User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 2

South Vietnam
Hello I would like you to have look at the South Vietnam page an editor insists on adding the claim that South Vietnam was a "Client state of the United States" in the type of government section. Regards.Stumink (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also requested admin intervention from Wtmitchell, asking for a revert of that client state status, as well as page-protection due to Hcpunkkid's edit warring. Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'll be able to help. My opinion, which is irrelevant, is that Diem was Vietnam's true nationalist hero---whereas the French returned to Indochina at Ho Chi Minh's request and collaborated with the Viet Minh to massacre the Vietnamese nationalists, Diem was so fiercely and indefatigably independent that Kennedy had him killed. North Vietnam was such a client state of the USSR that their every move--from the "land reform" to the invasion of the South--was approved by Moscow in advance (just like with North Korea). But I don't know what RS say about SVN being a "client state" of the US. Academics may be wrong, but while we're on Wikipedia we just have to accept what they say, and besides--there is an element of truth to the idea that SVN was dependent on US aid. The coup against Diem certainly demonstrates American political influence over the country.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources that were added were pretty poor. 3 of the sources were worthless. However a number of sources do refer to it as such. I am sure this would however be a very disputed matter.Stumink (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would be, but we would need to find high-quality sources that disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi TTAAC and Stumink, is having the status section empty a viable idea? See discussion, and background info. I'm so tired of being in the same type of content dispute again and again, once every half year or so something just has to come up...Sorry about that, but anyone can see how i feel about this...Aside, i can't help to notice something below about proposing N.C. to be used as a source, now i'm not fully informed of what's happening there, but from my knowledge of N.C. of his position and works on Vietnam-related political/historical matters, he's definitely not a credible authority/reference. I have a feeling he won't be either for history/politics-related matters for any other foreign country...Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not--Chomsky is just a linguist. He's not an expert or a historian, and he writes not to teach, but to indoctrinate. Chomsky knows just enough about the countries he writes about to sound knowledgeable to people who really don't know anything.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification
WP:ARBEE Due to your support of the use of known genocide deniers as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! The thought crime police are here! I've been "warned" by a non-admin edit warrior not to support the use of high-quality academic sources that have never been challenged at RSN! (Even acknowledging the full death toll from a massacre is not enough, for every instance of mass death automatically qualifies as "genocide," according to the monolithic bloc of Academic Consensus). You would think it would be easier to take the matter to RSN, but the intimidation tactics continue!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even your thoughts are being monitored. Is no one safe?
 * Also, so far as I can find out, the entry has no relation to his participation either! Just a random label from out of nowhere!
 * Next up: "UFO denier label." Student7 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As you have taken it upon yourself to follow me to the topic area I edit and, unsurprisingly insert fringe material into various articles be aware this topic area is also under discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should take your own advice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You say you are not looking at my contributions? This tells a different story. You have obviously followed me there, and then decided to insert Bose in other articles I edit to be pointy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find me editing Yahya Khan 3 years ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And Yahya Khan has what to do with the FTN board? Or any of the articles you added Bose to? You looked at my contributions, you saw the discussion on the FTN board and then went and made a bunch of pointy edits, as is obvious from the fact you have never posted to the FTN board before. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've long known that the allegations against Yahya Khan's regime are among the most obscenely exaggerated in history.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for good humor. :) Cheers bro. --HistorNE (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Investigation
A sockpuppet investigation is opened regarding user:HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Michaelwuzthere
A user by the name of Michaelwuzthere is adding rudiculous POV information to communist related pages especially Cuba-related pages. His edits often unsourced and blatant POV including removal of sourced info. Just thought you should take a look. Regards. Stumink (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here in North Vietnam! He's engaging in a classic POV-pushing wording war trying to assert that, "only dissidents" view the Viet Cong government in South VN as a puppet of North Vietnam. This is the second attempt. Ridiculous! Nguyen1310 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the North Korea page he tried to assert that North Korea had bad food distribution primarily because it had mountainous topography despite the sources. Stumink (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also most of the sources that Michaelwuzthere used were Noam Chomsky in areas where he is not RS. Stumink (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this IP editor have any relationship with Michealwuzhere??? Both edit on N Vietnam, History of Cuba... Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon checking North VN, both the IP and Michael engaged in word switching in favor of communist rhetorical terminology (e.g. Communist to Socialist, Fall (of Saigon) to Liberation/Reunification, glorification of the Chinese communists' victory etc), heavy editing on the "Fall of Saigon/Reunification" section, and others. See Michael's here, here, here, here, and compare to the IP's here, and here. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My time is limited, and of course I'm not an admin or an expert on all of the articles Michaelwuzthere edits. I doubt he uses IPs as sockpuppets, and it's not clear he has technically broken any rules. I believe that he openly identifies as a communist or a Marxist. I disagree with some of his edits which I feel are POV, specifically those in which he employs communist rhetorical terminology, as Nguyen pointed out. My advice is simply to challenge him if and when you believe his contributions are not helpful.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * His edits to East Germany were totally unacceptable, because he added unsourced content and placed it in front of a source, thus implying that the source supported it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
Why was my reference not a reliable source?

