User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

{{{Sanction being appealed}}}

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

Sandstein previously indicated that editing, e.g., Vietnam War was not in violation of the AP2 indef TBAN that he imposed last year. Specifically, he stated that this diff "appears unrelated to US politics," implying that the war as such is not within the scope of AP2. (Were my edits at Icebreaker (Suvorov) also within the scope of AP2, since the USSR was a major U.S. ally during World War II?) Therefore, I have to correct Sandstein's closing remark that "TheTimesAreAChanging does not contest having violated their topic ban and having made personal attacks." I intended to contest those assertions in my statement, commenting that MVBW's diffs—including minor copy edits—were not compelling examples of any TBAN violation but rather a frivolous attempt to remove a user from an unrelated content dispute. (I also directed readers to Paul Siebert's statement explaining that MVBW was, in fact, defending Hitler as a defense against the claim that my observation that MVBW was defending Hitler constituted an actionable WP:PA.) If this edit to Korean War is actionable, unlike the earlier edit to Vietnam War, the distinction seems arbitrary to me and the violation was unintentional. Given that no disruption (including PAs, etc.) was even alleged to have been associated with any of those diffs, blocking me on that basis seems to be punitive rather than preventative, so the block should be reduced.

I never appealed the TBAN, but I have little choice but to request that it be modified or reduced now that Sandstein is promulgating an expanded definition of its scope. You could say that any violation, even inadvertent, resets the clock, but I have made an obvious effort to adhere to the ban and the reaching evident in some of MVBW's diffs itself demonstrates this; certainly, there have been no other AE complaints against me since the TBAN was imposed, nor any edits of mine to any articles clearly labelled as subject to DS. Consider the following: 1.) My first AE TBAN was indefinite (rather than lasting for one, three, or six months, etc.), which is unprecedented in my experience on Wikipedia. Its reimposition has significantly limited my editing for more than a year, but if I have unknowingly made constructive edits to articles that could fall within the ban depending on the interpretation of an administrator, that would be an argument for narrowing it, rather than continuing with an open-ended restriction. 2.) The conduct for which I was previously sanctioned at AE was hardly exceptional; if you review the case, you will see that it concerned edit warring at an AP2 article, but I did not violate 3RR and 1RR/consensus required was not in place. While I regret taking the bait, three administrators—GoldenRing, Awilley, and Timotheus Canens—argued that the indef TBAN that Sandstein imposed was too harsh and/or that the other party in the dispute was guilty of (in the words of Timotheus Canens) "blatant violations of our content policies" by restoring what amounted to WP:HOAX material. In that case as well as the one recently initiated by MVBW, Sandstein took harsh, unilateral action against me without regard for the fact that my edits were directed against WP:HOAX and WP:PROFRINGE content, penalizing me for my inability to weaponize AE as effectively as other editors. The outcome genuinely seems to me to be unjust, and I would be remiss if I did not state my case here, whatever the odds of success.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

To whoever copies this, please check for and correct formatting issues if at all possible—it's hard for me to do so when I am unable to go into preview mode at AE. Perhaps you could even mention that, since I am appealing two sanctions and could have appealed them both separately, there is really no need for Sandstein to trim my statement when it is barely over 500 words anyway. Thanks in advance,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)}}

Copied to AE + notified Sandstein.Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail

This is in reply to your following e-mail:

"Given that my appeal at AE is going to be declined, I have to accept that I will likely remain topic banned for at least another six months or a year, when I may try to appeal the sanction again, either directly to you or to AE. To avoid future violations, would you be willing to review any edits that I would like to make but that could fall within the scope of the ban? I'm not suggesting that there will be very many cases like this, because the criteria that you've laid out is pretty restrictive, and I've also been advised by Seraphimblade to "Stay well clear from articles that could even be considered to have anything to do with US politics." Still, something may come up. In fact, there is one old diff not reported by My very best wishes that could fall into this category, and I would appreciate your feedback on whether future edits of that kind are prohibited, although if I provide the diff it is obviously only for the purpose of discreet clarification and not to get myself in even more trouble. I'm aware that you have no obligation to do so and may be very busy with other matters, but I would be grateful for the assistance if it is within your ability to provide it."

