Johnny Depp lost his Amber Heard libel lawsuit in the UK but won the in US"; "Johnny Depp verdict: How Johnny Depp won his US case against Amber Heard, after losing in the UK" [permanent dead link]; and "Why Johnny Depp lost his libel case in the U.K. but won in the U.S."

Approximately three hours later, your edit of 08:50, 12 June 2022 contained the erroneous (and seemingly unsourced) statement that (pre-verdict) "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," which you repeated both in the lede and in your edit summary. I immediately noted that this directly contradicted the sources cited in the lede.

On 10:18, 13 June 2022, Starship.paint defended you against the charge of source falsification: "the edit you were referring to by GregKaye was certainly puzzling, but I think it's explainable (not straightforward misrepresentation). Simply put, Greg changed the lede based on ... three different references in the body, without changing the references in the lede. That was certainly clumsy. Now, the references in the body tried to explain why Depp won, and pointed to several factors ... It seems that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. So GregKaye, please be more careful. Ignoring the part where legal experts considered it easier in the UK due to defamation law was a mistake." You had recently made virtually the same argument on 07:06, 13 June 2022: "My edit to 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK' gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed 'Differences between the US and the UK trials' section."

According to WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research."

You did not assert that your 12 June edit was a "typo" until 16:59, 3 July 2022: "I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK." As documented above, you stated on 13 June that the edit was "accurate" based on the content in "the newly formed 'Differences between the US and the UK trials' section," not that it was the result of a "mix-up".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, as a neutral party (and as someone who actually had a dispute with TheTimesAreAChanging that was contentious, but we both agreed to walk away for civility) who has read through the ANI, that this type of "I posted this comment a couple weeks ago, you still haven't answered, I'm still waiting" is, at best badgering, at worst bludegoning. Editors are not required, nor should they be expected, to answer any and all questions posed by another editor, nor do they have to answer them to anyone's satisfaction. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Retracting, I will take it to the ANI, since that is the appropriate place. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A "hell" of a lot of things were said in the period between 01:59, 13 June 2022 when your accusations thread presented the fourth of my four edits[2] in isolation and 13:01, 16 June 2022 when I presented the quickly fixed subsection which quoted the four edits together[3] and the hell stopped.
In the quickly fixed subsection I also noted that "among achievements of which I'm proud, I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article" which was something that I did within these edits with reference to a previously used citation.
If I'm pointing out strong freedom of speech protections in the US, I'm not sure how the synth is supposed to work. It's also fair to say that it's fine for me to think that the trial conditions were more difficult in the US (and yet were still heading for a win). It's a view that I'd always been more than happy to present. In the subsection I said, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". Do you think that there's any chance this might reflect fairly on what happened? GregKaye 02:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

Your edit summary:

"Undid revision 1097877117 by Valjean Invalid tag; content has been verified by CNN, which is a secondary source. Removing the CNN source and adding is a misuse of the tag. If you don't consider CNN to be reliable on this topic, then the whole section should be stricken."

I didn't remove the CNN source. I moved it to the right spot (actually returned it to its original location). The part you added needed other sources, and you have since added them, so all's well now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a problem with citing CNN directly as a source for its editor's note, but I'm glad to hear that "all's well now."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting along

Hi friend, One thing I really appreciate about editors like Starship.paint is the direct communication. Starship and I often disagree and that's fine but we have mutually beneficial discussions and talk things through. When you launch into talk pages gunning for three editors with the three links "(e.g., "Potential misleading information", "Commentary on social media response," and "Reactions to social media content")", with quite some order of sequencing, it honestly gets annoying for me. My, at least, initial reaction can be more negative than I'd like it to be. That's cool because I can come back on talk pages and dial back - but I thought to run this by you because others might raise more problem. Mate, I'm trying my best with what ability I have to contribute the best NPOV content that I can and, after contributing a significant number of solid edits, to get your one comment of "Grammatically incoherent" on a content that was quite coherent and intended to provide a link to a section you value while having previously retracted this[4], it isn't well received.
I'd personally like people to be able to read the lead and get into article content free of potentially unwarranted preconceptions of potential influences on juror decisions but, while I don't agree, I respect your desire to replace the "majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" text. Starship is an excellent editor. I don't know about the other editor but, after receiving attacks, I honestly lose the impetus to check. Please consider that not attacking or demeaning people[5] can be a route to avoid potential antagonization. We're trying to work together. GregKaye 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"The livestreamed trial ... generated a considerable and commented upon social media response" is awkwardly written, confusing prose; I had to do a double-take and read it again to understand what you were trying to say. Many casual readers would infer from this sentence that the trial itself (the noun) both "generated" and "commented upon" (the verbs) whatever follows, which makes absolutely no sense in context. Of course, I understand that you make large volumes of edits (literally hundreds in the last two months just on this single article) and that they all make perfect sense when you proofread them in your head. Nevertheless, if I introduced head-scratching prose like this, then I would want to be made aware that other users found it convoluted or difficult to read. There is also the issue that your edit removed "the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" from the lede summary, despite the article body clearly establishing that "[t]hose posting about the trial on social media were seen to mostly support Depp and oppose Heard," without any explanation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Hi! Recently I made an edit on the Depp v Heard page that you reverted. I didn't really explain myself well in my edit summary so, to clarify, I removed the section due to the various debunking claims not meeting the inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia or notability guidelines. In general, debunking claims should only be included if the claims are especially notable which was not the case. Originalcola (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a debate at the American Imperialism talkpage