Balgill1000 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a complicated policy on citing Chomsky, but consensus is that Chomsky shouldn't be used to establish historical facts because he is a linguist with no historical training. If Sihanouk really said any such thing--not that it would mean much given how he talked out of both sides of his mouth--academic histories of Cambodia should be cited to that effect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the direct source is a Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman book, but the source that they cite is: Bombing in Cambodia, Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 93d Cong., 1st sees., July/August 1973, pp. 158-60, the primary source on the "secret bombings." Should I source that instead? Balgill1000 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a good source, albeit not ideal. Ideally, the quote would be mentioned by historians and not just by primary sources (if, indeed, it has historical significance.) However, unless you have seen this source with your own eyes, we can't take Chomsky's word for it. Can the report be found online?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with me less about historical significance and more with historical accuracy. I could not find the report online, as on the webiste, reports only go back to 2001. Here is a link showing support: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/prince-sihanouk-criticizes-the-united-states Though there are no citations that I could see. Balgill1000 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can disregard Chomsky as a RS, other than maybe because you don't like his politics. His main subject may be linguistics, but that shouldn't mean that he can't be an expert in more than one area. From his Wikipedia page alone it is easy to see how he is one of the world's most renown intellectuals. He has authored over 100 books (not just on linguistics, and from reputable academic publishers), he is the eighth most cited scholar overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index from 1980-1992 which includes the subjects: the Arts, Humanities, Language (including Linguistics), Poetry, Music, Classical works, History, Oriental Studies, Philosophy, Archaeology, Architecture, History, Religion, Television, Theater, and Radio. He has won numerous awards and been given many, many honorary degrees from all over the world. With all that being said, I can say it is safe to assume that he has the ability to research primary sources and write about them. Balgill1000 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So do you and I.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Although we may have the ability (I don't know your educational background so I'm making the assumption), how many books have you authored?Balgill1000 (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all published works qualify as significant RS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why its important to do the due diligence and check if it has been using proper primary sources, which it has.Balgill1000 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War article
Hey, I changed it to North Vietnamese victory because it's more precise hope you'd understand. I didn't erase any important photos??

Thank you!(Nguyen Do Hoang Dai (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen Do Hoang Dai (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't delete the photo, the user before you did. I reverted your edit because it wasn't just a North Vietnamese victory; the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao also won their respective civil wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic First Indochina War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC) (as DRN volunteer)

Yank!
Enjoy this recent publication, Yank:
 * Gary J. Bass, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (New York, NY: Knopf, 2013).

Thank you for your time. 86.171.221.77 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey how's it going? You should really try this some time :)
This is Bun Bo Hue (Spicy lemongrass beef noodle soup), with a spicy lemongrass-flavored beef broth, rice noodles, and beef slices, topped with bean sprouts, lime juice, culantro, basil, mint, onions and green onions, cilantro, and chili garlic sauce. In Vietnam they'd also have banana flower slices. Sometimes, they might substitute beef slices with cha Vietnamese sausages, which is also good. If they decide to put in maroon-colored cubes (blood sausage), just omit it - traditional Bun Bo Hue doesn't have that and restaurants put it in as a cheap filler. Anyways, i hope you enjoy! That ^^teapot^^up there needs to calm down. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "First Indochina War". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm? Is it really you?