Sorry, no. I don't have the time to supervise another editor's contributions edit by edit. You will need to use your own judgment to avoid the US politics topic area. Sandstein 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 9,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Simple Message

Hi it seems like the same person that you tried to stop, is still at it. I just wanted to let you know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Numerosis Gamergirl89 (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you were handling this Situation with that person. I am Still trying to stop them like you were doing, the other account is doing the same thing as the one you were stopping. Gamergirl89 (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Numerosis

Max Abrahms on Russian Apartment Bombings

Hi there!

Apologies for not having reacted in time to the debate of your contribution to the criticism section. But better late than never. I wanted to make my own opinion prior to taking part in the discussion, but haven't been able to access the relevant pages of the book that time. I think you've made a quite important contribution.

Also, previously a somewhat similar argument has been made by Yulia Latynina.

--Document hippo (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban lifted

This is to confirm that, as per your appeal, your topic ban from the US politics topic area is lifted. Sandstein 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Truman Doctrine

IMO, if you think it should be 'light handed' then you need to keep the reference to supporting Nazi collaborator's, as this is what the US and Britain did in reality, to be historically correct, as their anti-communist rhetoric was so vehement. Im writing a thesis on it as I write, and was there for dates and cannot believe that such Pro-US capitalist rhetoric has made it through so many of the pages relating to 1945 through to 1949 in the Caucuses and Aegean. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sega Saturn scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Sega Saturn has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Sega politics

Thank you for quality articles about computer games such as Sega Saturn, Sonic Lost World and Dreamcast, for adding "sustained contributions" to CIA activities in Syria and Presidency of Jimmy Carter, for service from 2010, and "a natural sympathy for the underdog", - Jake, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2398 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for the thoughtful message!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Edward S. Herman

Let's talk about how to improve the page generally, not just with the edit on the anticipation of the criticisms. You'll have noticed that there was a no violation finding for me, and I really don't want to report you in return (I see from above you've crossed swords many times). I see others are reverting with one or two words as well... but I'm still looking for the first specifics to improve the edit and the article. Happy to work with you! Let's do this. CraigBurley (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I've opened this case at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Senor Freebie won't follow WP:BRD and consensus and is making false accusations and given the recent changes it mentions you. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to say hello:)

Shrike (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why

WHY did you delewte my edit usa and istrael was obviously involved in the syria coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8200:72:30F2:8A84:24D6:D458 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

E. Howard Hunt

What were you expecting to accomplish with your recent edit of E. Howard Hunt? It appears that you left it in worse condition than it was in prior to your edit. For Example, references #3 & 21, the addition of a category that doesn't exist, the removal of photographs, and an edit summary that does not describe your changes. BuffaloBob (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have been watching the article, then you should be aware that IP 188.154.154.154 and IP 71.54.192.159 have been making all sorts of egregious (and unsourced) edits to promote JFK assassination conspiracy theories for months, and some of those edits have stood for a very long time while others were quickly reverted (often by other IPs rather than the page watchers that you might expect). Therefore, unsure as to the extent of the damage, I reverted all the way back to the version predating the nefarious IP antics, as I explained in my edit summary. As a result, I was able to confirm that most of the conspiracy content had been removed by intervening edits, although the following unsourced paragraph remained in the article for months:

When the CIA released Hunt's personnel file, his time at Uruguay is (REDACTED). In 1998,the CIA released a (SECRET) document that was captured by the wiretaps Hunt set up while he was the COS of Uruguay. The secret document was a cable regarding Dandol Dianzi reporting "something of great importance to the nation." The intercepted phone call between Dianzi and the embassy was on November 20, 1963, two days before JFK was assassinated. The cable was sent to the White House. To this date, there is no mention of Dandol Dianzi, and Argentinian. While Hunt was stationed in Montevideo, he had people working for him at his home and CIA cut-outs from Argentina. It is unclear if Dianzi worked for Hunt. Neither the CIA nor the FBI has any reports on Dianzi.

