User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 8

Our old friend
Could it be him ?--Shrike (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems very likely to me, for many reasons. (formerly known as ), any words in your defense?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Does BAS got a standard offer?--Shrike (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, that is what he told me. That said, it must have happened after the BowlAndSpoon account was created on November 22, 2015; was indeffed just three days earlier. For what it's worth, I have not seen any problematic editing from the BowlAndSpoon account.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Not guilty on this one! You can IP me and whatever. I'm not up to much on Wikipedia at the moment. And thank you to TTAAC for his evenhanded comments about me here. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also – just to make some sort of token effort to save the AusLondoner person some possible grief – if you look at my history of bannage, I have never used two accounts concurrently. I have been banned, then set up a new one to carry on where I left off, but I've never used two accounts at once.

YeOldeGentleman was me. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer, I've never received. No, actually I got one for another account, which I don't recall... but TTAAC secured that account's ban shortly afterwards! This is some time ago now, so recollection might be off. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops! I just thought of one more thing! Shrike, you'll see I've stayed off Israel–Palestine. My recollection is I got a TBAN for it at some point, but it always got me into trouble, so I've stayed from it anyway. Similarly to most articles on US foreign relations, unless my own shitty country is involved e.g. Yemen. Here are some pretty Polki for you, Shrike:

Don't you like Polki? 😍😍😍 --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attack
I’d like you to stop with your personal attacks, like on page Taliban on 15Oct2017,07:03. I don’t know what your insinuation: "[CB's] continued blanking of well-sourced content" is referring to, but surely, the accusation being totally vague and coming out of the blue, it's out of line there and a personal attack. We just try to improve our encyclopedia. I always (try to) motivate my edits. If you disagree with an edit or with its given motivation, or find that motivation too vague or incomprehensible or absent, you can always revert it (ofcourse also with a clear motivation). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious. If "continued blanking of well-sourced content" counts as a personal attack, even the simplest disagreements between editors will be personal attacks. That is a straightforward explanation of why your edit was reverted. My opinion is that you need to grow a thicker skin. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Per this section at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are now subject to the following restrictions: GoldenRing (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are banned from interacting with for three months.  This is subject to the usual exceptions plus you may report violations of this IBAN to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.  You are counselled to not use the exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations except in the most obvious of obvious cases.
 * You are warned to edit collegially.

russian interference
Your comments, while constructive, were somewhat assuming of my character, if I am to be perfectly honest. I am a very easy going editor, if you have suggestions, I'm happy to listen, but feel free not to take my edits so personally. DN (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation?
Is not this your edit (note your edit summary) and this edit represent a 1RR violation on the page? If so, please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sessions