Man who... TheTimesArentAChanging (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Iloveandrea, is that you again? Should I open another SPI?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, but WHY? All I want to do is be wubbed by you! Look: you and I working together could provide some awesome balance on articles relating to good old US-of-A. Besides, you're not quite as unreasonable as I first suspected. Besides (again), I am English, I am as good as American. We are closest allies. Let us love each other, not hate. Let us edit together, as brothers. All my best wishes, Yank! IHeartTTAAC (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, why has that person ^^ got a problem with Bose? His few-hundreds-of-thousands estimate seems reasonable, so what gives? IHeartTTAAC (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling the truth; saves me the trouble of filing the SPI. That said, I feel I have no choice but to report you. As to your question: Darkness Shines dislikes Bose for any number of reasons, but none of his criticisms of her work have much substance. Darkness Shines is a rare POV-pushing cherry-picker with no ideology; he simply thinks accepting only the highest estimates for every atrocity is a sign of moral virtue (and he's a bit of a hothead). (Because of that, there have been cases in the past where we were on the same side, and it was obvious to me even then.) The British Medical Journal estimated 269,000 civilians were killed by both sides, but their study hugely overestimated war deaths and was essentially far-left propaganda intended to defend the Lancet study on Iraq war deaths. The only reason to believe them is if we trust the Bangladeshis, who had great incentive to exaggerate the death toll. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the 58,000 figure from Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. Considering that substantial atrocities were committed by both sides (Darkness Shines' favorite R.J. Rummel gives equally ludicrous estimates of up to 500,000 killed by the Awami League), I'm very strongly inclined to believe the Hamoodur Rahman Commission's estimate of 26,000 civilian casualties caused by the Pakistani army. The report was emphatically not a whitewash; it was written by political foes of Yahya Khan and condemned him in no uncertain terms; it was kept classified until 2000, and the Pakistanis had no reason to lie to themselves. But to Darkness Shines, anyone who questions the official Bangladeshi propaganda figure of 300,000 mistranslated as 3 million is an evil Nazi "genocide denier". (If you're going to ask me about my own use of Rummel, my answer is "Use with care and caution". Catch things like Rummel double-counting North Vietnamese "land reform" killed as North Vietnamese "rent reduction" killed. When Rummel's estimates are inflated by a factor of 10, as they are for the Soviet Gulag and the 1971 Bangladesh "genocide," simply ignore them. After all, Rummel's method of estimation is completely transparent.) One final point: Yahya Khan just wanted to hold onto East Pakistan, he had no motive to commit "genocide".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, a number of America's Muslim allies during the Cold War have been unfairly demonized. The Shah of Iran, who executed 300 people, is the personification of evil--not the Mullahs who have liquidated over 100,000. Suharto supposedly committed genocide in East Timor, though the UN report suggests the 100,000 deaths were spread pretty evenly over the whole 24-year occupation, and that FRETILIN was responsible for up to 49% of the violent killings. Then there is the Chomskyite obscenity of comparing the 24-year war with the peacetime Khmer Rouge autogenocide: As Robert Cribb has written, "the circumstances leading up to the Dili Massacre indicate a society which retained its vigor and indignation in a way that probably would not have been possible if it had been treated as Cambodia was treated under Pol Pot," while Indonesian military strategy was based on winning "hearts and minds" rather than "genocide." Of course Chomsky also compares the Indonesian mass killings--carried out "face-to-face" by ordinary citizens with widespread popular support, which the army actually had to intervene to stop on a few occasions, in which less than 1% of the Indonesian population perished--to the systematic extermination of 2-2.5 million Cambodians (27% of the population). Suharto was no Pol Pot: "Although Indonesia was never a democracy under Suharto, there was a wide degree of permissible discussion, by Southeast Asian standards a fairly liberal press, and many of the procedures of social consultation that characterise a democracy. Under his rule, millions of people were freed from poverty, Indonesia became self-sufficient in rice, and a sizeable manufacturing economy grew up." But even American foes like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been demonized (the latter by left-wing feminists); the propaganda machine that is The New York Times said in 2003 that Saddam had executed 200,000 Iraqis and killed hundreds of thousands more in war for a total that might approach 1 million; in 2007, they claimed Saddam had killed up to a million in democide and another million by attacking Iran (his invasion was supposedly "unprovoked").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you have already been blocked....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS--ILA, if you're still out there, note that the ARBEE thing was actually about the Armenian genocide (not Bangladesh).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch
I didn't see those tiny commas getting wedged in there. Article is looking go so far! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Hell, I like you. You can come over the my house and..."
Dear TTAAC, I should very much like your support in coming in from the cold. As things stand, I cannot edit my first loves, since doing so would render my account discoverable, and thereby open all my hard work to totally unwarranted reversion. I have materials and informations to contribute. "Because I am hard, you will not like me—but the more you hate me, the more you will learn." I feel that with your loving support, I could make a good Wikimarine. 86.129.4.149 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking me to do?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem user, yet again *sigh*
This Hanoian is deleting content critical of Ho Chi Minh and of the communists' war victory, and pushing his POV by quietly changing YouTube links to video channels that glorify Ho (changed from the original documentary link). As of now, he's also edit warring (see here and here).Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

calm down boy, this's what he call "pushing his POV":
 * in Ho Chi Minh, i just delete the article Nông Thị Xuân which already have in Legacy section. For the YouTube links, it's just a self publish videos and i think i can change it for another self publish video.