You could argue that I should have then self-reverted and simply excised the above paragraph (and if that reinstated minor IP edits related to grammar, etc., that would not be a cause for concern), but at a glance the old version appeared to have some advantages over the revised version, such as not repeatedly specifying "World War II" in reference to Hunt's military service under both "Early life and career" and "Author." Regardless, intervening edits by a page watcher have already resolved most of the issues that you pointed to above, and another rollback would have the effect of deleting those edits as "collateral damage," as often happens when long-standing issues result in the need for rollbacks. (Of course, my concern is only the unsourced IP conspiracy content, so I have no particular objection if you decide to implement such a rollback/excision.) One problem that hasn't been resolved and that you mentioned above is the restoration of the "Guggenheim Fellows" category, which presumably existed at the time that it was attached to the article and has since been deleted, and which I'm happy to take out. In the future, I would advise you and all page watchers to stay vigilant when it comes to IPs introducing highly controversial JFK assassination content without an edit summary and without any citations for verification. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation and thank you also for all of your Wikipedia work. You obviously are are watching the page much more closely than I. I also have never felt that so much attention should be devoted to the JFK conspiracy allegations, perhaps a "See Also" link to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories would be more than enough. What about my photos of his birthplace and grave marker? Do you feel those are interesting enough to restore? BuffaloBob (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"What about my photos of his birthplace and grave marker? Do you feel those are interesting enough to restore?" I have no particular opinion on those photos and would not oppose you restoring them. My concern is solely with the JFK assassination conspiracy content, which probably needs to be covered in some form due to the effect of the allegations on Hunt's life, but based on reliable sources and without giving undue weight to fringe theories.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Declaring accomplished scholars as fringe

I don't think it's helpful to characterize sources by accomplished scholars as 'fringe' like you did when reverting one of my additions. It's probably more helpful to actually inspect and look at the source before jumping to such a strong conclusion.

Famous economist, member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, chief professor of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences , [2] Dean of the Marxist Research Institute of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics , director of the Shanghai School of Economics Research Center, doctoral supervisor, ministerial-level cross-century young and middle-aged subject leader people.... source - yet you declared his work "fringe"

Fuzhou University Lecturer. Main research directions: History of scientific thought and philosophy of science, Marxist principles and ideological and political education. He has published more than 20 papers in academic journals such as "Communication of Dialectics of Nature", "Theoretical Research of History", "Taiwan Studies", "Red Flag Manuscript" and so on. Personal academic monographs include "Introduction to the History of Chinese Science History" (Science Press, 2010), and participated in the compilation of "Encyclopedia of Minnan Culture" (Fujian People's Publishing House, 2009). sourceShemakesmynosebleed (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Old edits. Accopulocrat is back it looks like

I came across the old edits on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anfal_genocide&diff=927213628&oldid=927120307 and it looks like its the same person here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=991112231&oldid=991111218 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:600:10B:57FC:BD0A:3AAB:5957:DEE1 Just wanted to let you know it looks like try and stop this person when you can.

I tried undoing them but it was not letting me hope you can get to this when you can thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C400:DC30:913B:9F46:873E:D893 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Passing note from recent change patrolling: I requested protection for the second page at RFPP. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please file an SPI. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Accopulocrat

I came across Accopulocrat on multiple pages can you block him or can some one else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.244.246.174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.246.174 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Leeann Tweeden Edit

I was actually in the middle of reverting/undoing this as well when you beat me to the punch! Not only that, I had actually read his reference, and there was no mention of anything that he had added to the Tweeden entry.Asc85 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation at Spanish Flu

In every other case I have come across until this one, the form was {{sfn|Author|year|page}}, usually because if someone goes to the trouble of using harvard referencing for a book, it is because it needs to be cited multiple times at many different pages. And they say it takes ten years to really get the hang of Wikipedia! Make that twenty? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Racism in the Arab world

Stop engaging in personal attacks as you did on Talk:Racism in the Arab world. You need to WP:DISENGAGE either from that page or from interactions with that editor. It is crossed the line into disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WW1 death toll

The citation that breaks down the death toll of WW1, claims 6 million to 13 million. But the wikipedia of WW1 only shows 13 million. I only added the 6 million death figure, because that where the link took me. I think it's fair to show the low estimates & high estimates together, since no one truly know exactly how many died. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect if it is in reference to the Encyclopædia Britannica citation in the current lede of World War I. If there is a different source that supports your edit, then you need to provide that source for verification purposes (see WP:V). For the record, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, although their sub-sources might be. (Pretty basic stuff, really.) If you feel that further discussion is needed to resolve this matter, then you should probably open a new thread at Talk:World War I.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

