User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 7

Edit summaries
Please keep it civil.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, in regard to your revert, please keep in mind this AE report and the closing statement: "You are at the edge of getting topic banned or blocked. I would remind you that Arb restricted areas have little rope and you just used yours up. Discuss before reverting when you know it is going to be contentious. " Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I *strongly* suggest you remove the BLP vios from your user page concerning Ana Kasparian and Anita Sarkeesian. Remember that WP:BLP applies to ALL Wikipedia pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of sources that covered the revelations about Saudi and Qatari support for Islamic State. That material has been long-standing, and—given the sheer volume of coverage it received—it is inconceivable that any summary of the Podesta emails would exclude it, except possibly Wikipedia's. You've been highly effective at wielding DS veto power over that article to hollow out discussion of the content of the emails to almost nothing—as the edit history attests—but if you want to go even further and delete the entire "Contents" section outright (presumably because you believe it distracts readers from the far greater evil of Putin), then I hope your efforts are met with resistance. Alternatively, I wish you would recognize that just because Putin may be a bad guy, the U.S. government is not composed of perfect angels.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are "literally hundreds of sources" then you can find better ones than the ones presently in the article. Also, please keep your speculation about my motives and beliefs to yourself - I know it's much easier to argue with strawmen but it's also a sort of self-delusion.
 * And on that note, are you going to remove the BLP vios from your user page or do I have to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What did I say about Kasparian that you feel is a BLP vio? My reference to "horrible, hate-filled people" did not name her specifically.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The part starting with "who previously called for..." Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care about calling Kasparian or anyone else bad names outside of articles, but accusing Fusako Shigenobu of a transparently ridiculous crime which she has never committed is particularly egregious. That's a BLP-vio par excellence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's a quote from a reliable source, and all you have is original research. (And I'm sure you can understand that it makes little difference for the point being made whether the story is true or merely apocryphal.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess, but as you well know WP:RS does not mean "good enough for WP:BLP." We unfortunately have to live with the fact WP:RS are frequently UNreliable, but when they level extraordinary accusations against living people without evidence or consensus—in fact contrary to both—that's potential libel. Whether or not the accused individual or group is "bad" is completely immaterial. In other words, it does not matter what point you are trying to make. A "noble lie" is still a lie. Although in the scheme of things, I don't really care. Keep it if you want. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The part where you first mention Kasparian and then follow it up with "Leftists really are horrible, hate-filled people" needs to go too, since it is very clearly meant to imply that Kasparian herself is a "horrible, hate-filled person". So yeah, it's a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent. He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not get it. Why do you quote senator John McCain here? My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek believes in one set of policies for people he likes, and another for people he dislikes. He does not even pretend to be consistent or fair (nor does anyone think that he is): Putin and Assange are enemies, Hilary is an ally, so the former are demonized and the latter gets a hagiography. If the same were true of my edits, I would take a hard look in the mirror. However, although I have been called a Right-wing, anti-Communist, pro-Israeli, possibly CIA-sponsored propagandist, it is not hard to find edits I have made that undermine my own alleged POV:, , , , , , , , , , ect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't see the difference between saying that a statement by a prominent Senator is notable, and ranting, raving and smearing living persons on your user page, then I can't help you. Maybe AE will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * People around here have a lot of different views, which obviously affects their editing. However, this is frequently not a matter of their POV, but a matter of their knowledge/expertise in the subject. I agree that your edits (diffs) above were good. But let me ask you a question. You apparently quote senator McCain as an example of extreme POV. Do you seriously disagree with him based on your expertise? Did not his words were based on facts? The Ukraine was in fact dismembered. The airstrikes on hospitals did happen. A lot of people were undeniably killed during Chechen wars, in Syria and in other places. Putin was in fact the president during all these times and made decisions, pretty much unilaterally.My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we need to be consistent. Would we accept a similarly hyperbolic but substantively accurate criticism of Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton by a Russian official? Of course not—and that's an example of raging WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, not something to be celebrated. (Indeed, we have real-time proof of this, because just over a week after an RfC was opened on the McCain quote, Volunteer Marek precipitated another RfC at 2016 United States election interference by Russia by declaring Putin's own December 23 response to allegations that he personally supervised the DNC and Podesta email hacks to boost Trump "wp:undue.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally agree about the systemic bias, however the page about the current US president-elect is not exactly a panegiric, and of course there is an enormous difference between the leaders of different countries, and it is reflected on the pages. For example, the leaders of North Korea and US are in fact very different. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That you have to go to Donald Trump to find an article on a U.S. politician that isn't a "panegyric" is not much of an exception. Maybe the exception that proves the rule.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User Page
