User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Re: Space Harrier

Yeah, I thought it odd as well that a 32X port released in '92 wouldn't be reviewed until three years later (GamePro), but shame on me for not following up on it anyway. Ugh. Anyway, thanks for the detective work and your edits on the article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for turning the article around so quickly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

SH is one of my all-time favorite games and holds a lot of memories for me, so it's been a labor of love. :') sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Please do not repeat the likes of this [1]. It is not "being bold". If you have objections to specific sentences or content, please confront them on an issue by issue basis. By blind reverting you inserted obviously false content (like the outdated box office figures) and unsourced pov (like "blessings that constitute the greatness of America" the was being falsely claimed to be a "statement"). Those two bits of content change were explained in my edit summaries - this blind revert also revealed that you ignored those summaries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood the edit summary. The POV-pushing likely sock was being BOLD; per BRD, I reverted him. Unless you explain why Alan Dershowitz, who you blindly deleted, is unreliable, I am going to revert right back.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about blind reverts: Sowell quite explicitly says "Perhaps it takes somebody from outside to truly appreciate all the blessings that too many native-born Americans take for granted. D’Souza understands how rare — sometimes unique — these blessings are." This is in the second paragraph! How blind can you be?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)

It is NOT a quote. There is no "greatness of America" quote. Do you actually think that this CONTENT wording is npov language suitable for an encyclopedia? Such hagiography is only appropriate if it is contained within an actual quote. And the quote has to be from someone notable or an expert, otherwise it is pointless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the other issue you raised - address it without a blanket removal of other editors' work. If you blind revert again, I will report you. Remember that this article is subject to various restrictions regarding US politics-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

And I actually support the position that it is not appropriate mention in the first sentence of the lede that the subject of this article is a convicted felon. It is over emphasis to have it in the first sentence, it is not what he is most notable for (though he actually seems to be playing up his conviction, based on reviews of his recent documentary) and there was certainly no need to mention the conviction twice in the lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The other editor was mass deleting content based on a misleading edit summary designed to obscure their intentions while fragrantly violating BLP and inserting D'Souza's mugshot. Per BRD, that editor needs consensus for such sweeping changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking ownership of, or supporting, anyone elses edits by my revert of your revert - but when you blindly remove the good (which I consider my edits to be) with the allegedly bad, you are not reaching a stable article with accurate content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I added your changes back in regarding the box office, and quoted Sowell directly. There's no need to restore the mass deletions I criticized on talk, with no response.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Your SPI witch hunt

Looks like your sock witch hunt went no where. Looks like my account is going nowhere.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC) P.S."BTW, Oneshotofwhiskey, I know a sock when I see one, and will likely be filing an SPI shortly." Apparently you don't - as your investigation has left you with egg on your face, and destroyed your credibility. Seeing as you are defending the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview) that would explain your egomaniac paranoia and failures in that SPI and elsewhere. Learn from your "failures".Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Since you are trying now for a second time to WP:GAMING the system by trying to intimidate me off those pages with false accusations, I think it is safe to point out now your hypocrisy that you've blatantly reversed my edits in violation of 3RR. That would only be possible if you were also [[[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]] and stalking my contributions. I would expect an editor who knows the rules as well as you, and is quick to lecture others about the rules, to know better than to engage in an edit war.

You can delete all the templates you want warning you about rules you are violating. As you already know, that doesn't mean the administrators investigating your behavior won't see my edit history in warning you here. Nor can you feign ignorance that you weren't warning. Covering up a warning won't hide your violations here or elsewhere. Good luck.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congrats on your 13,000 edits. Don't agree with you on anything (almost), but the stamina and dedication required to hit 13k edits are not to be sniffed at. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging. I'm Kevin, an arbitration clerk. I have to go very soon, but looking at your recently-filed arb request, you should be careful that this is a conduct, not a content, dispute (ArbCom is not allowed to intervene in article content) and that previous conduct resolution venues (e.g. WP:ANI) have been exhausted. If that is not the case, it is probable that your request will be summarily declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request declined