 * in Reunification Day. it's an article about a public holiday in vietnam so it should talk only about the public holiday in vietnam. for vietnamese american's "quốc hận" or "đen đủi" day... he can write his own article.Jspeed1310 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That Reunification Day/Black April refers to the same thing and only you want to make 2 separate articles, which is not allowed on English wiki because the 2 things are too similar and too short to have separate articles. Plus, you're deleting the 2 Overseas Vietnamese commemoration photos because you don't like it and it doesn't conform with your pro-communist POV. WP:NPOV is being maintained by having those photos there, to balance out the Vietnamese red propaganda banner.
 * Second, you're deleting the link to Nong Thi Xuan because you don't like readers to read about Ho Chi Minh's mistress, otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with that link. And, you're changing a Youtube link of a Ho Chi Minh documentary on his life and work to a Youtube channel full of videos that barely just glorify him, which is considered propaganda and violating WP:NPOV, which is orders that ALL views be reflected in articles, not just one view which is called BIAS.
 * Third, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE BEEN TROLLING THROUGH MY EDITS, which is the only way that you came to TimesAChanging's userpage without being approached yet. The first time was when your SPI, seen here Sockpuppet investigations/Jspeed1310 was first filed. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

calm down boy! you think anyone who edit different from you is TROLLING you :D. i said you can, not you must separate articles. As i see, those picture is still there & i just move it to balance the article content. for Nong Thi Xuan, as i said, it already have in Legacy section and it's very easy for readers to read it.why do you think i don't like readers to read Jspeed1310 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh stop lying already! That is such a blatant lie as anyone can see those 2 images have been removed, you haven't "put back anything". Yes you are trolling, following through my edits and edit warring as you go, reverting my contribs in minutes after i've added them. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kid, don't think that you can push your POV, post "chau ngoan Bac Ho" propaganda, and censorship by deleting stuff you "don't like" can survive in English wiki as you've done in Vietnamese wikipedia. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

i beginning want to troll this little boy, he act like my brother :D. in That Reunification Day, i edit first and you jump in and revert my edit. in HCM, you change the word officially to unilaterally and require source. i put source but you come back and revert my edit. so who follow who. about those picture and youtube link, my mistake, for those self-publishing video, i should move both 2 link to External links, where it should be or delete it. As you see, i still keep the picture when i saw my mistake (history).btw, read it carefully, it still there, just in diffrent position.Jspeed1310 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya look at who trolls who. OHHH. o_o Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I editted those many of those articles for some time before you came along. Just you know :D Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: first i thought this conversation will end soon but it's seem this kid won't stop yelling how bad he has been trolled, followed by me. i think i don't have enough time or patience to talk with him anymore & this will be my last comment. Sorry for keep argue with him in your talkpage again, again & again like this. hope you may forgive me. sorry my english is bad.Jspeed1310 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) relax boy. We both know Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit so "you editted those many of those articles for some time before" doesn't mean i can't edit. i edit in 1 article and write a summary "bingo" that i love to write & you think i troll you :D. You such a sensitive boy.
 * 2) you always try to convict me that i follow you, but i don't get it, what's wrong if i follow you. as my knowledge, follow someone doesn't mean guilty in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspeed1310 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Trolling, edit warring, POV-pushing and POV-motivated deletion of content, sockpuppeting and discrimination, are all against WP policies. And, your trolling is harassing me, as I "don't want to spread the fire elsewhere". Stop your disruptive behavior, then I'll stop talking about your problems. Uh TheTimesAreAChanging, is there anyway I can stop this madness once and for all?? I am totally sick of him!!! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese Boat People
I've responded to your question about the Vietnamese Boat People article on my talk page. Please go there. Smallchief (talk 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky
We appear to have reached some sort of consensus on Nicaragua; but I still disagree with your unwillingness to acknowledge Noam Chomsky as a legitimate source. Yes, he has outspoken political views, but that does not detract from scholarship; I have searched fairly hard, and have yet to find detailed critiques of his historical writing. And even if he is a linguist by training, he has written approaching fifty books on contemporary political history,most of which are academic works, not rhetorical ones. I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with his work before dismissing him as a source of information, especially when we're looking at his synthesis of factual information and not his interpretations of said information. Turning the Tide, for example, is an incredibly well researched book, and it is not really very supportive of "socialist" governments, either.Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky's not a notable expert on Nicaragua, and don't assume too much regarding my familiarity with his work.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume nothing; your views make your familiarity clear. Notability is an issue if we are discussing opinions. We're not. We're talking about the facts he presents, and if notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there. Do you have evidence that Chomsky has made factually incorrect statements? and don't say you "know" he's wrong, that carries no weight.Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment is so absurd it almost has to be dissected line-by-line:
 * -"Your views make your familiarity clear."
 * Please, as if I didn't go through a Chomskyite phase when I was younger and immature.