Volunteer Marek brings up a solid point about your userpage. The amount of focus you have on women and feminism in particular is pretty fucked up. Hanging that kind of a sign around your neck makes it really difficult for anyone to take you seriously. I'm not surprised you have so many issues dealing with SPECIFICO when she has to see your views on women broadcasted so openly. It would be best if you toned it down. I'm not going to sit and defend a giant rant like that.--v/r - TP 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that I had expressed any "views on women" at all. Even if I had, my userpage exists primarily to push the Overton Window further Right and to counterbalance Wikipedia's shockingly pervasive Left-wing bias; I find it fascinating that countless users openly identify themselves as Communists (an ideology that killed tens of millions in the twentieth century) and call for the "Palestinian right of return" (a euphemism for the destruction of Israel) on their userpages, yet this invariably passes without comment. (There are even actual userboxes specifically created to advocate for those views ... I've yet to see any pro-Nazi userboxes.) (And, of course, Volunteer Marek's claim that I "misquoted" Kasparian is absurdly trivial; his silence on the question of whether or not Kasparian called female Trump voters "fucking dumb" is itself an admission.) I readily concede that I may have made a tactical error, given that both AE reports against me ultimately devolved into attacks on politically incorrect things I wrote on my userpage—and appeals to have me excommunicated for heresy—after it became obvious that there was no substance to the original complaint and not even a single example of me pushing a POV in any article could be found. (I might have expected admins not to block me simply out of sheer dislike, but perhaps that was an absurdly optimistic assumption.) I'm still weighing my options as to how best to resolve it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clear to me that AE is driven by politics after T Canen's comment. There isn't an inch of substance to those claims.  But your userpage is trash.  Absolutely trash.  You do yourself no credit by having it.  Push the 'overton window' right on a personal blog.  The only way to beat the civil POV pushing is to be even more civil.--v/r - TP 07:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to go at this alone? Keep running your mouth off at everyone you're pissed off with and you can go at AE without my help.  Fucking trigger warnings about your userpage?  Wow.  Straighten the fuck up or move on to a different topic.  But don't expect me to cover for you if you can't control yourself.  I'm not your fucking babysitter.  If you want to go at it alone, tell me now so I can quit wasting my time.--v/r - TP 00:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * y'know, we've never really gotten along here, but even I think that if you stuck to content work, and avoided the rants that you launch into either on talk pages or edit summaries about "leftist propaganda" (often without the least provocation), this mess could have been avoided. Just sayin'. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, . I am surprised and saddened by the decision. Times has been topic-banned because of the type of articles he has recently gotten involved in and not because of any egregious behavior. Some years ago, as Times himself told me, he was flagrantly and systematically engaged in right-wing pro-American "counter propaganda" and revisionism, particularly on subjects related to Cold War history. All of us are well aware of that history. That propaganda served the cause of the American establishment, which is not to say it was well-grounded in establishment sources. It just "served the cause," and was therefore was considered perfectly acceptable, even commendable, encyclopedic standards be damned: Times was never sanctioned for it, though his opponents frequently were. Fast-forward to today: Times had become an immeasurably more knowledgeable and careful editor, regardless of his politics (which were on full display on his user-page and nowhere else). From personal experience, I know that he routinely makes edits that sharply contradict his own political beliefs. He corrects his mistakes quickly. Very few editors can can say that about themselves. His recent edits on wikileaks and hacking-related subjects were largely well-sourced and circumspect, if not always perfectly neutral (a matter of opinion). I just read the sanctions decision and I couldn't find a single blockable diff (nor could several other administrators). The problem was that these edits stepped on the wrong toes: it was fine to write that Ho Chi Minh "officially" ordered the execution of 172,000 innocents (obviously fake black propaganda) as part of the North Vietnamese land reform campaigns; but it is an outrage to suggest that the JAR report on Russian hacking was pretty shitty, that the Wikileaks documents were genuine, or that Donna Brazile was unapologetic about her misconduct at CNN etc. Petty stuff really, and indisputable to boot. Nonetheless, it was genuine violation of establishment "safe spaces", so outrage was guaranteed. Given this level of outrage, it was natural that disputes between Times and a few other editors occasionally got heated, with invective hurled in both directions. But even that is a false equivalence, since many of Times's "outbursts" were perfectly accurate if somewhat impolite criticisms, like faulting editors for not reading or selectively misinterpreting sources. These outbursts were not even that numerous, as far as I am aware. Banning someone for this is pathetic. This pattern of selective outrage is on display everywhere: for example, Times' earlier version of the his user page falsely accused a living person (Fusako Shigenobu) of an implausibly horrific murder, on the basis of one weak source. This was the most egregious and elementary BLP-vio one could make, but nobody cared. Instead editors were outraged that Times misquoted Ana Kasparian in order to disparage her. While the latter may have been bad, it was nothing compared to the former. The hypocrisy and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on display here are quite worrying: today it's Times; tomorrow it could be you, me or any other non-centrist who happens to slip just a little. Well, maybe not too worrying because Wiki-politics are not that big a deal, but you get what I mean. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay – We're hunting suspected Russians and their sympathizers.