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop

...poking the bear, please. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: So you're saying other users are not allowed to comment on an unblock request? A previously uninvolved admin must decide whether or not to unblock merely by evaluating the petitioners's own claim that the socking/evasion was all a big misunderstanding?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that, given the shared animosity, you should leave them be. Reviewing admins will evaluate all the evidence, including the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam war casualties

Currently the casualty section does not make sense because the max deaths under South and North Vietnamese civilian casualties is lower than the minimum Vietnamese civilian casualties section. I don't have access to Lewy's book, but how does he have these estimates that do not add up separately for south and north civilian casualties and separately for total Vietnamese civilians. Is his 627,000 figure even his minimum estimate? Also why would the minimum figure be 627,000 when the sources used in the info box by Hirschman and Thayer are also lower than it. Stumink (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See Lewy's Table A-8. I suppose one could argue that 405,000 is Lewy's "minimum" number of civilian deaths, but his estimate of 444,000 NVA/VC killed in action is based on the assumption that one-third of the 666,000 claimed by the Defense Department were actually civilians. If the numbers given at different places on Wikipedia seem inconsistent, the problem is more likely to be Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I claim no expertise when it comes to war casualties. If one takes only the smallest figure—from Hirschman et al.—and assumes that all of the males age 15 and up were combatants and all of the women and children (younger than age 15) were civilians, then the absolute rock-bottom minimum estimate for civilian mortality is 227,000. I can understand why you wouldn't want to use 627,000 as the "minimum" when the Vietnamese government's 2 million is the "maximum," but Guccisamsclub has written far more eloquently than I about the danger of combining multiple implausible "low" estimates to create a synthesized "minimum" that is actually an order of magnitude more implausible than any of the cited "low" estimates are individually. Clearly, we should tread carefully when broaching this sensitive topic; if you wish to pursue WP:BOLD changes, I would recommend explaining your concerns on the talk page first.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Ed Moise has commented on the Hirschman et al study: "Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi, "Vietnamese Casualties during the American War: A New Estimate," Population and Development Review, 21:4 (December 1995), pp. 783-812. The estimate of 966,000 deaths (plus or minus 175,000) looked low to me, so I took a brief look at the article. The study was based on questioning 804 adults, half urban and half rural, in a few areas of Vietnam in 1991. People were asked whether their parents and siblings were still alive, and if not, when and how had they died. When extrapolating from these results, the authors do not appear to have made any effort to deal with problems such as (a) that asking people about their parents will give no data about members of the previous generation who were killed before they were able to have children, and (b) that the asking people about the fate of their siblings and parents will give no data about families that were wiped out in the war. Given this, the statement of the authors (p. 797) that "our estimates of mortality are likely to be biased downward" seems an understatement." 1. The BMJ , which was drawing on a considerably bigger sample sizes, said basically the same thing. Hirshman, together with Lewy represent the low extreme in the range of estimates. The range of 2-4 million is accepted by virtually everyone who has written on the topic recently, from Robert McNamara on down. This is a range that's backed by the WHO, Uppsala/PRIO and official Vietnamese figures. Given the length and intensity of the Vietnam War, this should not come as much of a shock. Well maybe not to the average person on the street in the US who thinks that the number of Vietnamese deaths was not far from the numbers of American deaths. So one million—with the range of civilian casualties it implies—is low. Stumnik's civilians ~200K appears to based on some kind of synthesis or selective reading: it is miles away from any estimates modern historians would defend in print. It also defies all common sense, IMO. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The BMJ's study has garnered fierce criticism and I wouldn't call its very high estimate of 3.8 million particularly credible—especially since adding its figures (Table 2) for 1955-1964, 1965-1974, and 1975 yields only roughly 3 million. The BMJ's assumption that there were roughly as many deaths from 1955-1964 (1.3 million) as from 1965-1974 (1.7 million) flies in the face of all other evidence attesting to an enormous increase in the scale of the destruction following the beginning of overt U.S. involvement in 1965, and seems particularly odd when other sources estimate little more than 100,000 killed during the former period. Lewy's 1.3 million refers solely to the latter period, and is probably one of the more accurate figures available, despite the high uncertainty surrounding any estimate. Uppsala University's 2 million (Table 3) is also a reasonable approximation for all three periods combined, but I think the BMJ is the outlier for suggesting a toll twice as large as that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I also find the BMJ/Uppsala estimates for the Guatemalan Civil War—20,000-33,000 killed—very interesting. As I've said before, no-one actually believes in the fabled 200,000.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. You're probably right that we should use the 20-62K. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Be careful about your editing at articles under Discretionary Sanctions