I’m sorry you think I was POV-pushing at the Jeff Sessions article. I have tried my best to respond to you at that talk page. As for the removal of the longstanding content, I agree with you and have said so at that talk page. However, I have not restored the material; that’s not because of any resentment about the comments you directed toward me, but rather because I would probably be blocked for edit-warring even though I have not recently reverted anything at that article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but given Volunteer Marek's propensity to delete impeccably sourced, uncontroversial material on any imaginable pretext, it's easy to see why your edit was clunky, redundant (if Sessions's explanation was "confirmed," we don't need to beat readers over the head with its credibility), and allowed Volunteer Marek to raise the fake issue of snythesis—and for SPECIFICO to follow suit with incomprehsible gibberish bearing absolutely zero resemblance to the sources/issues under discussion. Now we can only wonder whether Volunteer Marek, who is capable of better, will read the source and admit his mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll never know, but I suspect VM would have removed that sentence anyway; after all, he did it in two separate edits, first removing "credible" and then removing the rest of it on the basis that the source didn't verbatim say "confirmed" (though CNN did say "affirmed"). I find my self in the horrible predicament of actually agreeing a little bit with User:MrX insofar as the "confirmation" (or affirmation or whatever) never was really very significant, given that the NYT had already reported unequivocally months before that "Sessions Was Advised Not to Disclose Russia Meetings on Security Forms".  That paragraph of the BLP is a horrible jumbled mess of a paragraph, and it doesn't get much better by restoring that one little sentence, though I support your doing so if only to try and prod people toward overhauling the paragraph.  Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring
You have been continously edit-warring with multiple editors it is clear. You are making nonsensical statements of IP editors not being WP:RS. Reliable sources are things like news etc used to verify the content in the article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. But a user is not a "source". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you are being abusive to to other editors by tying to start WP:RS edit-wars, we can simply put information in the talk page with a request to improve the article. It's relatively futile to use transparent WP:RS arguments to achieve self-righteous, petty objectives in this manner.Santamoly (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Continued here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Ho Chi Minh revert
Since when are refs supposed to have massive paragraphs of prose? Txantimedia (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Continued here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not good
Look, you were warned to edit collegially. Is that your idea of collaborative editing ,? Note your edit summaries and note that you refuse to talk. Also note that your edits are related to US politics. I personally do not care too much about this subject, but you should care about your habits if you want to continue editing in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What’s the header of the talk page section? If it’s “Vermont electric grid hoax” then I see extensive commentary by this editor there.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made edits and fully explained them on article talk page two days ago, but TTAAC reverted them two times without even talking and responding to my arguments that are pretty much reasonable. This is not a cooperative editing. I do not care and can even accept "his version", but someone else could make a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian cyberwarfare
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please undo your 4th revert and take a breather.