 * As time went, the editors saw that they needed to be more equal than others and so they introduced the rule: “All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others.” –, , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just as in the time of McCarthy, we are dealing with a case of hysterical overreaction. I have seen a few pro-Russian editors: all are reverted on sight and mostly perma-banned. The only place where Russian "propaganda" may have a chance is in Syria-related articles, where Anglo-American editors (and their "reliable sources") get really confused about whom to hate more: Muslims or Russkies. Comrades, we must remain vigilant. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

MEK
Hi, I saw you were active on People's Mujahedin of Iran's talkpage previously. I started editing the article in late 2016, adding sourced content that I felt is missing in the article. Now I find myself getting reverted over and over again without a proper reason, and wasting time explaing pillars of Wikipedia to users who constantly remove reliable content. Could you please take a look at the history and talkpage and give an opinion? Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of the accounts popping up on that article are highly suspicious. There's clearly some form of tag-team meat- or sockpuppetry going on. The first step is probably to file an WP:SPI to see how many of the accounts are legitimate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I provide an evidence? Pahlevun (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about filing a report myself, but perhaps EdJohnston's recent page protection will solve the problem. The accounts I consider suspicious are Atlantic12, Citieslife, Tigereconomy, Carpe765, 36Balloons, Newcomer1, NickRovinsky, Saleh Hamedi, and TheDreamBoat. All of these accounts appear to be single-purpose accounts with only a handful of edits unrelated to Iran or the MeK between them, and their behavior at People's Mujahedin of Iran strongly suggests some degree of coordination. When it comes to sockpuppetry, the evidence I see at a cursory glance is as follows:
 * Several of these accounts were recently created in late 2016, sometimes only days apart: Newcomer1 was created on August 15, NickRovinsky was created on October 10, Saleh Hamedi was created on December 19, and TheDreamBoat was created on December 20.
 * The remaining accounts have been around much longer, all dating from late 2013. Does this mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing? Perhaps, but for accounts that so closely share the same interests and POV, it is striking that they were all created within days of each other, over a period of less than one month: Atlantic12 was created on October 23, Citieslife was created on November 8, Tigereconomy was created on November 15, Carpe765 was created on November 20, and 36Balloon was created on November 22.
 * All of the accounts have simple, one-sentence userpages, with the exceptions of Citieslife (recently updated), Newcomer1, and TheDreamBoat—which are still fairly bare-bones. This proves little in isolation, but it may not be a coincidence that Atlantic12, Tigereconomy, Carpe765, and Newcomer1 open with famous quotes (Machiavelli, Confucius, Latin saying, and Burke, respectively).
 * All of the accounts seem to format citations identically, but some slip-up and add a bare URL on occasion. Make of that what you will.
 * The most peculiar feature uniting several of these accounts, from both 2013 and 2016, is the insistence that any statement relying on a single source—whatever the quality—can be arbitrarily deleted. Consider the following edit summaries:
 * "Removed section, it is largely based on single source. WP: UNDUE given based on one person's account"; "Assume good faith. Removed section, it is largely based on single source. WP: UNDUE given based on one person's account"; "Removed section, it is largely based on single source. Single source or one person's account, does not give weight to this topic"; "One individual's claim cannot be used to verify"; "Unable to verify claim based on single source"; "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources - these claims are based largely on a single source"; "Largely based on a single source"—Atlantic12
 * "Removed information that is based on single source - not enough to verify"—Citieslife
 * "Claim requires additional high-quality sources in order to verify WP:EXTRAORDINARY"—36Balloons
 * "The section was deleted since it was based primarily on a single source, while making very serious claims. Accuracy and neutrality is disputed because only a single source is used"—Newcomer1
 * "MEK and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict section is based on a single source. This information is not verifiable"; "Removed material of section that cannot be verified. It is based on single source"—NickRovinsky
 * Carpe765 and Saleh Hamedi are determined to scrub any references to "Marxism": "Infobox not necessary to include. Internal link to Marxism article under Foundation gives readers source to learn more"—Carpe765; "Removed another reference to Marxism in infobox"—Saleh Hamedi
 * Even with the page protection, maybe filing a report isn't such a bad idea.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and filed an SPI here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