You have been warned in the past about the Discretionary Sanctions that put special editing restrictions on articles about current U.S. politics. The article Political positions of Donald Trump is one such article. One of the DS restrictions is "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." The material you added to the "Disabled Americans" section was reverted, and you added it a second time. That was a violation of these special restrictions. Don't add it again or you could be subjected to sanctions (i.e., blocked or banned). If you think this material should be included, discuss it at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for keeping an eye on this type of behavior. It hasn't stopped. TTAC has once again violated DS with this restoration before consensus was reached. The talk page discussion is progressing very nicely and there is no reason to restore disputed content. We're working it out. The improper restoration has been undone, with a warning. I hope you also follow up here. Since TTAC has been warned before, we need to see something more than another warning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. 4-2 in favor of inclusion is a consensus. It's certainly not the strongest consensus and it could always change, but I've seen disputes "settled" on a weaker basis than that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The decision about whether a consensus exists isn't determined by one person, but by those engaged in the discussion. (We haven't begun the discussion about whether we have a consensus because we aren't ready for it.) It's not determined by a simple majority count either. As long as a discussion is in progress, we don't get to short circuit the decision making process. We wait until a decision has been made. If a clear consensus, like 15 to 1, doesn't arise, and there is a locked situation, then dispute resolution is the next step, not edit warring over the content. It stays out until a very clear consensus version has been developed. In this case we are working towards a better way to include the material, and we'll likely get there within the next couple days. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I woke up and began to LOL @ HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON really, really hard. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hussein vs. Saddam

A little surprised by your edit there - it's convention in history and politics to refer to people by their last, not first names. Why switch to first name? -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hussein is the name of Saddam's father, not his surname. Saddam's full name—Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti—was suppressed because the Ba'th Party wanted to obscure the extent to which it was dominated by members of Saddam's tribe. As you can see on the main Saddam Hussein article, there is a broad consensus in favor of referring to him simply as "Saddam" (I was reverting a recent change), which is followed by most media organizations (with the notable exception of The New York Times) and is how he was known to virtually all Iraqis. For a full discussion, see, e.g., here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up: I was unaware of this issue. -Darouet (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hersh

So you still insist on keeping the Hersh crap in its entirety? If Flynn had really been pushed out over disagreements on Syria, he would have said so at least once in his interview on Al Jazeera, after the interviewer repeatedly asked him point blank whether he challenged the administration on issue, to which Flynn muttered something about it not being his job, "different groups", unclear policies and getting the aid in too late (2013, whereas the memo about the Syrian opposition being supposedly dominated by Islamists—the memo that was supposed to lead to some disagreements over policy—was written in 2012). The only one who clearly says what Hersh wants his readers to hear is Lamb, and its fits in so well that I gotta wonder where Lamb gets his facts. You've already said that Lamb might be undue, since his comment only has weight in the context of Hersh's overall narrative. I'm no expert, but Hersh's narrative appears substantially nuts; it is certainly marginal. If you want a rational critique of US policy toward Syria, you could try Patrick Cockburn or something. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(Lamb? I think you mean Lang?) Anyway, it sounds like you're engaging in textbook OR to dispute a renowned American journalist. (Can't you just be happy at the prospect of improved relations between our two countries?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Lang, whatever, nobody knows who he is anyway. Hersh is not renowned for his work on Syria at all—he is infamous for it. His theories on Ghouta are the equivalent of 9-11 trutherism. Last question's loaded and irrelevant, but you can put me down for "no". Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ronald Reagan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I understand that placing a self-published blog in the lead is pretty egregious, but there's no reason to call anybody an idiot. It's always best to first assume good faith. Thank you. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the People's Mujahedin of Iran page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Priceless