I am unclear about how the 14 links violate the wiki rules on external links. Can you go through every single one of the 14 links and explain how they violate the rules and must be removed? 124.246.101.179 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Info regarding Discretionary Sanctions on Kurds and Kurdistan

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Harassment

Real life threats are quite serious. I have emailed Trust and Safety about this incident but would encourage you to also contact them with as much information as you are able to share. Public discussion about this is not going to be an effective method of thinking this through and so I would encourage you please do contact the Arbitration Committee with further thoughts/comments. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 to the above. For your reference, you can contact WMF Trust and Safety by emailing cawikimedia.org. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. I will send Trust and Safety an email with all of the information that I have about this incident later today. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Trust and Safety has been notified.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing a dispute tag from your own text

Greetings TheTimesAreAChanging. I think you might misunderstand me, so I wish for you to get involved in the Talk Page discussion that I started at Re-education_camp_(Vietnam). If you don't mind, may I point out that the guidelines at WP:DISPUTED state: "Don't remove the warning simply because the material appears reasonable" and "Visit the talk page to see what the issues are". This is your text addition, and you removing the dispute tag feels a bit edit war-y. Can you please visit the talk page before removing the to your text? Stix1776 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you joined the talk page just as I was writing this. I apologise. Stix1776 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia TheTimesAreAChanging

WP:HOUND WP:NPOV "disingenuously" "deceptive" "what are you doing here?" [6]

Quote:

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

I note that you have followed me from Zbigniew Brzezinski to my edits on Foreign electoral intervention the CIA talk page and the Soviet–Afghan War. Thus far you have added no content to the Zbigniew Brzezinski article. My edits have exceeded WP:ONUS. You have now removed my contributions on Soviet–Afghan War with no explanation on the talk page.

After following me around wikipedia, You first alerted me to my comments on my talk page instead of on Foreign electoral intervention.

Thank you. I look forward to adding material in a civil manner, despite our different views. Tulsipres (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Thank you for the information. now we are both aware of this! have a great day TheTimesAreAChanging Tulsipres (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Tulsipres, an editor placing a discretionary sanctions notification on another editor's talk page within the previous twelve months is accepted (at WP:AE and other administrative forums) as evidence that the OP is aware of said discretionary sanctions, so this was unnecessary/duplicative, not that there is anything wrong with the reminder per se.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries. Your edit summary may have been removed. Please look at pages regarding Civility and Personal attacks in your spare time. Thank you.

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

And just like you recently hounded @Tulsipres [7], you are as in the past, hounding me again on an article where you had no prior activity and only jumped on shortly after my activity. [8] Kindly stop that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tulsipres is an indefinitely blocked, globally locked, confirmed sockpuppet. You don't want to emulate his tactics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We're not talking about Tulsipres. We're talking about your behavior of hounding and harassing editors. Tulsipres is just another example, and I've experienced your harassment on many occasions. I'd recommend you tone down the hounding and disruptive editing. I proved you wrong a topic you understandably know little about a couple years ago (and multiple times since), which in response you insulted me and held a grudge ever since. Who holds grudges of this nature and length on Wikipedia? Is it that incredibly serious for you to always beat editors into submission and hound them wherever they're active? Since then, you have hounded me multiple times most recently today on an article on which you have no activity, made personal attacks on various occasions, even made a ridiculously false accusation of real-life crime (where you even got dates completely wrong) which typically is grounds for indefinite block. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

RAN1 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	thank you for fixing my thing That Prussian1872 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 04:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus for reinstating contentious material. Please adhere to WP:BRD and refrain from further edit warring, such as reinstating WP:BOLD lede edits attributed to a single low-quality source that community consensus has already determined is not reliable for the type of material in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

that community consensus has already determined is not reliable for the type of material in question That's simply not true. It was different content from the same article that was discussed. If you cross 3RR, I will bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 04:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Next time, please just try to be constructive rather than needlessly confrontational. If you have an issue with a part, don't make all this hoopla about the whole. ~ HAL333 04:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

United States militarism

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging. Do you have time to take a look at this article and see if there are any issues? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I looked it over. Despite our previous disagreements, I accept that the topic of American militarism is a real phenomenon and not mere WP:SYNTH. I have no particular issues to report at this time. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad

Hello. Do you have some time to take a look at Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad and contribute your thoughts to its talk page so that a consensus can be reached? Thanks. Skornezy (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Skornezy, and thank you for reaching out, especially considering that we have not always agreed on articles related to Middle Eastern politics in our limited interactions with each other. I will certainly examine the (voluminous) discussion on the cited talk page; however, I cannot guarantee that I will have any particular insights to contribute at this time. As you may have noticed, I have not been very active on Wikipedia lately, as I have been largely overwhelmed with other matters in my personal life. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

United States support for Israel's war against Gaza

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging. Do have the time to take a look at this article and see if there is any problem with it? Thank you.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that article is fine. It's very notable topic that meets GNG and the main war article is too long. VR _talk 02:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Covert_United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Hello, thanks for the revert, I had just noticed the word 'covert' there and was about to undo it myself. I had just gone by the first link in big letters which says "United States involvement in regime change" Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I am not a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)