afghan-soviet war
You've done a complete rewrite of the entire section, deleting material for no good reason in the process. It may satisfy BLP (speak well of American officials) but it does not satisfy NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. You should restore the previous version and add your preferred narrative: the place where Steve Coll is quoted is the a very good place to do so. You winner take all strategy is not going to work. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to take a closer look, and tell me, specifically, what was wrongly deleted. The cite kill is still there. The Brzezinski quote is still there. The Slocombe quote is still there. The stuff about Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is still there. Literally all I deleted was "Some scholars also view the action as following from Brzezinski’s aspiration of using Islamic fundamentalism to counter the global left" and "By the end of 1980, out of the 80,000 soldiers strong Afghan Army, more than half had either deserted or joined the rebels." I thought, and still think, the latter sentence was out of place. You previously criticized the former as a WP:FRINGE view, but if you want to put it back in, by all means.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was reading the wikitext and missed some things. You're right—most of it is there. However, the excessive reliance on partisan primary sources, together with their rhetoric, does violate DUE, NPOV. I'll check back later. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your e-mail
This is in response to your e-mail:


 * "To clarify, does your statement in the log of sanctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2017#American_politics_2) regarding my American Politics topic ban ("They may appeal this restriction after six months have passed") mean that I HAVE to wait six months to appeal it? Bishonen's decision to revoke DS from "2016 United States election interference by Russia" on the grounds that they were hard to understand and exacerbating the conflict on that page arguably helps my case, but I guess there's no point in composing an appeal if I am not allowed to make one at this time."

You may appeal the sanction to AE or AN at any time if you believe it was wrongly imposed. But if you want to appeal it because you want me to lift it because it is no longer needed, please wait six months.  Sandstein  21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI
Hi-- Are you opening a SPI on 92slim/Forsytor or should I? Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can do it. The timing of Forsytor showing up to make essentially the same argument as 92slim shortly after the latter was blocked is undeniably suspicious, but I am not sure if checkusers will consider that alone to be sufficient cause to justify use of their powers. (Then again, based on past actions taken by certain checkusers that I am familiar with, I really don't see why it would not be.) It would be nice to compare 92slim and Fosytor's edit histories for any similarities first, but Fosytor hasn't made very many edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's past bed time, so I'll open one tomorrow. I did check their contributions and there's a strong behavioral link. Eperoton (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not 92slim. Just another Steverci sock. ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that
I didn't tag you. I just thought you were still blocked and it would be obnoxious to tag you if you couldn't respond. -Darouet (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior
Telling a site administrator to "get a clue" over legitimate edits to an article is perhaps not the wisest thing for you to be doing. Your attitude perhaps needs to change if you wish to continue in good standing on this project. Bumm13 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Brief informations regarding an insufferable narcissist

 * Note how it was as much about Obama himself as any success he had in his organizing work. … Jager soon came to realize, she told Garrow, that Obama had "a deep-seated need to be loved and admired." … "In law school the only thing I would have voted for Obama to do would have been to shut up," one student told Garrow. Classmates created a Obamanometer, ranking "how pretentious someone's remarks are in class."