I think you might enjoy this. Washington Post does not have enough egg on it's face, apparently. I'll probably add it to my WTF's shortly, after I figure out which aspect of this story is the most fucked. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a great read, thank you. I've always thought Glenn Greenwald is an honest Leftist deserving of great respect. (For example, he points out that Obama has incinerated considerably more Muslims by drone than Bush, and asks "Where have all the peaceniks gone?") (Edit: Then again, Greenwald fell for this obvious fake news about the horrible, horrible "shame" conferred by considering forbidden ideas, so not too much respect.) My favorite part is the following:

Two of the most discredited reports from the election season illustrate the point: a Slate article claiming that a private server had been located linking the Trump Organization and a Russian bank (which, like the current Post story, had been shopped around and rejected by multiple media outlets) and a completely deranged rant by Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald claiming that Putin had ordered emails in the WikiLeaks release to be doctored—both of which were uncritically shared and tweeted by hundreds of journalists to tens of thousands of people, if not more. The Post itself—now posing as a warrior against 'fake news'—published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of 'fake news' from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

That's exactly right: People wouldn't be going to "fake news sites" if they thought they could trust the mainstream media. (If Facebook and Twitter are serious about preventing another 2016 by censoring "fake news" according to whatever ill-defined criteria they decide upon, many of their users will migrate elsewhere, because the distinctions made will be inherently arbitrary and capricious—besides, censorship inevitably creates the impression that there must be some "there" there.) As an example, the paragons of objectivity are guilty of considerable hypocrisy for belittling the (as of now) baseless "report" estimating 3 million illegal aliens voted for President (the data supposedly supporting that number has yet to be made public) while championing the equally dubious "213 million" views for "Kremlin propaganda" (also divined from non-transparent methodology no-one is able to check). (The major difference being that we should be able to expect more of the Times and the Post than we do of Alex Jones.) BuzzFeed, in particular, is scarcely distinguishable from any "fake news site": Consider the viral BuzzFeed article declaring false rape accusations eleven times rarer than being struck by a comet, because the calculator said so (BuzzFeed's math was "wrong by a factor of over 22,700x"). As Greenwald and Norton accurately surmise, this kind of yellow journalism is nothing more than an attempt to smear anyone—on the Right, Left, or in between—that refuses to conform to "the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum." Sorry, Wash Post, but the genie is never going back in the bottle.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So, do you really think that Washington Post or NYT are no more reliable sources than RT (TV network) or Pravda? Here is my point. While most of the claims above are indeed ridiculous, I am not sure you are familiar enough with Soviet and Russian history. Do you know, for example, that the bombings of buildings in Moscow and elsewhere were indeed directed/conducted by Russian state services, as the head of the FSB was well aware about? Of course they later used the comparison with 9/11 to discredit the claim. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'd not go that far. One obvious difference is that, as of this writing, the Russian media have a lot more glaringly indefensible stuff to defend. This is quite similar to the American media in the run up to the Iraq War. Propaganda becomes glaring when the gap between reality and apologetics becomes too wide. The Russian media is also much more monolithic and unprofessional. In the US, you can at least read between the lines and cross-reference numerous establishment sources to get information. This is basically impossible to do with the Russian mass media (there are a few serious papers remaining, but not enough for the kind of stuff I'm talking about). The point about the "serious" American media is that, under the pressure of market forces, it is gutting investigative journalism and continuing its transformation into a bullshit echo chamber. This dynamic kills journalists' ability to ask the right and difficult questions. Patriotism, respect for power and socio-economic (elite) background of those involved in the mass media: these guide the way when this path of least resistance is taken. It leads to the Bush-Clinton spectrum today, maybe the Trump-Clinton spectrum in the future, depending. So the free-market media is by no means immune to playing a propaganda role. It is true that RT plays a far more transparent and direct propaganda role for an autocracy. The corporate media is less bound to such a role. This is why several journos at RT made on air statements saying they won't toe the propaganda line of their employer: unlike their colleagues in the corporate media, they know the score. Their soviet predecessors knew the score too. But contrasts aside, the fundamental reason for the outcry in the American media against RT is not that it puts out egregious and weirdly eclectic propaganda, but that it puts out the wrong kind for the wrong people. It is no surprise that RT gets a following, not unlike Voice of America did back in the USSR. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to leave a general comment saying that I care more about my own country's media, and that RT's large U.S. audience attests to the fact that it must be meeting some need that has been neglected by the mainstream U.S. press, but Gucci put it far better than I could have. The comparison with Voice of America is particularly apt.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As someone who lived in both countries, I must tell that mainstream mass media in Russia and US are extremely different. One should judge them not on the basis of what they tell (they tell a lot of different things), but on the basis of the final "product", i.e. the listener: what general public think and most importantly feel after watching TV. Main purpose of real propaganda is not to simply misinform the listener or reader, but to incite bad feelings, such as fear, extreme prejustice and hatred. That is what modern Russian propaganda does with a much greater success than old time Soviet propaganda, based on views by majority of people who now live in Russia (there are still a few good media and intellectuals who are fine). There is nothing even remotely similar in US. There are maybe a few obscure hatred websites which I did not even see. In Russia, this is entire state-sponsored TV. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just adding a citation for my "bullshit echo chamber" allegation.