	Hello
	I want to know how to add page references because the edit I did the Iran-Iraq War I had evidence for which I stated in the what did you change but I don't know how to add them in. Could you add them in or tell me how to do it? [[User:Snickeldorf|Jibs23]] (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

al-Qaeda article

Please tell me if I'm missing something in our disagreement regarding retaining the section in question until the RfC concludes. I am keeping an open mind and I will admit it if I have made (another) mistake. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this content. (If there were, it would not be subject to an RfC.) The purpose of an RfC is not to keep disputed content in an article for a month by reverting back to a particular diff from an edit war that you think is the "right diff". We should always revert back to the last STABLE version, preceding the initial edit war over the disputed content. You've reverted and made multiple WP:BOLD changes at least three times in the middle of an ongoing RfC in which you are an active participant. Continuing to do that even more will be reported as WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring and could result in sanctions. Proceed with caution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey I was trying to be conciliatory and make sure I'm not missing something. No need to go on the offensive. How many editors admit when they're wrong and ask if they're missing something like I did? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your undoing of my "citation needed"-flagging of the discription of Cultural Marixism as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"

I flagged the description of Cultural Marxism as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" with "citation needed", explaining that "As far as I can tell, none of the three sources listed here (the blogpost “Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment” and the books ”The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right” and “Cultures of Post-War British Fascism”) describes the theory of Cultural Marxism as an "antisemitic theory"." You undid my edit and commented "First source checks out; I'm guessing the others do as well and you are being deliberately disingenuous. Reverted."

It doesn't seem like you actually read the source. Its only reference to anti-semitism is the following sentences: "The radical Left, it has to be conceded, has at times also scapegoated émigré intellectuals for their sinister, covert influence. After Bush's invasion of Iraq, the neo-conservatives supposedly inspired by Leo Strauss and his followers were blamed for inspiring a foreign policy that was ultimately in Israel's interest. Here too a certain anti-Semitic subtext could easily creep into the discourse". In short, he is describing the radical leftist critisism of the Iraq war for having an "anti-Semitic subtext". He is clearly not refering to the theory of Cultural Marxism.

You are incorrect, as the source explicitly refers to far-right conspiracy theories about the Frankfurt School, which it analogizes to the manner by which "The radical Left ... has at times also scapegoated émigré intellectuals" (emphasis added). Regardless, there is no need to open a separate thread here; the article talk page should suffice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Efraín Ríos Montt

Hi. I might need help in dealing with User:78.99.188.30, who's now carried out four edits of the article on Efraín Ríos Montt that have essentially undone most of my recent work, removing large amounts of adequately sourced and referenced material. I've repeatedly asked the user to engage with the discussion in the talk page, so far to no avail. I notice that you reverted this once, and I've reverted it the other times, so that's threatening to turn into a slow-moving edit war. I'd be very grateful if you could keep an eye on this situation and take some action if called for. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I need help with this. The anonymous editor was temporarily blocked by User:Drmies, but he's since come back as another IP address, User talk:91.127.73.122, and doing the exact same thing again. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dear

With ref to this report, a new but suspicious account having pro Wahhabism and anti Sufism edit habit has appeared just after the above sock puppet actions. The aggressiveness, edit war and POV pushing in Ahle Hadith and Wahabism articles shows that he/she is experienced one and not new one. I found these behavioral exp pushing reforms of Saudi Arabia , here and use of mobile edits by banned user and by Suspect. The title names of both i.d's Grand Admiral and Shadow warrior are also related to War. Both are from Kerala, an Indian state. ScholarM (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept your revert

My friend, I only wanted to say that I fully accept your revert, as this is your area of expertise, rather than mine. If I should ever find the relevant reliable and verifiable sources (which were missing in my recent edits on Vietnam and Korea), I will return to add them. I do recall hearing in my youth that the country of South Vietnam was "lost to the north" 2 years after the US signed a peace agreement with North Vietnam. American troops began to evacuate the county, and it was only after most of the US troops had left Vietnam that the country was once again reunited. I find it striking, to say the least, that all the pain and anguish could have been avoided had the American military elite and politicians gone along with John F. Kennedy's wish to disengage from Vietnam.Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Review work?