 SPECIFICO talk 05:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me the diffs that you are counting as four reverts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Disparagement at Dossier list talk
I believe it's now been demonstrated to you that the consensus required template was indeed visible on the talk page at the time you violated that sanction. I'm disappointed that you have not stricken the false statements and disparagement of me an Coffee on the talk page concerning the validity of the sanction. Please correct the record in whatever way you think will make it most clear that readers should disregard those claims. Thanks  SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * I've closed your appeal of this sanction as unsuccessful. T. Canens (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that accusing someone of source misrepresentation can be viewed as an WP:NPA violation, unless it was indeed an obvious misrepresentation (no, it was not). Also, it would be advisable if you followed 1RR rule on all recent most hot subjects on US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that. We should all treat related articles as if they had been templated with the specific sanctions, as on Donald Trump. This would include the Nunes memo and other similar articles that were recently created but not yet templated.  SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

AE opened
I'm sorry that you chose to dismiss my previous notice. I have documented these issues in a case at WP:AE.  SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States
This article should have been fixed not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEarth1974 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert war
I'll just post this here because you won't respond (again) if I ping you on the talk page: you're misinterpreting my point. It's clearly quite common on those pages to revert an edit that appears to be from someone making a point (an unfortunate false assumption some may have of me) because they do often attract these types, but you'll note that I specifically removed only the misplaced content from the "Allegations of Mossad involvement" section. I couldn't move it either, as the information was already in the article. It was repeated in the wrong place, worded specifically to "react to" the earlier material and nullify its value. On the entire Wikiproject you will only find this kind of self-contradicting ("criticism of criticism of ...") style upheld in politics-related articles. Try to clean it up and someone may revert, convinced you're picking side they're not on. All I'm saying is that if the source does negate that entire section, as it now claims, said section should not be there. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Aspects are reported, not evaluated. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very funny, seriously though, stop. I very much compromised despite you intentionally ignoring my comment on your talk page for over a week, and you revert it in less than an hour. This is provocative behaviour. You should already be more careful if you're getting warned about your refusal to gain consensus. Instead of claiming ignorance, actually respond. Tell me why moving it away from the wrong section and merging the sentences "waters down" his words. Is it because I removed "considerable", which isn't even in the article and therefore editorializing? If you just intentionally ignore this again I'll obviously assume you were only trying to be disruptive. Prinsgezinde (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first comment here was a barely coherent veiled personal attack alluding to some past interaction between us that I do not recall, and which ended on a note of resignation. If you have a case to make for removing long-standing content from Hindawi affair, I would suggest that you present it at Talk:Hindawi affair.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack, it's an understandably annoyed reaction to you ignoring and reverting me for at least the third time now (the two that spring to mind are Georgios Papadopoulos and Iraq and WMDs, 2 months ago). I know you were aware of those posts because I pinged you in each of them. If I were to start a discussion on Hindawi Affair, would it be illogical for me to assume you wouldn't respond? And then who would I be "presenting" it to? Only two topics were opened on its talk page in the last 7 years, meaning chances are very good that it would amount to nothing. You understand this perfectly well. Reverting someone without giving them the chance to even dispute it comes dangerously close to gaming the system. If you don't want to engage in discussion, don't revert with such little information as "Restored content sourced to The New York Times" or "Disingenuous deletion of long-standing and essential context" (a subtle jab). You're not reverting obvious IP vandalism. I'm experienced enough to know these policies, so at least take the time to explain why the edit was bad and don't ignore the arguments that were made. You've been warned for edits related to US politics and foreign policy for very similar reasons. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In both of the instances you cited, there was a gap of at least several months between my edits (only one of which involved me "reverting" you) and your initiating a talk page discussion. In the case of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, it appears that I gave up and allowed you to force through your deletions of long-standing content sourced to The New York Times, although thankfully some of your more egregious POV language was toned down by NPguy. Believe it or not, while this one revert may have left quite an impression on you, it was not particularly memorable to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, those were just two examples that sprang to mind. It's your editing behaviour that leaves an impression. Your spin on the New York Times' story was misleading to a very serious degree (don't deny it, the article itself warns it doesn't support your conclusion), which made it your responsibility—not mine—to fix it. The fact that you "gave up", as you say, doesn't help anyone. Consider that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier:
Why do you assert that my edit is false? The transcript is clear. Search the page on "salacious" and see the TWO references to it:

"At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified."

"During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs)

I see you blanked your user page
Hey there TTAAC; it's been a long time. I couldn't help but notice you recently blanked your user page, and just wanted to check in and see how everything's going. You and I, and Indrian, used to work together on Sega articles and accomplished a lot together. I've been gone for three years but just came back myself, and if you have read my user page, have finally come to terms with the horrible ownership issues I used to have on here. If you're ever feeling a bit like you're not sure where to go or if you want to keep editing—I've done that twice now myself—let me know, because I'd be glad to collaborate on some more Sega projects again. Keep in touch, Red Phoenix  talk  17:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind message,, but I think I've said everything that I have to say on that topic, at least for the time being. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. If you ever change your mind, let me know.  I'll keep my door open for you.   Red Phoenix  talk  23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