Thanks

Thanks for caring, Jake. And yeah, there's quite a few very thought-provoking points on your userpage, and some I totally disagree with. (Aristide for example) a right-handed lefty who grew up not so far from your neck of the woods, SashiRolls (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your best efforts to keep Wikipedia sane.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Note

• I am posting this as your well wisher since I respect the fact that you are intelligent and knowledgeable.
• This edit summary is unacceptable: "This is wildly undue weight to an opinion piece by an author that is, quite obviously, insane. In particular, he is using "explicitly" like a verbal tic, even though Trump has never said one "explicitly" racist sentence." The word "insane" makes it a violation of WP:BLP.
• The structural problems of Wikipedia do not concern your AE appeal. They are suitable for discussion and addressal in a different forum.
• I still think you will be better off striking your words which Melanie found problematic if you want to succeed in your AE case. Soham321 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I realize that worse BLP violations have gone unnoticed and/or unpunished, but you obviously need to be more careful when there is an ongoing AE case against you and your edits are being scrutinized very carefully. Soham321 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Partially stricken.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am actually in agreement with what RexxS wrote on my talk page: Wikipedia takes any violation of BLP policy extremely seriously. This isn't a trivial matter or even a matter just for Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation board was concerned enough to pass a resolution on the issue - see wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

In my reply to Rex, this is what I wrote: "Besides everything else it is a fool proof method to place the burden of responsibility for any negative content about the living person on the referenced source." Let me elaborate: if you or I write anything negative about a living person(s) then they have the right to sue us (and possibly sue Wikipedia). If we stick to the reliable source(s) when framing any negative adjective(s) pertaining to a living person then we have placed the burden of responsibility for the negative content on the reliable source(s). So using the method of carefully sticking to the reliable source's characterization of a living person when attaching any negative labels to a living person is something you and I ought to do for our own protection, and also for the protection of Wikipedia. Soham321 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

In one of his AE comments, Rex wrote: "WP:BLP is a "bright-line" policy. There's no gradation like "slightly contentious"; a term is either contentious or it isn't...The bar is set at zero: we allow no contentious terms at all." I am in agreement with this view. Now I understand this interpretation of WP:BLP is not being uniformly followed by all Admins, but I think it should be. Possibly, the wording in WP:BLP needs to be tweaked to make all Admins interpret the policy in accordance with Rex's interpretation.Soham321 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary

It might make a difference if you publicly retract your statement in that edit summary regarding BHO, apologize, and ask Bishonen to revdel it.--v/r - TP 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely with the suggestion of public retraction, apology, and revdel of the 'insane' edit summary. Also edit summaries like this one should be avoided in future: "SPECIFICO, you're just too easy to bait into revealing your stalking & double standards. Did you warn or redact Oneshot when he called D'Souza "a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, and an adulterer"? OF COURSE NOT—& you opposed sanctions!" Soham321 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving 1up

The cite web template has archiveurl and archivedate parameters. Please use them and stop removing the old urls when archiving web sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Since I addressed both your invalid concerns, I suppose that the current version is now acceptable to you. [2] --Mathmensch (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

keeping faithful to the facts ultimately helps you assessing decisions and moving to a future that is acceptable to the many. --Mathmensch (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Gulp

Just FYI the alert above had zero ill will or bad intentions. Also I hope you'd notify me or ask me to undo an edit if something looked disruptive in the future, and I'd gladly do so ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: You don't know the full context of SPECIFICO's interactions with me. SPECIFICO has been making my life Hell for the past two months by reporting me directly to three admins, initiating a topic ban proposal against me at ANI, and aggressively pushing to have me sanctioned at AE. SPECIFICO has also been fairly blatantly stalking and reverting my edits, all the while vowing: "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned." For what its worth, I am quite familiar with SPECIFICO's recent edit history, and I have not seen that user make a single constructive edit to any article; it sure looks to me like mighty close to 100% of SPECIFICO's "contributions" are threats, deletions of sourced material SPECIFICO mercilessly considers "UNDUE," censorship of talk page comments, and appeals to have any editor SPECIFICO disagrees with blocked or banned—all accompanied by a subtle but unmistakable unpleasantness and hostility. In marked contrast to SPECIFICO, it's quite obvious that you are a well-meaning editor more concerned with article improvement than advancing any POV; I believe I've already thanked you for some of your edits, and I don't suspect (whatever our private disagreements) that we should have any difficulty collaborating.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

AE report

This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your last AE comment and think you should really explain this better and fix your comment. You complain about Oneshotofwhiskey and probably rightly so, but it is completely unclear why you should " hit back twice as hard" (your expression) another user (SPECIFICO)... Why? I do not think you should "hit back" anyone at all. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll try to work on that. My issues with SPECIFICO go back to a feud from 2012 (not coincidentally another election year). I suspect she hasn't gotten over the fact that—after I encountered her as an IP at Peter Schiff (she was engaging in the same POV-pushing or carelessness that got her topic banned from the Mises Institute)—I convinced her to create an account in the first place. Her tl;dr forum shopping has utterly derailed that AE, and I hope it BOOMERANGs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are usually doing very good content work. However, you do not make friends in the project and behave confrontationally even with regard to contributors with whom you do not have a significant difference in opinion. Obviously, this is not only your problem. For example, I have seen at least one contributor in the area of physics who behaved enormously confrontational simply because he wanted everything be described exactly as in his favorite textbook (no, this is not someone who was sanctioned, quite the opposite). Since then I do not edit physics. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@TTAAC. Did not you see the warning Dennis gave you during closing of the AE request about you just a few days ago? After that you suppose not to edit any hot subjects related to US elections during at least a month and stay away of any users you was in a conflict. And did not you know that two sequential edits count as one after all your experience? My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As documented in the AE report, it's pretty clear that SPECIFICO is the one stalking me, not the other way around.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not at all obvious. Stalking means that someone follows your edits to create "distress to the other editor" [3]. If she/he follows your edits to fix them in a way that can be reasonably viewed as improvement or a content dispute, this is not stalking. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Coup d'etat by influencing electoral college

Bear with me, this was my first WP entry and my first talk about it. I added current developments about the above topics, and you undid the change with the comment "All true, but undid due to WP:UNDUE". What was wrong with my entry? I know that references needed to be supplied, but if the content was deemed "all true" how can it not fit on that page? Is there a better place to put this?