And to think this ghastly man was worshipped by liberals… Really sounds like a great book. I shall attempt to work it into the Obama article. It contains crucial insights. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

1957 alleged Jordanian military coup attempt
Could you give your opinion on the article? It is very complex which made it difficult for me to organize my thoughts, I hope you can point out to any possible inconsistencies. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was very well-written, not to mention long overdue—it's kind of shocking that it took so long to create an article about such an important event in Jordanian history. America's Great Game by Hugh Wilford has some additional circumstantial evidence for the "U.S. false flag" theory, though it doesn't add much to the facts as you've outlined them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your AE topic ban is lifted
This is in response to your following e-mail:


 * "Given that six months have now passed since you imposed an American Politics topic ban on me for incivility and personal attacks at the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" article, I am writing to request that you consider lifting it on the grounds that it is no longer necessary. I have no intention of returning to the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble, or even of relitigating the question of whether Russia truly interfered, which seems to have been resolved by more recent sources. I have been on Wikipedia for seven years and edited in a wide range of topics, including promoting one Featured Article, and have only been topic banned once, due to a combination of a heated election season and what I still consider admins's general trigger-happiness in this particularly contentious area of the encyclopedia. I maintain that six months is a long enough punishment to serve as a deterrent, and that prolonging the ban would primarily impede my ability to edit in areas tangentially related to American Politics without benefitting the project."

Your request is granted and the topic ban is lifted. Best regards,  Sandstein   13:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandstein!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say to that you "had no intention" of returning to that page? Pretty quick for no intention.Casprings (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, as a matter of fact I didn't, but I appreciate your interest, Casprings. I have no intention of returning to the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble, or even of relitigating the question of whether Russia truly interfered, which seems to have been resolved by more recent sources. That said, I have been sitting on several edits for the last several months, and ultimately decided to get them out of my system. I hope you can understand that. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Must have been able to see into the future to be thinking Months ago of trump's talking point on the Ukraine and Clinton over the Don Jr thing. However, if you do return to the talk page, we can discuss how one politico story where one OP researcher was searching for info on Manafort is a pretty poor link to Clinton and that talking point is UNDUE, given the article.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'll return to the talk page, but I shall endeavor to avoid the tl;dr screeds for which I have become infamous.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW: "Must have been able to see into the future to be thinking Months ago of trump's talking point on the Ukraine and Clinton over the Don Jr thing." Actually, I merely read the Politico report when it came out in January. Again, kind regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

please do not simply disappear relevant text without detailed explanation (in particular, of discussion of chlorination Iraqi water supply during sanctions)
My Dear TheTimesAreAChanging, simply disappearing block text discussing Iraqi water treatment vulnerabilities because it did not suit an argument you might like to advance helps no one. Additions and edits are not exercises in polemics; this aims to be an encyclopedia, so do not simply disappear relevant text without detailed explanation.

Simply passingly calling disappeared passages (without even having the courtesy of identifying them) "unreliable" is lazy scurrilousness, in this case with obviously tendentious aims: to replace what had been presented with a view that suits your own.

This is the the source you cited as unreliable: a statement from David Sole, President of the Sanitary Chemists & Technicians Association-UAW Local. 2334 at the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20081203113830/http://www.iacenter.org/iraqchallenge/water.htm.

One can await with suspense how this source is unreliable.

Further, the opposing view from a Pentagon official (along with further deletion of the fact that the need for chlorine, whose importation had been banned by the relevant sanctions) ignored the relevant point. '''The basic point did not concern money. It concerned materials needed for the sterilization of the water supply. Importation of those materials was banned by sanctions.'''

If you do not have any understanding of the fundamental issues pertaining to an article, please do not try to be clever, disappearing text and substantive issues, substituting tendentious sources, etc.

Although the blockquote (and article) by Rubin nowhere addresses the relevant point, the article that you cites will nonetheless be retained after undoing disappeared text.

Your attempt moreover to editorialize that the Rubin article selected "eviscerates" a point that that article does not even address just makes you both look silly. (The point being the import bans on materials that the sanctions imposed, not $$ spent by Saddam Hussein, mention of which--including "presidential palaces" and "smuggling," are just transparent polemics directed by Rubin at Iraq pre-2003, and which aren't relevant to the main point that they they take issue with. Mention of the Intifada is moreover totally unrelated, and makes drive-by removal of relevant text and its replacement with irrelevant bashing of Saddam Hussein look still more idiotic and transparently motivated.)