 * -"We're talking about the facts he presents"
 * Chomsky is the last place to go for facts. On the rare occasion Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies, there should be a reliable source that could be used in his place.
 * -"If notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there."
 * Notability is an essential Wikipedia policy. Feel free to leave.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to stew in your cesspool of rightwing ideology, where facts are not facts unless they support your opinion, your welcome. Like I said, if you really had evidence (not conviction, evidence) that Chomsky was factually incorrect, you (and the many others who share your views) would have produced it. Instead, you sit and insist that he is wrong. That's fine by me.Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not aware of such evidence, haven't looked hard enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this time the burden of proof lies on you. Chomsky writes a book, which I read, with a couple of hundred references, which I look up and find reasonable. I then find that that book has itself been referenced a bunch of times. Based on this, I decide he is a good reference. Then you decide that no, he is making factual errors, his citations are bullshit, and those who cite him are merely subscribing to propaganda. And you refuse to provide evidence, despite my asking several times. What else do I make of this, except a lack of openmindedness?Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed Chomsky because he isn't a historian or an expert on Nicaragua. I don't need any more evidence than that. I'd rather not get into political discussions here, but if you really want criticism of Chomsky, start with The Anti-Chomsky Reader and Paul Bogdanor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? I ask for evidence, and you give me a link that among other things labels Hugo Chavez an Anti-semite? Anyhow, forget about it. An unwillingness to look facts in the face is hardly going to result in productive conversation. You don't seem to see the asymmetry here. There are right wing authors cited all over the article, despite outrageous views; why? because they have good syntheses of hard data. But Chomsky's politics gets in the way of people accepting his statistics, too, which is ridiculous. But I guess we must agree to disagree on this one.Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I just updated my signature for personal reasons, please don't revert me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of the Middle East
Jews has never been one ethnic group. This heresy was invented by the Zionists to pretend the world that the Jews deserve an own homeland.--Uishaki (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured you would say that based on your maps of Palestine, but it would be just as easy to assert that the likes of Feynman, Einstein, and Oppenheimer are the products of thousands of years of Jewish religion and identity. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
I wish to thank you for your contribs in numerous Vietnamese history articles that you've made over the years, as well as removing POV as you go. It still shocks me of the significant level of knowledge you have about my country; often you write of things that normally only Vietnamese born and raised in that country have knowledge about - even many Vietnamese born overseas don't know it. I greatly appreciate your work here, and keep up the good work. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found that Michaelwuzthere is from Prince Edward Island.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Article New Economic Zones program
Hi, i started a new article on the Vietnamese communist "NEZs". However, currently it's a stub, so please feel free to add more any time you'd like. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind of you, and means a lot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Jakandsig
Hey,

I could not help but notice that you have met Jakandsig, one of our newer and shall we say, less agreeable editors. Jakandsig has cut quite the swath through several video game articles over the last month in which he has removed sourced material, engaged in original research, misrepresented the content of sources, launched numerous personal attacks against multiple editors, and received a 48 hour block for edit warring, after which he engaged in a little sock puppetry to top things off. As such, I am most likely going to be putting together an RFC/U about his conduct in the near future. I already have a few other video game article editors on board, and I was hoping you would be willing to drop by and endorse the RFC if it comes to that. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm actually dealing with him, I have to say admin action is overdue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The other day he contacted me on my talk page with what seemed like a genuine attempt to reform, so I briefly put off starting an RFC while that played out.  Now that it is clear he has learned nothing and is only digging himself a deeper hole, I will begin typing up the RFC/U tomorrow.  I will let you know when it is ready to go. Indrian (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Dreamcast
TheTimesAreAChanging, you found yourself very, very close to being blocked for edit warring. As you should know from your own block log if someone is reverting you do not revert them back unless you have to (eg BLP, vandalism or copyright). Instead report to WP:AN3 or request page protection at WP:RFPP and wait for action to be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For your consideration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tigersuperman - Funny how every time a user gets blocked there is another new user that takes an interest in Atari's fortunes after the video game crash. He also seems not to sign his talk posts. It's probably too early to say any more at this point, but its worth keeping an eye on. Indrian (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems wikipedia will never change with the gangups on new users still going, I clearly have no interest once again in this site since the abuse has not been fixed even a fraction, but I must address this. I, not one time, anywhere mentioned Atari's fortunes after the 1983 video game crash. The only time I had ever mentioned them was 1977 crash, and later wondering why the other two (yes two) companies were not mentioned in the 83 article, as the links I posted showed they should. But you know the lack of any administrative support on abusive users has always been bad and it seems that will not change. I honestly will not be dealing with anymore lies and back and fourths being tossed around so I will let you guys have your fun personal view being the norm, and without even allowing questions on the talk sections from new users or writing them off as always.