Hello I was working on this page Soviet offensive plans controversy I understand now the other page is a Ga page. Could you review the Work I did one the Soviet offensive plans controversy page? just looking for input thanks.Thelostone41 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not have the time for a thorough or formal review.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 11:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cambodia Vietnamese war

Why you revert every my edit たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edit claims that Lon Nol was a "commander or leader" of the guerrilla resistance to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia during the 1980s, when in fact Lon Nol was in ailing health and in exile in California, where he died in 1985. The source that you provided does not substantiate your assertion in any way, and instead discusses Lon Nol's role in the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état (the author points out that the description of the incident as a "coup" is actually a misnomer).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

First sentence "Wahhabi Islamist"

Hi there - I added a section about this on the page's talk page. Please respond there. Rethinkmedia487 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: ). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for one week for edit warring at Buddhas of Bamiyan and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm disappointed by Bbb23's trigger-happy action in this case, which did not involve a bright-line violation reported to AN3 (as opposed to edit warring by multiple parties), and which precluded my ability to make a statement in my defense at that forum. I do not deny reverting three times or describing the edits that I reverted as tantamount to vandalism, but the context is unusually salient.

TrangaBellam (a recently created apparent single-purpose account by a self-described "Indian emigrant" that has made 4,400 edits just since the beginning of 2021, almost exclusively to niche Indian- and Buddhist-related content) has been engaging in unexplained mass deletions (totaling several thousand bytes of long-standing and nominally well-sourced content) at the Buddhas of Bamiyan article, leaving bizarre edit summaries such as "?" as the only clues for other editors to use in attempting to decipher his rationale. Specifically, he reverted twice to remove long-standing content originally added in April 2019 to the effect that "An author for Time magazine reported that the Koran does not command the destruction of images of other faiths, and that Islamic teachings did not justify the Taliban's actions." The only explanations that TrangaBellam gave for these deletions were (in their entirety) "Strangest line, I have read in this wiki," "What!", and no summary. Bbb23 apparently thinks that describing such unexplained mass deletions as tantamount to vandalism is a sanctionable WP:PA, but is that reasonable given the context? (As a thought experiment, what would we think of an IP editor deleting thousands of bytes of long-standing content while screaming "What!" in the edit summary? Would we sanction veteran editors for not assuming good faith or for raising questions about whether the IP had the requisite competence to contribute to an encyclopedic project?)

Per WP:BRD, these challenged WP:BOLD edits to long-standing content require consensus on the talk page before being reinstated, whereas my edits upheld the previous consensus by maintaining the last stable version. Unwilling to accept this, TrangaBellam publicly canvassed a like-minded established editor, Johnbod, to make an additional revert with the following summary: "not very helpful! Is a "reporter for Time" an RS here?" (To answer Johnbod's question: Yes, Time's listing at WP:RSP clearly states "There is consensus that Time is generally reliable.") I have seen no good explanation for the ping, but there is ample public evidence of TrangaBellam and Johnbod engaging in tag-team editing within hours, if not minutes, of each other on many different pages. (Frankly, Bbb23 should check to make sure that meatpuppetry is the extent of it—if he is still doing that sort of thing, that is.)

In sum, reverting three times to maintain the status quo in the face of obviously disruptive, vandal-like mass deletions based on denigrating RS and Wikipedia's content policies should not be sanctioned while the actual disruption is rewarded by kneejerk administrator action. (If I had been able to present my evidence at AN3 first, the outcome might well have been somewhat different.) Consider what you're enabling by only sanctioning one side in an edit war, in a particularly disproportionate manner, without waiting for my statement: Among other things, TrangaBellam's insistence that the Time excerpt about the Quran not calling for violence against other religions (which is echoed by many other sources, even at the Buddhas of Bamiyan article itself) is the "Strangest line, I have read in this wiki" and akin to "hoax content" reeks of Islamophobia. Or is pointing that out too much of a "PA" for Bbb23?

That said, I have no personal stake in this content that I did not add to an article I only watchlisted due to the recent events in Afghanistan. I'm certainly happy to stand aside and refrain from editing Buddhas of Bamiyan again, if administrators think that that would somehow lessen the disruption to the article. As always, just be mindful to carefully consider all of the underlying facts before making your decision. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

n.b. Consider this comment by Bbb23 made shortly after he blocked me for a week, at least in part for ostensible incivility: "Either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're insufficiently competent to edit here." Needless to say, that sort of language is not generally construed as a sanctionable PA, whether used by administrators or anyone else. And yes, this matters because fairness requires that sanctions must be applied even-handedly if they are to be applied at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is too long for consideration. Please be more succinct in addressing the reason for the block(edit warring and personal attacks). I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since this is a ubl and I am mentioned:

If anything, this doubles down on PAs.

a recently created apparent single-purpose account by a self-described "Indian emigrant" that has made 4,400 edits just since the beginning of 2021, almost exclusively to niche Indian- and Buddhist-related content - If this is not racist, this is bizarre. Indian history has tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia. I don't even remember having any focus on Buddhism. (cc:Admin User:RegentsPark)

I and User:Johnbod have disagreed often and I can't even find any article where I agreed with him.