Again, please do not simply disappear relevant text that is not to your liking, particularly when you (apparently) do not understand the fundamental issues pertaining to a given topic. Take care, and all the best, Alfred Nemours (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What follows pertains to your attempt to defend your recent removal of material on the Sanctions against Iraq page. I have commented there as well.
 * First, Third World Traveler was not provided as a source, and if you read the quoted material that you impugn, you know this. Third World Traveler is a website that reprinted an article published in the Progressive magazine.  Please do not distort or exaggerate to distract from relevant issues at play.  Second, before throwing mud at a source for being unreliable (here, "completely unreliable")--particularly in the case of simply disappearing text without explanation--provide some reason for doing so.  Anticipating the kind of "reason" you might provide in advance, empty political labels used to stain a source's reputation are not mainly what I have in mind.  What I have in mind more relates to the quality of the testimony provided.  Third, the irony in this case is your complaint given the source you have added.  Invoking the opinion of Michael Rubin to weigh in on the humanitarian impact of sanctions on Iraqi society is like invoking the opinion of Carlos the Jackal on the likelihood of a Sarah Palin run for the Republican party presidential nomination in 2024. Rubin has proved a tireless advocate for regime change in Iraq, worked for the Pentagon during an administration that maintained the sanctions, and his argument does not even address the relevant issues concerned, namely the import restrictions (you take issue with the word banned, but the point is the same) placed on Iraq, but instead distracts by invoking transparently polemical references to "presidential palaces," "smuggling," and the character of Saddam Hussein, and the Palestinian Intifada (?). Moreover, Rubin provides no evidence for his innuendo or for anything else he suggests.  Nonetheless, I have retained the Rubin's discussion because I don't simply disappear sources that I don't agree with, and because his arguments (if his empty competitive posturing to throw mud on villains that distract from the issue at hand can be called arguments). If you would like more documentation about assessments of Iraqi public health after several years of sanctions, that would be a very reasonable thing to want for this article, although from your actions so far I suspect you would want to minimize such a thing.  Say what you'd like about Leslie Stahl, but it's difficult to argue that her question posed to Albright was motivated by partisanship or that she was either an exponent of Pentagon or Saddamist policy. Fourth, how is a President of the Sanitary Chemists & Technicians Association unreliable or incompetent to speak on issues relating to water treatment and sanitation??  (Again, here I'm totally flummoxed. Are you at all serious in suggesting otherwise?  You replaced his testimony with that of a Pentagon neocon working for an administration that maintained the hold of sanctions.  The second figure is less of a dispassionate observer than the first?)
 * Please be advised that this seems to be nothing but trolling. Nothing you have said or imported into the article shows the slightest concern for the Iraqi people under the sanctions, which is the topic at issue in the relevant portion of the article. There is no problem if you do not care about this issue, but disappearing text and sources which you replace with discussion from Pentagon ideologues seems to me a waste of all of our energy in developing content for this encyclopedia. Please seek out entries to which you can contribute and make contributions rather than find entries from which to sneakily censor (vandalize) content.  Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Imperial Presidency
This article has many longstanding problems and that statement from the DJ, stated in WP's voice is typical of the content that fails policy, per the article improvement tag. Marking substantive edits as "minor" is disruptive. Please also review the meaning of WP:VANDALISM and do not misuse the term in edit summaries. You may pursue any argument for this dustjacket POV text on the talk page, but it's not OK to edit-war it back in after two editors have removed it. SPECIFICO talk  15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO: You're earnestly defending this edit as "not vandalism"? Really? (You have reviewed the edit in question, yes?) Do you want to ask an admin?
 * As you say, the article has many problems and mostly just regurgitates Schlesinger's arguments from the book (virtually the entire article could be deleted with the edit summary "POV statement in WP's voice"). However, considering that you didn't know The Imperial Presidency was first published in 1973 and appear simply to have followed me there, perhaps the best course of action would be to leave the article intact until an expert is able to give it the care it deserves, rather than deleting paragraphs more or less arbitrarily.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Continued here, for any talk page stalkers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2017 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Rich Love (song)
Can you check reference for non-RS (any website name does not have wikilink)? 183.171.182.130 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry bro...
But TBANs are community decisions, meaning that you can't rely on that one caffeinated admin to read and click through all of that mess; you have to get a community consensus, and the community ain't got time for that. Timothy Joseph Wood 02:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring
FYI I filed an edit-warring report against the IP-hopping person who repeatedly reverted your edits and my counter-reverts at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. — JFG talk 00:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough


Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

You are hurting my feelings, and it makes me very sad. "Comment on content, not contributors."