 * I will also be going around warning newer accounts I find in other video Game and Consumer Tech related articles that their contributions are not welcome, and that they will be attacked due to asking questions not to their liking. That will be all I will be saying for an indefinite amount of time.
 * I honestly don't know how this site can ever evolve when only an agreed upon view will be accepted without even small discussion of certain areas. Along with trying to get rid of users who do so as fast as possible.Tigersuperman (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Potential Sockpuppet
Hey,

It's too early to say for sure, but we have another new user, (KombatPolice), that was just created and immediately honed in on two of the pages Jak and friends love to edit. He is beginning to make some of the same arguments and also seems unable to sign his talk posts, repeating similar patterns. It is really too early to make any accusations yet, but I just wanted to alert you to the potential. I keep putting off doing an RFC for Jak because he keeps getting blocked and I do not think it fair to start the process until he is able to defend himself, but if this keeps up, an RFC will be coming eventually. Indrian (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to file an SPI over Tigersuperman because he appeared to stop on his own, but perhaps I should report both of these socks. I don't know if there is enough proof to convince an impartial admin to agree to another checkuser, but I would think the proliferation of new users with passionate opinions about these same articles would be of interest, and this type of comment (identical in its reasoning to those made by Jakandsig and socks) is certainly suggestive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I filed an SPI. Feel free to add any salient examples I may have overlooked.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on "Suggestion to split Guilty Gear XX/X2 updates into different articles"
Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Generation History Page
Changing, it seems that the SSB addition you reverted back is not sourced, nor is it correct since it states the series was on every Nintendo console after. With further inspection., Spyro the Dragon also does not have a source, Starfox makes claims without citation and does not have a source. The Resident evil section is the same and claims that Alone In the dark is an obscure title. There are other issues as well in other parts of the page that no one has seemed to notice. I made a section in the talk page for potential clean up, or adding sources to the many other pieces of information on the page without a sourced reference. Since you appear to be on the page perhaps you can help or look over some of the removals and source adding. KombatPolice (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have finished, please take a look over. KombatPolice (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice...
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/My_Lai_Massacre vs. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF. Nice, just nice, that's why the VN War history taught in American schools are almost identical to the same pro-communist, 100% one-sided, denialist, false, propaganda-laden history preached in Vietnamese schools. Among all people, why does a shockingly large number of people in the West believe and trust what communists, esp. Viet communists, say? Among all people to listen to and trust, why believe in communists? Communists, along with all others engaged in/sympathetic to political extremism, are the biggest of liars i've ever seen, often it so apparent when they lie. Yes, every side throughout history has their own bias, partiality, exaggeration and downplaying of things, but not to the extent as the commies and company. So, if North Vietnam was "right" and South Vietnam "wrong", why not call South Korea, West Germany and Taiwan as "bad" too? Why not call NK, East Germany and PRC as "good"? To those people who consider the Vietnam War as a "crime", "unjust", "imperialist" and "an invasion", why the hell don't they view the Korean War in the same light? Similar wars! Please do forgive me, i'm not directing this message to you, but i wanted to let this out. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Misusing Giant Bomb
One more message with insults on my talk page and you will be reported.
 * I did not abuse anything, the Jaguar and the Saturn are related due to the fact the both had the same problem. I do not need ONE source comparing BOTH of them at the same time if there are two. Same with articles comparing the N64 and Gamecube for lack of third-party support, or for the comparisons between the Dreamcast and Xbox in other articles, most of which have only ONE source that does not have the other in it, but often show that there are similarities, and are LEFT ALONE as proof of that. Why does this page have to be something special just for you? Ahh, Sega task Force of course. It all makes sense now.
 * I would also like to emphasis that you guys have done a bad job on these articles, filled with inaccurate information with mis-matched sources, and having claims and assumptions just thrown on pages with nothing to back them up. I think you guys should be working on fixing your articles then sending "can you comprehend' insults to users talk pages and trying to make special exemptions from the norm by making up rules for yourselves. TheKingsTable (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I both know you are in no position to lecture anyone about incivility. And, yes, you found me out: As a Sega Task Force Member, I hereby declare Yu Suzuki a liar for calling Saturn a nightmare to program for! In all seriousness, "I do not need ONE source comparing BOTH of them at the same time if there are two" is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you know anything about me when we just met? Your trolling is also very bad, you don't seem to know how to read the guidlines in context, otherwise you are saying we need to clean almost every video game related article.
 * Example of your trolling, "I hereby declare Yu Suzuki a liar for calling Saturn a nightmare to program for" and yet the whole point of my change, is that it WAS difficult to program for. Failed sarcasm. Stop it, I showed that both had a similar problem, SYNTH it is not, you might want to actually read your links.
