User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations, TheTimesAreAChanging, for recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to articles on international politics, and for persevering in spite of earlier friction with some of the community's policies and guidelines. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam war[edit]

Is the relevant portion of FeuerHerd (2005/2006) the 321st minute, or is that the length of the work? Please cite the time range when death totals are discussed. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean citation 9: "Aaron Ulrich (editor); Edward FeuerHerd (producer and director) (2005 & 2006) (Box set, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Full Screen, NTSC, Dolby, Vision Software). Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 (Documentary). Koch Vision. Event occurs at 321 minutes. ISBN 1-4172-2920-9." This is used for the estimate of 1.1 million North Vietnamese military deaths, as well as Kingdom of Thailand military deaths. It sounds like it occurs at the 321st minute. But I didn't add this source to the article. So I wouldn't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian killings[edit]

Thank you. You're braver than me. :) why must all these types of articles have a united states involvement section? Lol - which style guide makes them apparently mandatory? Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the article except that section, and it's style (and length!) had long bothered me, but I did not know how to go about fixing it, apart from just removing it which would not have stuck. Your changes are just about perfect. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with merbabu - btw interesting all this stuff about the usa - I am sure somewhere in the recesses of my long filed away secondary sources in my storage boxes (all pre-internet) - the british embassy was a up to its eyeballs and may have been feeding the us embassy or operatives with material... SatuSuro 09:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some people always prefer to emphasise the real or imagined US role in things, and not the role of other states. You would think that the US (and not the USSR) sold Saddam most of his weapons in the war with Iran, or that the US gave more aid to the junta in Argentina than France, or that the CIA overthrew Mossadegh all by its lonesome (and not at the request of the British). I don't doubt that the UK was involved in Indonesia to some extent, but I don't have the sources to back that up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is not repeated on the Indonesian article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey edit warring[edit]

His restores without consensus are not acceptable. But I don't know the best way to respond. His actions and comments don't suggest he will respond to or respect rational or standard Wikipedia procedures. You will also see from his contribs that he has received some bad advice from another editor. --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PS - it appears to me that the three of you might have some history. If that is so, and as I already said on the talk page, it would be nice if these battles could be kept off this page and that we focus on the specific issues. I and others really don't care about the other troubles you may have had. just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk)|

I'll discuss his edits with him. I'll handle it. I don't want an edit war. Thanks for the tip about the bad advice he got.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, please don't split other editor's comments up like this. It makes it really hard for a third person (like me!) to understand who's saying what.
Thanks for your work. will be monitoring what happens. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, really? I'll have to watch that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another one of your changes just got reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And I reverted it back, because he's so clearly, blatantly in the wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This might be helpful: Scroll down to slow revert]--Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being reported for censorship[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Horhey420 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*grabs popcorn* --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this another joke? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For your reference...[edit]

The archive of the section on ANI opened by Horhey can be found here. For your reference. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(as for the recent blocking, IMO probably best if we let the admins carry most of that load - let's just chip in if really required. :-) Otherwise, the risk is a perception that things are murky. And perceptions are what counts unforunately. cheers) --Merbabu (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to worry about. I wasn't responsible for his being blocked; he was blocked before I could consult an admin. Nick-D noticed that virtually everything he added violated copyright. It's pretty clear cut.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Noble Lie[edit]

Sure TheTimesAreAChanging, I will do my best to communicate, although I haven't gotten the impression that this editor is an attentive listener. This sure is a frustrating edit war, eh? Best, CCS81 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is. Thanks again for your help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan[edit]

The template was for the snarky "if you can read" comment in your edit summary. Because I used a canned template, it referred to removing your comments, which of course I can't do on an edit summary. Is this clearer now? Mesconsing (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Historical Fact[edit]

Yeah, but it says that his government ended in 1968 so I always get confused :P And didn't the Ba'athist coup in 1963 fail? I always thought the Ba'athist regime came in to power in 1968. 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the coup succeeded in 1963--but there were two coups that year! The Ramadan Revolution split power between Abdul Rahman Arif and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr; Arif purged the Ba'ath from the government in the November 1963 Iraqi coup d'état. The Ba'ath did not have the Presidency until 1968. However, the Ba'ath was the dominant faction in Qasim's cabinet, and had significant power from 1959 on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule[edit]

I didn't know that Qasim's government ended in 1963, I thought it was 1968. And the reason why I added the Pre-Ba'athist flag to the History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule was becuase Qasim's government was the regime before the Ba'athist Republic, so that's why I added Qasim's flag in the top right corner link, to represent the previous Iraqi government before the Ba'athist Republic of Iraq which was Qasim's