SPECIFICO talk  00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have never found your pop culture references germane to any discussion. Maybe stay on topic?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I don't know if you have seen Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

In my opinion, it might be good to hear from a few content editors who have developed (or might in the future create) actual referenced content, if normal editing were to resume. It's one thing for people to theorize that unprotecting would lead to article improvement, and it's something else to hear from people who may have a concrete idea of what to do. (You did make some content contributions in 2013 at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/dumping-ground). It seems this 'dumping-ground' page was intended to allow article work to continue even during the period of full protection. If you are familiar with this topic, you may be able to suggest the names of others who have also done (or tried to do) actual content work on 'Mass killings'. It seems that User:AmateurEditor also made some contributions to the dumping-ground page and he does seem to have interests in history. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did see that AE request, but I have no strong feelings about it either way, besides a general sense that the status quo is unsustainable. I no longer believe that the content I added to the "dumping ground" in 2013 has any encyclopedic value, to put it mildly, and therefore would not attempt to add it to the article were it unprotected. All I can say in favor of the current system is that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" section was successfully amended by consensus in March 2013, and that the result constituted a genuine improvement over the old version, albeit still far from perfect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider...
...removing your comment from Talk:Dismissal of James Comey? While we were edit conflicting I was attempting to change the whole direction of the argument from "was it a recommendation?" to "what should the article actually say?" Your input wasn't problematic, but it gives them an excuse to continue the snark exchange instead of focusing on the wording. If you prefer not to remove it that's OK. There's nothing actually wrong with it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. Too late. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recruiting at Cyberwarfare by Russia
The editor whom you pinged and cited as having made edits you like -- that editor has never edited the article to which you recruited him. This violates WP behavioral guidelines. You can remedy this either by informing the many editors who have edited there -- most of whom my not share your POV -- or by redacting your violation. SPECIFICO talk  21:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've never previously edited Cyberwarfare by Russia. Were you recruited (i.e., by email), or are you stalking my edits to make drive-by revenge reverts? Is the latter better than the former?
 * Fact is, Thucydides411, unprompted, brought up "the PropOrNot and Vermont utility hack stories" just a few days ago at the main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and I would be interested in seeing him elaborate—especially when confronted by an editor making revenge reverts while refusing to participate on the talk page, and who appears (along with BullRangifer) to be one of the last two people on earth to have missed Wash Post's nine-month-old retraction. Until BullRangifer's recent edits, Cyberwarfare by Russia had been largely inactive, with the last non-minor edit by a named user occurring six months ago. To rectify your concern, I have asked everyone watching Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to participate. A ping can't be undone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump Tower Allegation
Hello TheTimesAreAChanging,

Thank you for contributing to the page 'Donald Trump on social media'. But I will like to discuss about your edit.

In September, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort, (I would say that CNN isn't the only one but that's ok.) Trump's former campaign chairman, in 2016-17, either during or after his tenure with the Trump campaign. (It was before and after the election) However, this revelation does not confirm the accuracy of Trump's tweets, as it is not known whether any surveillance of Manafort took place at Trump Tower and there remains no evidence that Obama requested the wiretap.[58][59][60]

And for your last sentence, the reports mostly do confirm Trump's tweets. Trump declared that Trump Tower was wiretapped as a whole. Paul Manafort actually conducted business and lived in Trump Tower. And your last sentence also contradicts with your firsts sentence. "CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort" (but) "revelation does not confirm... as it is not known whether any surveillance of Manafort took place at Trump Tower".

There was surveillance on Manafort. CNN reported that and it occurred in Trump Tower. The Obama part is fine, but your edit contradicts your views. So, will you like me to change it or will you?