bad rv
Per your es: then edit the sentence, not revert. The statement is as sourced as a cherrypick. - DePiep (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq
I posted the dispute regarding these sections on US Involvement in Regime Change to the WP Dispute Resolution Noticeboard--NYCJosh (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted the dispute regarding these sections on US Involvement in Regime Change to the WP Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. --NYCJosh (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please provide source that contradicts what I added about Saddam in Cairo.--NYCJosh (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not how this works, Josh, as I'm sure you understand (despite your disingenuous edit summaries). I already demonstrated that several academics have raised major concerns about the veracity of Sale's report—a report that (as you've implicitly conceded) has not been endorsed or corroborated by any other journalist or academic. You seem to be arguing that my sources refer only to the 1959 assassination attempt, and that not every single sentence of Sale's third– and fourth–hand allegations from anonymous primary sources has been explicitly discussed (let alone refuted) by secondary sources, but if true that would only underscore that those allegations are FRINGE. Conversely, while it's extraordinary to believe that the CIA was even aware of a marginal figure like Saddam prior to the events of October 1959 (and even the extent of Egyptian involvement in the plot is actually rather controversial—not that your edits indicate any awareness of these facts), it's certainly not unbelievable on its face that Saddam may have visited the U.S. embassy in Cairo during his exile, although no hard evidence that he did so has yet surfaced. (Crucially, even if the U.S. engineered the entire February 1963 coup—which, again, is highly unlikely and inconsistent with much evidence—Saddam played no role in the coup or the anti-communist purge that followed, as he was still in Egypt at the time, so he wouldn't have been one of the Iraqis that the U.S. worked with to depose Qasim. In that sense, there is slightly more evidence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda than there is evidence that he ever collaborated with the CIA—a single contact at an embassy, if it occurred, does not indicate that a long-term, collaborative relationship was established.) In any case, I already included a summary of Sale and a link to his article as well as a detailed treatment of Saddam's exile from biographer and academic Efraim Karsh; Karsh, like all of Saddam's biographers, contradicts Sale's account, even though he does not expressly set out to do so, by giving a very different account. Maybe you should broaden your choice of reading material?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first two sentences, correct, the sources you cited do not contradict Sale regarding Saddam's Egyptian years. In fact, your source Wolfe-Hunnicut specifically states that the CIA may have taken notice of Saddam after the Oct attempted assassination. The Master's Thesis you cite similarly downplays "the CIA connection with Hussein *before his Egyptian exile*" (emphasis mine).
 * Karsh does not contradict the Sale source either. Detention by Egyptian authorities at some point over the years hardly disproves connection with Egyptian state intel let alone with the CIA.
 * Also, in the US Regime change article, your phrasing of the last sentence of the 1959 event is very confused and misleading: the first part of the sentence discusses detention in Egypt, the second part states that those were just rumors and also reads as if the detention has something to do with visits to the US embassy.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Also, in the US Regime change article, your phrasing of the last sentence of the 1959 event is very confused and misleading ... [it] reads as if the detention has something to do with visits to the US embassy." My edit is completely clear. You obviously haven't read the relevant excerpt from Karsh, even though I previously provided a Google Books link to it: "Accounts of the reasons for his detention differ. According to Shi'ite opposition sources, Hussein was arrested on suspicion of murdering another Iraqi political exile. An alternative explanation linked Saddam's detention to the authorities' disaffection with his political activities (he was even reported to have paid occasional visits to the American Embassy in Cairo.)" (Karsh, p. 21.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to the first part of what I wrote (my uncontroverted source re Saddam's years in Egypt). In fact, your Karsh source tends to confirm Saddam's US Embassy visits in Cairo.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking past one another, which is unfortunate. Sale is reporting allegations from primary sources; many of the allegations are widely regarded by secondary sources as being of questionable veracity. However, I am not unreasonable: If anything that Sale reported has been partially supported or corroborated by any secondary sources—such as the Karsh citation that I added—then I am not necessarily opposed to including it (although you still haven't explained what any possible embassy visits might have to do with "U.S. involvement in regime change"). That said, your repeated assertion that Sale's critics have not explicitly "controverted" every single one of the allegations that he reported and that those "uncontroverted" allegations should therefore be treated as fact until disproved, even though Sale remains the only source for them, is a straightforward inversion of the burden of proof (and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy as I understand it). After all, it's very difficult to prove a negative, although Gibson does exactly that regarding Sale's main thesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am continuing this discussion on the US Reg Change Talk page so others are more likely to chime in.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