The one edit I reverted with "What!" was removed in the course of four edits (each having an edit-sum) and a talk-page discussion. More obfuscations

The hoax-content is Babur having destructed the statues — I am sure they understand that (see talk-page) but pretend not to.

The peculiar attribution to a Times Journalist (!) about religious sanction of iconoclasm is extremely strange irrespective of factual accuracy. I won't even bother to defend the accusation of Islamophobia.

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per the report at AN3, I was blocked for reinstating long-standing content three times. However, the other party in the edit war removed the long-standing content twice ([1], [2]) and then pinged a like-minded editor to make two additional reverts. That means the reporting party has unclean hands, and the long-standing content from April 2019 should have been retained absent a clear consensus to remove it. (Per my understanding of WP:BRD, removal of long-standing content is a Bold edit, just like adding contentious new content.) The block is punitive and disproportionate, doing nothing to effectively address disruption to the encyclopedia. I provided additional details in the previous request, but 331dot stated it was too long to consider.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

American Exceptionalism

Re: my very simple edit on "Some claim..."

1) The lead section of energy entry generally does not require inline citations; my edit does not require a source when summarizing A sourced item from the article body 2) This is especially true for citations made in subsequent sections 3) The "some claim" issue is addressed in detail in the Origin of the Term section with 4 inline citations 4) Unless you can persuasively counter these items, or cite a Wikipedia sourcing policy violated, I will reinstate my edit, as 1) its true, and 2) I am merely bringing clarity to the lead section that is discussed in detail in the Origins section. As it is, the entry appears stupid, as the lead section makes it seem like absolute fact that Stalin originated the term (he didn't), while the Origins section cites numerous sources countering this claim, including that the first documented use was in 1861. Huskerdru (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing any reliable sources that substantiate your claims in the body of the article, so you will have to provide them in the lede. It seems clear that while the U.S. has been described as "exceptional" since de Tocqueville, the specific term "American exceptionalism" was coined in intra-communist disputes in the 1920s and was originally pejorative in nature. It should also be unsurprising that many contemporary proponents of American exceptionalism (who might have a very different concept of WP:TRUTH than that found in Wikipedia's preferred reliable academic citations) would prefer to retroactively attribute it to de Tocqueville rather than to communist opponents of the U.S.'s political/economic system, and certainly not to Stalin. Regardless, please go ahead and present your sources, preferably with page numbers and quotations to assist with verification. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. See Terminology section, first graf, "The exact term...", citing Zimmer, Ben (September 27, 2013). "Did Stalin Really Coin "American Exceptionalism"?". Slate.com. Also see Origin of the Term section, second graf, "Some claim..." (which is whence I derived my phrasing in the lede), citing Albert Fried, Communism in America: A History in Documents (1997), p. 7., and Pease, Donald E. (2009). The New American Exceptionalism. U of Minnesota Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8166-2783-7. Huskerdru (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you read any of those sources? Here is Fried p. 7 for your benefit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Fried, or course supports the claim that Stalin originated the phrase. I rely on Zimmer and Pease for counter-claims. Fwiw, I agree with you re: contemporary proponents (I am not one) and the concept. This isn't a hill I'll die on; I was attempting to harmonize the lede with existing body content (specifically in Terminology, "Some claim." I won't ultimately argue with preserving the lede language, but, if so, that sentence of the Terminology section should be changed to match the lede. Huskerdru (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Correction... Fried supports the claim that "American Communists" rather than Stalin originated the phrase. Huskerdru (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, and from Zimmer, it seems obvious that the term "American exceptionalism" was used first by Jay Lovestone (and perhaps other American communists) before Stalin, and that should be cleaned up, but I haven't found anything to contradict my initial précis that "the specific term 'American exceptionalism' was coined in intra-communist disputes in the 1920s and was originally pejorative in nature." Some have pointed to The Times as coining the phrase in 1861: "There is one thing to be said about civil wars—they do not last long. It is probable that the 'exceptionalism,' if one may use the word, on which the Americans rather pride themselves, will not prevail in the case of the struggle between North and South." However, while the concept of the U.S. as exceptional has a long history (clearly predating The Times), and nineteenth century writers used different terms and phrases to attempt to convey it, the question is not whether American communists were the first to make note of the exceptional characteristics of American society (they weren't), but rather who first formulated the specific term "American exceptionalism."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think your characterization KS reasonable and supported, though it's not what the lede says, which goes back to my original edit to counter the claim in the lede that "The actual phrase "American exceptionalism" was originally coined by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1929..." I'm happy to change the lede to reflect your phrasing, though I suggest you do so, as you did come up with a good intro sentence on the coining of the specific term. My concern was with countering the claim that Stalin coined the phrase, as the lede currently reads. Huskerdru (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is, not KS...stupid autocorrect Huskerdru (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, looks great! Thanks for the dialog. Cheers, Huskerdru (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Famines