Thanks, Thomas Tauzinger (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What the Hell; I won't revert you again if you restore this material. I'll just ping Wikipedia's whitewasher-in-chief—@Volunteer Marek:—and let him decide whether or not your edit is acceptable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As the WhitewasherInChief I proclaim that edit unacceptable. It's not encyclopedic and utilizes too much editorializing and has no sources. As a RegularWikipediaEditor I'm gonna remind TTAAC about civility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit in all seriousness: The connection you making between the CIA's claims of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election and United States involvement in regime change is likely to constitute original research and synthesis. Very few, if any, reliable sources describe the CIA's current actions as a deliberate attempt to sway electors to vote against Trump. Note that Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth—and by definition perpetuates whatever biases may exist in mainstream sources. I believe United States involvement in regime change should be limited to major U.S. interventions widely covered in RS on the topic, whereas your text seems like an example of WP:COATRACK or WP:POVFORK.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please undo yourself

Political Positions of Donald Trump is under DS, and disputed content should not be reinserted w/o consensus on talk:

Please review the DS notice at the top of the talk page and undo your reinsertion of content I've cleaned up and use talk if you disagree with my edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're not supposed to change long-standing sourced material without consensus. Wash Post says: "Sputnik has a reasonably large audience: A million people like it on Facebook, and nearly 200,000 follow it on Twitter. ... BuzzFeed News' Jon Passatino notes on Twitter that the Sputnik article may not even have been the source of Trump's comments. It may have been a tweet from earlier in the day which included the precise language Trump read." The text is clearly sourced—in fact, it's quoted nearly verbatim—so why pretend it's "unsourced"? Must you use opaque edit summaries to justify purging everything you don't like? Does every single edit really need to be accompanied by threats and drama boards—no matter how uncontroversial it should be to any objective observer? In sum, SPECIFICO: What's your problem?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not edit war

I merely reverted once. I did explain the matter to you and you went on to almost agree. But now you went back to "Criticise everything Mathmensch does" mode. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I never agreed with you. Now that you've gotten reverted by more than one editor it is even more incumbent on you to stop.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. You just did what every strongman in history does. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone appears on Wikipedia knowing all the rules and noticeboards, edits in a blatantly partisan manner, and then peppers everyone's talk pages with warnings. What a bunch of baloney. -Darouet (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

G'day TTAAC, my apologies for the block, it was wrong. You did not breach 1RR on Benjamin Netanyahu. Sorry about that. I have reversed my actions, and I unreservedly apologise. Happy Christmas, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Same to you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—same to you!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Hi-- I don't think I'll be able to move that dispute from edit warring to consensus building without additional help from constructive editors. Since your contributions indicate that you're one of them, and you already have a hand in that dispute, your renewed participation would be appreciated. Eperoton (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging,
you've written in your comment: "Potentially serious WP:BLP problems with using interview that Zbig has long claimed distorted his statements; replaced and rephrased". I've the question: Can you provide a source for that? Since Le Nouvel Observateur is a very respected magazine. --Perofsez (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. See here, here (or skip ads), here, and here (starting with the question at 7:35), just for starters.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

For comments by other Carter administration officials see (in addition to the first link), e.g., Carter's own account in The Nation. Riedel had more direct access to Gates, Brzezinski, and Carter than anyone, although you won't find his book very useful for promoting the conspiracy theorist version of what happened.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

But in your source Brzezinski repeated the main fact he stated in the interview: "I didn't say it was designed to prompt a Soviet invasion. That was a very sensationalized and abbreviated version of an interview. What I did say was that we did help mujaheddin to resist the Soviet. At the time the Soviet already had political control over Afghanistan but had not yet invaded militarily." He only rejects that it was intended to prompt an invasion. But that is of secondary importance, the main part is: The CIA helped the mujaheddin before the Soviets invaded Afganistan. --Perofsez (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(P.S. And for the other part, when a politician wants to correct an article in such a high-rank magazine more than 7 years later on, then that article would stand on its own, but here he tried to correct one part only to confirm the main part.)