 * If you really think I am wrong explain why without being aggressive and insulting in your responses, then i will gladly revert. Which you have not done, and checking your account, you don't have a habit of doing that. But I will again, change it back, if you actually show me how I am wrong. Because right now you are showing me I am following the guidelines and as of now, you are a jerk.

TheKingsTable (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jak, your block's going to expire in a few days; if you make me file another SPI over your five most recent socks, you may well be banned permanently. You must know you won't get away with openly and proudly violating basic Wikipedia guidelines to make a WP:POINT about other articles that (supposedly) have similar problems.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add that it isn't SYNTH as I stated above. If I had wrote that "The Sega Saturn did not look at the Jaguar before it and made complicated processors, and suffered the same", or said "The Sega Saturn had THE SAME issues as the Atari Jaguar with processing issues, and had a related fate of failure" then it would be SYNTH. I made no actual claim other than that both consoles have been discovered to have the same problem. Just like if i found 2 sources of 3 different people enjoying Apples, oranges, and Grapes, I can say that people "A lot of people enjoyed these fruits" without having one source with the same person liking all 3. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You added something while I was replying. Apparently you are having issues with another user. That's great, but don't put your personal anger on me because you don't like the changes I made and decided to express that by vandalizing my talk page and claiming I am that user. As i just wrote above, the changes I made are not SYTH. I looked up SPI, that's not going to work. You need to learn to work with people instead of insulting them and expecting them to just go with what you say. Especially after your "Can you comprehend" comment. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply
"Why do you also edit with this IP? You should avoid engaging in anything that might be construed as sockpuppetry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)"
 * The answer is that I don't, not anymore. I did, before this account was created, and briefly after that when I was still unused to logging in and out. I haven't for close to a year, I think. Like I have said many times before, I use a public computer......What exactly is the issue here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no issue, and I'm only reminding you for your own good. I assumed you were done using the IP, but this edit suggests otherwise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not my edit. It's clearly a copy paste from the main article in the section. Had I made the change, I would have done it better. Besides, the refs are all fucked up. In any case, did you look at the other edits for the IP? There are a string of them, not just one, on several pages. I have repeated this before: I use a public computer, or rather a set of public computers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you say so--that's why I asked. I don't think my question was unreasonable: After all, the IP was adding the exact same material as you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that I never added that material to that page. I added it to the main article, several months ago. You should know, you were being somewhat argumentative about it. Now that you pointed it out, though, I intend to clean up the refs there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Big the Cat
Yeah, I haven't played Big's stages on the Dreamcast so I'm not sure, either. I'm relying on how the source continues: "The real reason for the existence of Big the Cat in Sonic Adventure, is that we had programmed a fishing rod and something needed to make it more interesting for the players. The Angel missions were the result." What I take from this quote and what you placed on my page is that they created Big and started implementing the fishing peripheral (or at least planning to) into Sonic Adventure, both independently of each other, then they decided to bring him in to justify the use of the fishing rod. As Angel Island isn't playable in the game, though it does appear in cutscenes, I'm guessing that the original German word Angelmissionen refers to the angling missions. Tezero (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I hadn't thought about the difference; I didn't realize that's what your interpretation was. I'll change it. Tezero (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I SPI with my little eye...
Looks like its that time again. I will probably be filing an SPI soon regarding some of those suspected Jak socks we have discussed previously (See User talk:Sergecross73) Indrian (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I've been reverting plenty of edits done by Jakandsig and his sockpuppets (including John Mayor ERS, KombatPolice, Leeroyhim, and TheKingsTable) because his edits in general are so poor and disruptive. I wonder the Wikipedia community needs to discuss with Jimbo Wales the implementation of a rule in which a user can't create another account while blocked/banned except for when he calms down. IX | (C"&#60;) 02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your change.
I noticed that you are confused about my removal of the exploding console market section of the video game crash article. Please understand that the exploding console market section is not valid because there is no significant consensus in that time period that many consoles caused the crash or were to cause a crash. There is another issue as well, that not one thing in that section has a reference that supports it. In fact, it actually works against it. See the Astrocade reference I removed and others to see what I mean. The section has no reason to exist and is historically wrong. VideoGameMuseum (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
For your work on that SPI report. I appreciate it. Sergecross73  msg me   17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering...
Do you actually understand Vietnamese? I'm just wondering... Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Afraid not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!