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging,

Regarding this edit:

|- | 1945-1947 || Famine in Königsberg (Kaliningrad)||Soviet Union||57,000−76,500 |-

Who do I need to get consensus with? The previous edit (which was a bit different from this one, namely as concerns sources) was reverted by "the emu of wiki", who seems to be a robot, not a person.

Cortagravatas (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Cortagravatas, as you should know, the inclusion of this material was previously contested by both Ermenrich and The emu of wiki, neither of whom are bots. However, given that the sourcing in the most recent version of your edit has ostensibly improved, I have self-reverted for now, without prejudice to any future objections that might be raised by someone more familiar with the topic and the underlying sources. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion with Ermenrich was more about James Bacque IIRC, and we reached an agreement. As to the emu, I wrote to him/her several times (also about the LoF edit) and got no answer, so I presumed it is some electronic reading device. Glad to learn that emu is a person.Cortagravatas (talk)

I’m just curious about something

Why would mobsters and terrorists have ZERO part in foreign electoral intervention? (199.116.102.120 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)199.116.102.120)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on WSJ Talk Page

Sorry to bother, but I checked the archives for the previous RfC that you voted in, which ended up being archived without closing. Just wanted to let you know that a newer and more active discussion has arisen again, with new editors being involved. Bill Williams 01:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit War

You give no reason for the edit except you disagree? What exactly do you disagree with? Dec212012 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, your analysis of Dore's YouTube videos is non-notable original research. Two other users have now concurred with my analysis ([3], [4]). Perhaps you should brush up on the policy. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I added three sentences, one being a direct quote from the living person himself. I’m asking you again to please specify and explain your removing sourced material? The sources I used were The Boston Globe and the living person themselves own quote? I’ve ‘brushed up on’ original research and ask you again, what part of the two page article of original research you feel is not correct? As for your ‘two other users concurring, they used one word in their edit summary, SPIN. I ask you to stop this petty war. Giving a truthful quote, by a living person from a RS is not a reason for those three sentences to be removed. Dec212012 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your recent notice about edit warring. I am new to WP and still learning the ropes and was unaware of the rule. Editorial combat is the farthest from my mind. Looking forward to more amicable times. Thank you again. Moretonian (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanking

I hope you don't mind my "thanking" your edits and comments. It usually means that I have examined the edit or read the comment and largely (or fully!!!) agree. If I really disagree, I'll leave a comment. I appreciate your attention to detail. This shit is pretty complicated at times. A "shotgun" approach doesn't work very well, and your "rifle" aim is pretty good. I can tell that you're not an extremist with their finger on the red button. -- Valjean (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, Valjean. It's always much better to login and see a blue "thanks" notification as opposed to a red notification indicating either a mention or, god forbid, a revert!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

replying to comments

Beginning a reply with "[username], with respect, you are not parsing [sources]'s statement accurately, probably because English is not your first language." is a bit too cute. ~ cygnis insignis 05:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice, but I've known Paul Siebert for a long time and it seems apparent to me that while he is a repository of knowledge, his use of English can be a bit idiosyncratic, as is not uncommon for someone brought up in a Slavic tongue. Please don't comment here again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)