"He only rejects that it was intended to prompt an invasion. But that is of secondary importance, the main part is: The CIA helped the mujaheddin before the Soviets invaded Afganistan." Right, and that's in the article now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

THANKS, re link to text of Richard Helms, early career

First, I want to thank you very much for the link to the saved text of this article (which earlier had been split-off from Richard Helms).

Late last year I looked for "RH, early career" but was surprised to discover that the article apparently no longer existed. Instead when entering its name there is a redirect to the "RH" article. At a loss of where to find the missing text of "RH, e. c.", I searched the sections at the end of Talk:Richard Helms. No reference to it appeared. Yet later, I came back to read through the entire "RH" talk page. At the top of a 2012-era section on 'POV', was your added NB entry dated March 2016. In it you included a link to the deleted article. Thank you, again!! And thank you for your kind words.

After additional reflection, I went back but found no real discussion about the deletion, or why the decision to delete was made. Not on either talk page. Since I had contributed substantially over several years to the text, I reckon I should have been included, or at least informed.

But my main point is to thank you. Not only for the link, but for your comments about the two RH articles, and other articles as well. Elfelix (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help. Thanks again for your superb editing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

Your comments on SPECIFICO are a distraction on the talk page and have gone too far. Please take concerns about user conduct here. However, I would ask you to stop the comments on article talk pages. Casprings (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. I certainly intend to report SPECIFICO; I'm just not sure my list is big enough yet to guarantee action will be taken. (In addition, it seems that SPECIFICO can't go more than a few days without misrepresenting something or other, so I'm inclined to wait ... )TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that your behavior might also be questioned. Might want to work things out.Casprings (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

TTACC. Did not you see my advice above [4]? I supported you once on WP:AE. Can not do it next time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll never voluntarily censor myself from editing on any topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you had to restrain yourself in response to conclusion by Dennis on AE. Now you are making serious personal accusations (intentional misinterpretation of sources) on article talk page [5]. This is not the place. If you really believe it, such claims should be only made on appropriate administrative noticeboards and with proofs. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems you are going to be just fine, but looking at your sandbox I must tell that your evidence of intentional misinterpretation by S. is weak, to tell the least. You tell this was an intentional fabrication, however the quoted source actually tells: The 170-page report said such Iraq/al-Qaeda statements were “not substantiated by the intelligence,” adding that multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners – and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda. Well, I think this is more than enough to think that S. acted in a good faith, whatever else this source tells. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The source says that the claims about WMD were substantiated by the intelligence, but the claims about al Qaeda were not. SPECIFICO used it to declare Trump's statement false and to deny that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD, even though the source explicitly says the opposite, noting: "The Trump team kept its complaint isolated to intelligence findings that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." All of SPECIFICO's "errors" support their POV, but it really makes no difference whether they are misrepresenting sources on purpose or out of incompetence; they've been doing it routinely for four years, and I find it mind-boggling that they've been able to get away with it for so long and remain a respected (if topic-restricted) member of the community. (Nor do I see anything to suggest that SPECIFICO's misconduct is limited to a single topic, or even to any set of topics.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand better what you are talking about. Obviously, the US intelligence is absolutely terrible: they did not notice nuclear bombs developed by the Soviet Union and India; they had a lot of other failures, including 911, WMD in Iraq, and of course letting the hackers and foreign propaganda to affect US elections... My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

However, back to the subject, do not you realize that blaming other contributors on article talk pages as you did here, was wrong? Please see WP:NPA. If you really have strong evidence that someone misrepresented sources (I am still not at all sure), should not this be brought to ANI or AE? But I guess you do not have evidence, but simply uncomfortable interacting with these contributors. If so, I think you should not edit these pages. But instead you are making life of these contributors miserable by blaming them personally on every possible occasion on article talk pages. Are you going to continue doing the same in the future? This is the way to have yourself topic-banned. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion concerning you on WP:AE, here.