Thanks! Aviartm (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, content disputes belong on article talk pages, not user talk pages. However, in response to your claim that "surveillance ... occurred in Trump Tower," I will note that CNN actually says: "While Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, it's unclear whether FBI surveillance of him took place there." I personally would be shocked if no intelligence agency surveilled Trump Tower or any of its residents, but reliable sources have yet to confirm that that occurred—nor are RS generally portraying the confirmation of a wiretap on Manafort (something that informed observers have been speculating about for months) as validating the specific assertions, of unclear provenance, that Trump tweeted last March. (See, for example, The Atlantic's "Is Trump's 'Wiretap' Claim Vindicated?")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * True. It just sometimes I contact the user's talk page to make sure that they will read it, instead of an indirect potential. True. But I mean, would you be doing political business in Virginia and running a Presidential Campaign or work at your other residence of Trump Tower where you are running the Tower's owner's Presidential Campaign and do general business there. I agree we need to wait until it is verified, but it would make sense to conduct and run a Presidential Campaign at the same place were the Presidential Candidate wins. I agree with you. Imo, there is a very low probability of no surveillance at Trump Tower or the main stream media does not want to disclose such information. Aviartm (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that some people might have had their private phones tapped while they were physically present in Trump Tower isn't that relevant to this subject. What Trump claimed was that his own phones in Trump Tower were tapped - "Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower" - so Manafort being tapped, even if he was in Trump Tower at the time, doesn't shed any light on Trump's still unproven (and unlikely) claim. What I do find to be not-yet-proven-but-likely is the possibility that some of these tapped phone calls involved the Feds listing to and recording a conversation between Manafort and Donald Trump himself. What a story THAT is going to be when/as/if it comes out! --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We are all insinuating what Trump meant. We do not know if he meant his/his campaign/Trump campaign communication lines. Obviously the Presidential Campaign was primarily ran in Trump Tower. So, Trump could've meant that tweet as Trump Tower in it's entirety.
 * MelanieN is correct that there's no confirmation of Trump's twitter claims here. She's also very likely correct, to read between the lines, that the reason Trump himself got the two issues confused is that Manafort may have been doing Trump's business on Manafort's personal lines and so in Trump's mind and from the point of view of Trump's personal jeopardy, he may have been quite justified in his subjective sense that his "wires" were being "tapped." SPECIFICO  talk  22:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, told The Real News on March 7, the only way that Trump could have been tapped directly is in the unlikely scenario that the Obama administration asked GCHQ to do it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which has been thoroughly, THOROUGHLY debunked by the British. They made it clear there is pretty much no way such a request could even have been made, much less carried out. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Italics
I'm not aware of a specific Wikipedia guideline regarding the italicization of broadcast news outlets (at the moment it isn't specifically mentioned in WP:ITALICS), but it seems like all the articles for these news outlets don't use italics (see the articles for CNN, Fox News, BBC, etc.) In the templates, I generally try to use the publisher parameter for these outlets. This seems like a cheap hack, though it's been suggested before. If you're interested in changing established norms, I suggest you raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. FallingGravity 08:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment
I've seen your edit about the discussion over representative tweets, which I hadn't been following. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include examples of what Trump's shared on Twitter - I imagine a history textbook with illustrative examples in the future (if there is a future) and I know that "Crime Statistics Bureau" picture will be on there. I also would support including the "modern day presidential" claim: I think it exemplifies Trump's attitude to Twitter and the presidency, so I have no issues with having it at the start. 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ummm...
Donald Trump on social media. You do know that article is under 1RR, right?  Volunteer Marek  17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't. If I don't see the notice at the top while editing, I usually just assume the standard 3RR is in force. For what it's worth, I don't think that was aware that the article is under 1RR, either. In any case, all of my reverts have already been reverted, so there's nothing left to self-revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I didn't know this either. There's no message in the edit window and no comment on the top of the page pointing it out. I've added one. Regarding the "modern day presidential" quote, I do support having it because I think it sums up Trump's attitude to social media: that it allows him to bypass the media and get attention as part of being "modern day presidential". So I'm not saying it's representative of his Twitter posts (what is?) but I think it's a reasonable way of kicking off the article. Still, I don't disagree that having it above the infobox is ugly. How about putting it in the Background section ranged left? Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I figured this was in good faith (for both of you) which is why I've pointed it out here.  Volunteer Marek   23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: casualties
Times, I respect that you will actually have a civil discussion on this or other issues. If you'd accept some kind of dispute resolution, I'd appreciate that. I'm not 100% convinced of what should be in this article, but from a purely methodological perspective, refugees really do play a major role in the determination of casualties, and this is known among epidemiologists. I think it's also clear that the creation of refugees and orphans is directly related to casualties in a conflict. -Darouet (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

AN notice
This is to let you know that I have filed a complaint about you at AN. The specific link is Administrators' noticeboard. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)