PA, RS, NPOV, FRINGE violations
You have violated WP:PA, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE at Halabja chemical attack. If you continue to violate these, I will have to go down the route of reporting you. Unless you can substantiate that the United Nations and Center for Disease Control are unreliable sources on claims made by Zanders on the effects of cyanide poisoning and on Iraq's chemical weapons program, while continuing to promote single-sentence claims that are verifiably false made by a relatively unknown figure on a single web page that does not exist anymore as reliable, I will have to take action. SeriousSam11 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that Iraq did not gas the Kurds at Halabja is the FRINGE theory unanimously rejected by virtually all RS. As explained previously, Zanders's findings are in detailed agreement with the most in-depth academic study of this topic, Hiltermann 2007, published by Cambridge University Press. You are free to believe that Cambridge University Press and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) do not understand the scientific literature as well as you do, but your preposterous OR theories about tabun not requiring cyanide and cyanosis being diagnostic of cyanide poisoning are not going in the article absent any RS that support them. It's clear that you lack the WP:COMPETENCE required to neutrally summarize RS as required of Wikipedia editors (indeed, you seem to lack even a sophisticated ability to comprehend the English language), and your resort to petty threats confirms that you have no response to the in-depth research that I cited on the talk page. If and when RS come around to supporting your crazy conspiracy theory that Iran gassed the Kurds (after Iraqi troops had evacuated Halabja) in order to frame Saddam in a "false flag" strikingly similar to the dozens of other Iraqi gas attacks on Kurds, then you can change the article to reflect that new academic consensus—not before. A Wikipedia editor cannot pretend to know better than the RS.


 * BTW, to anyone not familiar with SeriousSam11's style, consider what he is saying when he writes that Zanders and SIPRI (as well as Hiltermann, by extension) are guilty of "verifiably false [claims] made by a relatively unknown figure on a single web page that does not exist anymore." Essentially, what that means is that SeriousSam11 wants to delete SIPRI because he considers the obvious fact that Iraq must have had cyanide if it manufactured tabun to be "verifiably false," due to his own inability to understand basic chemistry. However, SeriousSam11 second-guessing a RS such as SIPRI is the very definition of WP:OR. In addition, SeriousSam11 moves the goal post further by intimating that Zanders, the author of SIPRI's analysis, is not independently notable (i.e., is "a relatively unknown figure")—but that is not a requirement of WP:RS (and does not apply to Hiltermann, who concurs 100% with Zanders). Finally, by "a single web page that does not exist anymore" SeriousSam11 is simply arguing that any web page accessed through the Internet Archive is no longer reliable, a contention which has no basis in policy.


 * I advise this editor to stop with the trolling, edit warring, and threats, as well as the OR and systemic violations of Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have violated WP:3RR at Halabja chemical attack. If you do not revert this, I will be left with no choice but to report you for this in addition to your repeated violations of WP:PA, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP: DOSPAGWYA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SeriousSam11 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR/Cambodia
Since you are editing this section, I would like to see your comment on the new section I created on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Question
If I understand correctly Courtois does NOT make a reference to the chapter by Margolin (or to any other source) when he tells about 1 million in Veitnam in the 1st chapter/Intro of BBoC. Is that correct? My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hadi al-Modarresi Vandalism on Bahrain
Hello, I'm 2001:8003:2A43:1200:688C:B572:8199:2CAF. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

You are ignoring the thoroughly referenced and balanced contributions I and other have made and simply keep deleting them to restore a biased text that supports the regime's agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2A43:1200:688C:B572:8199:2CAF (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dreamcast and Dream and Cast
You would be incorrect. The provided citation is from Retro Gamer 50, Retroinspection: Dreamcast, and the whole section is as following:

"According to reports, over 5,000 different names were considered, with the positive-sounding ‘Dreamcast’ winning out. A combination of ‘dream’ and ‘cast’ - as in the way a magician would cast a spell - this pleasant moniker hinted at the expanded connectivity the system would eventually bring to the home via its online services. Thankfully for fanboys, Irimajiri’s management team would later wisely relent and permit the Sega logo to be reinstated to the console’s outer casing."

Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/13GPZjA

Please revert your edit. Thanks. --Lone Guardian (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, nevermind... Found the reprint in Nintendo Life. Frankly, I don't like it conflicts with the original article in Retro Gamer, but... --Lone Guardian (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a little thought...
Stumbled across this from four years ago while going through my contributions - I wish I had read it more closely and considered it better when we first did this GA nomination. I understand your position on contributing to Sega-related articles at the moment from when we talked earlier, but if you ever decide you'd like to team up with me again to tackle the challenge you set forth in this edit, let me know and I would be proud to work with you again. I actually still have all of 's research materials on my computer, as well. No rush; I have plenty of Sega's development studios to tackle and that will take me quite a while, so I simply leave this to you as an open-ended invitation should you ever be interested. Red Phoenix talk  21:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Good faith deletion
Does not appear to be a good faith deletion? I'm really tired of the personal attacks here. I explained it very thoroughly on the talk page, and the reasons are very good. I'm also actively working on improving the sourcing in the article, so there is no justification for what you just said. It just comes across as spillover ARBPIA pov-drama. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by personal attacks? I have been attacked by this user too, in an uncivil manner, and I'd like to understand if this is a continuing pattern of behaviour.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had completely forgotten about this. I wasn't happy about the assumption of bad faith before discussing, but it only happened once. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I’d like your thoughts on this...
Hey there. So, that editor who is currently being troublesome at the Dreamcast talk page. Do you think it’s that “Jakandsig” editor from years back? I figured I’d ask you, considering you correctly reported a lot of his socks back in the day. An editor mentioned this possibility to me, and it seems plausble to me. What do you think? Sergecross73  msg me  23:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some striking similarities, including Jakandsig and Spike Denton being perhaps the only adherents of the unfounded claim that the Philips CD-i was the first console to feature a built-in modem rather than the Dreamcast. Given that checkuser will not be effective against an account that is now more than four years old, I'm not certain whether that is definitive enough for a WP:DUCK block.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've had involvement here in the past as well, any thoughts? This slightly predates myself, or I simply wasn't paying attention to hardware articles back then. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, the long-winded arguments and continued insistence on the CD-i having a built-in modem both constitute awfully suspicious behavior. I had started wondering myself if this was Jakandsig come back before this discussion started.  In addition to the above, Jakandsig was really keen to diminish Nintendo's success in the late 1980s and inflate Atari's a bit, which seems to be another move that our new friend is making.  I would place the odds at 50-50.  It's probably not enough to flat out ban the account yet, but they do seem worth keeping an eye on.  Indrian (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like we’re all pretty much on the same page then. Thank you all for the input. I’ll keep an eye on him and do an SPI or something if he starts acting up again (he hasn’t edited in a few days.) Let me know if you notice him causing trouble and it doesn’t appear that I notice. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  03:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Snyder
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed it.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

3RR on Taliban
I left a warning on Rs21867's page, so it's only fair here as well. I think they are way past 3RR already (maybe 5?).  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Soviet War Crimes" article's accuracy is highly questionable. "600,000 - 2,000,000 dead" is ridiculous on its face.
TheTimesAreAChanging wrote: "IWPCHI seeks to refute the notion that between 600,000 and 2 million Afghan civilians died during the Soviet occupation of that country by citing a 1989 admission by the Afghan communist govt. that its own secret police executed 11,000 persons during its "first 20 months in power, up to the time that Soviet troops arrived in December 1979." This is a misuse of statistics that misrepresents the 1989 NYT source by pretending that it is talking about war casualties and refutes later scholarship"

IWPCHI seeks to do no such thing. IWPCHI is unhappy with the existence of the "Soviet War Crimes" article because it is a grab-bag of anticommunist screeds collated by anticommunists and presented as an article worthy of an encyclopedia of general knowledge. It would work well as a "Conservapedia" article; but as a general informational article on "Soviet War Crimes" it leaves much to be desired.

From 1917 until 1991 there was a massive propaganda operation run by the United States Government to heap as much slander and abuse on the Soviet Union as possible. After WWII, the US Govt helped Nazis and Eastern European Nazi collaborators escape from War Crimes tribunals in the USSR and put them to work at places like Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty where they published some truth and a whole lot of lies about the USSR, poisoning the historical wells thoroughly. Now that the USSR, sadly, no longer exists and the Soviet archives are now open to public scrutiny, we would expect to be seeing more accurate information about the history of the USSR. Instead we are seeing the same old lies retailed again, for example, on Afghanistan.