I saw your edits in the Sonic Generations wiki and have a question for you. I don't know if it's allowed, but can I put in the PC requirements to run the game? If I can, where should I put it? BustaBunny (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hue Massacre
Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, i'm just wondering if you know of, or could find, a response from an academic that's critical of apologist Gareth Porter's denial of the Massacre? I found results of academics like Hoang Van Chi for Porter's denial of the North Vietnamese land reform killings, but not for Hue. IPs belonging to MiGVN insist on the inclusion of Porter's Massacre denial, claiming that he's credible simply because a university (Montclair U) published it (which is completely wrong as the PDF cited was not originally published by any university, rather it was Ramparts Magazine (now just archived and made available by Montclair). Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was an actual academic debate about the land reform, but there's no need to tolerate MiGVN's edit warring here. Since the perpetrators repeatedly admitted their responsibility for the Hue Massacre, citing outspoken Stalinist Grover Furr's reposting of a magazine article by a man who claimed the Khmer Rouge only killed a few hundred in opposition to virtually every other source on the topic just seems like the definition of WP:FRINGE. Moreover, all of the material about the Battle of Hue should be removed immediately as WP:SYNTHESIS, not "re-balanced".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, that's even better.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the previous RSN discussion on Porter came to no consensus, and MiGVN's IP has dropped the synthesis and trimmed Porter down to appropriate weight, I would suggest leaving things as they are now for the sake of article stability. (Does it need to be re-balanced? I'm not sure, because Porter is "rebutting" Pike. I don't know if Pike bothered to respond.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I had difficulty finding responses to Porter's "Hue conspiracies" the other day anyways. On the flip-side, MiGVN must stop editing from various Hanoi IPs. If this continues, SPI should be made. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: continued fringy POV-pushing mission in Hue Massacre & Tet Offensive, continued IP use. Seems like these 2 articles are such damning truths he hates. His edit warring is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated any further, such a disruption. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say the History Net source is better than Ramparts. Marilyn Young is also technically a more credible source than Porter, although I personally view her work with contempt. I understand your frustration--and I share it, which is why I've scaled back my edits on political topics--but at some point we have to remember that Wikipedia doesn't determine truth. I'm sorry I've not been much help, but at least take comfort in knowing the revisionist argument is so self-evidently absurd only an intellectual could invent it. I have confronted MiGVN about his use of meat and/or sockpuppet IPs during edit wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You did however help in ways you can, and I thank you for your that. I know that WP doesn't aim for truthfulness, but the level of deception, fabrication, and ridiculousness being written about my country is simply unnerving. All he ever edits on is Cold War articles to advance his "sourced POV", like this one and SU's Eastern Front, and articles on gay sex on Vi Wiki...lol Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the SPI. Exactly my planned next move. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Pike
A dispute resolution thread on Douglas Pike has been opened. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Douglas Pike. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Hey Man
How do you do the Citation Needed thing? What do I use? SuperGangsterRapper95868686 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm?
Why are you restoring info? I cleaned it of arguments. Did you read that other post? SuperGangsterRapper95868686 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not remove other users' comments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your ANI comment
Yes, I'm indeed not an admin yet, but I was saying that the Wikipedia community needs to discuss putting an permanent site-ban on the already blocked Jakandsig because he is a disruptive sockpuppeteer who makes bad edits (vandalism, disruptive editing, adding factual inaccuracies, removing "fake" information) to mostly video game-related articles and had been disrespectfully creating personal attacks and lies toward users and administrators like you, Sergecross73, and me. We've been trying to make Jak disappear because he is notorious for whatever he generally does. The nature of his sockpuppetry is destructive and still goes on because even with him blocked, he is able to create user accounts for block evasion, which can be stopped by the Wikipedia community imposing a complete site-ban on Jak. I did not start monitoring Jakandsig until TheKingsTable edited Asteroids (video game), my first good article. Mr* | (60nna) 03:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Holla, please review the revised versions of Hue Massacre and Tet Offensive?
I found out that the decomposed matter actually smelled even more putrid and objectionable than I thought it was, upon a second review Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see your contributions! You may want to add some of your sources to the main Vietnam War and Battle of Huế articles, which also cite "New Left" revisionist Gabriel Kolko's history (dedicated to his personal hero Ho Chi Minh) for the same preposterous "eighty percent" figure. Otherwise, my only complaint is the following line in Massacre at Huế: "How that justifies the execution of any civilians, regardless of the number, is unknown." That sentence appears to be your own personal commentary, which is out-of-place in an encyclopedia. Sincerely,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Well for the "How that justifies the execution of any civilians, regardless of the number, is unknown", it's actually quoted from MiGVN's own history.net source in the Marilyn section, great how his own acts backfires lol Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't noticed! I guess that's the danger of using sources selectively!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well, he is now back from block, we should be alert for any further disruption, as seen here, and user Eyesnore blindly and brainlessly reverting it. Pure incompetence. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)