To say that "between 600,000 and 2,000,000 people were killed by the Soviets in Afghanistan" is to admit to the world that you have no idea how many people were killed in that war. Those numbers are thrown out there for one reason only: to make the USSR look as bad as possible. By now, with the US military having been involved in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, the Afghan Govt should have produced a decent history of the war years with the USSR; and the USSR state archives, too, should throw light on these figures and many more. Where is this information? It's not to be found in this article, and that's what pisses me off.

You, TTAAC, claim that I "misuse statistics" and that "later scholarship" refutes my assertions. If you know of such "scholarship" it seems to me that you should produce it and include it in this article, instead of defending the wildly inaccurate ballpark numbers of "600,000-2,000,000" and stupid things like that which this article is chock full of. You would think that we were trying to calculate the number of people killed in the Punic Wars or something. This article is composed 75% of unfounded allegations made by anticommunists, not "scholarship" of any kind. The New York Times publishes a lot of anticommunist propaganda; their articles can not be accepted at face value as "scholarship"; nor can articles and books by people like Robert Conquest who made a lucrative career out of slandering the USSR and cherry-picking the historical record for everything bad about the USSR while deliberately ignoring or distorting 4/5ths of the historical record. It's way past time for us to do do away with his kind of "scholarship".

I assume that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide *accurate* information about subjects, not highly slanted polemics for or against this or that historical personage or country or political philosophy. The USSR has been deceased for almost 3 decades; it's about time that we put down the Cold War cudgels and started to scour the archives for the real story of the history of the USSR. This article could be one place where that process can finally begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWPCHI (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * None of which changes the fact that you presented the Afghan government's 1989 admission to having executed 11,000 persons prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as "debunking" the range of civilian casualties during the entire Soviet–Afghan War that is cited in virtually all RS on the topic (diff). Estimating civilian mortality during wartime is difficult, but to suggest that the number of Afghan deaths during the decade-long Soviet occupation of that country might have been as low as 11,000 is completely ludicrous as well as a blatant falsification of the 1989 source that you cited. No RS supports such an estimate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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! --MrClog (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 217.92.132.253 POV/edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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! --Jamez42 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken revert
I accidentally reverted your edit on the Vietnam article because I thought I had forgot to change the casualty count from 30,000 to 50,000. It was reverted so quickly that I didn't see your intervening edit. Now that I read that source I understand. Don't mistake this as an attempt to edit war, it was just an accident on my part. TheNavigatrr (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

NOTICE
Hi TheTimesAreAChanging,

you recently reverted an edit that was meant to eliminate any POV and excessive content. I have kept the sources and only made it concise and have mentioned the celebrations. Here at wikipedia, we try to maintain a neutral and objective coverage and accounts of events and persons in order to contribute to a reliable education resource. However, the use of wikipedia accounts to advance political agendas is in breach of wikipedia guidelines; that being said, if you continue and persist to revert these edits or engage in an edit war on this topic, you may risk being reported for WP:SPA or as a politically motivated account not by me, but by other editors. thank you and have a nice day

Lo meiin (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

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

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your revert at History of Asia
Thanks for reverting the vandalism at History of Asia. The only thing that concerns me is the edit summary that you left on the page. I can certainly see how frustrating it can be to try to work constructively on editing the encyclopedia, only for an unregistered user to go back and undo the work with nonsensical edits just for fun. I think that it's pretty easy to lose sight of the fact that IP's are human too, especially if you come across vandalism from unregistered users often. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just a stock edit summary that I've started using recently whenever I revert IP vandalism. In my view, allowing people to edit as IPs is not, on net, beneficial to this project. Whether you agree or disagree with this perspective, it's not one that I am prohibited from expressing, as far as I know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations and personal attacks, as per the WP:AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

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

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

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)