And with regards to the Totalitarian debate, I must insist that Ba'athist Iraq was Totalitarian in nature and was a Totalitarian Dictatorship as control was vested in one man which had a centrally controlled government that required complete subservience to the state and leader. Certainly it was a Dictatorship in some respect. I'm not saying Ba'athist Iraq's government was Totalitarianism which makes no sense, but it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship, of which I found referenced material to back up my claim. I just would like you to consider it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddam's Iraq was unquestionably totalitarian. But you should discuss your changes on the talk page. Do any other articles list "totalitarian government" under "government type"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, under "Government" on the Wikipedia article, it's listed as a form of government, as is a Constitutional republic or a Constitutional monarchy. Nazi Germany for example lists it's form of government as a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and since I've seen countries with a Constitutional republic or monarchy I though there would be nothing wrong with it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good argument. I restored it for now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Senseless and unacceptable reverts on Authoritarianism article, call for mediation[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, there's an ongoing edit war happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect.Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ps. I'm sorry for not responding to your compromise edit in the Battle of Khe Sanh article, because i was just so frustrated of the comments and responses made by, again, Zeraful, about Vietnam War history, comments that are historically incorrect, and in denial of some things that happened during and after the war, but nonetheless i agree with your compromise edit there and appreciate your efforts in resolving the edit war there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will help you as soon as I get a chance. I'm absolutely amazed by how flagrantly Zeraful has violated Wikipedia policy on that page, from euphemism to synthesis to original research to edit warring to personal attacks. More broadly, the whole paragraph has serious grammar problems and needs a rewrite.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks TheTimesAreAChanging for making a compromised edit for that paragraph. It was excellent and addressed almost all of my concerns on there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I just hope that Zeraful doesn't start edit warring again. He doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Hue Massacre photo in Vietnam War casualties[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a photo of the Hue Massacre in the "Specific Incidents" section. Since there's already a photo there of My Lai, it's important to also add a photo of the Hue Massacre, since Hue was the deadliest massacre committed by any party in the entire war, with a death toll of ~3000 - 6000, 10 to 20x more than My Lai. Hue is also one of the lesser known massacres in the war, far more unknown to the public than My Lai, (thank you foreign media for your "balanced and neutral news coverage"), even though far many more people died there, and it deserves to be more prominently displayed in order to attract more awareness of that tragedy. As well, by only displaying a photo of My Lai there, it implies that the Americans were the main ones who engaged in the killing of civilians, even though the communists were also very active in the slaughtering of civilians themselves. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to tell me, or explain your motivations, although I appreciate that you took the time to do so. I'm actually glad you added the photo. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have to expand the boring and long details about the 20th century when we already have specific articles?[edit]

Please read this. For the article about history in general, let's try to shorten the part about the 20th century, not to expand them because we already have specific articles about them. Waorca (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't "have" to do anything.
  • The poorly sourced previous revision was inaccurate, at least with regard to war casualties. I mostly added sources or revised existing text; the net increase was only a couple of sentences.
  • I'm not sure what you told the IP that you didn't tell me directly.
  • You say that the 20th century is given disproportionate coverage, but that may be because it was a relatively significant part of Vietnam's history, or because the other centuries need expansion. I was only improving text related to highly relevant topics that were already considered important enough to cover.
  • I do not intend to add more.
  • Do you want me to trim the text I added (when I'm unblocked)? Is there anything in particular you want to see cut? We cannot go back to the old version.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right, please do so. For the section about the Nguyen Dynasty and afterward, please summarize them and put in other main articles such as Nguyen Dynasty, First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Casualties of the Vietnam, and History of Vietnam since 1945. IMO, they make the 20th century so significance just because it just happened recently in the previous century. I linked to the talk page of IP because I'm lazy to rewrite those words. See also History of East Timor and history of Malaysia, guess what, I read those articles and think this is annoying when the contents about the 20th century cover half of all contents in each article. Doesn't matter how important a period is, I prefer all details about all periods have to equal in length. Cheer. Waorca (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help with all that. I'll just trim what I added.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Hey, is there any way I can contact you privately?? I'm really busy for the next month, or longer, so my sessions here would be short and intermittent, I'm not like the griffon who has no work/commitments that she has to tend to in her life... Communists are always like this, they know history and politics, and society, are against them, so they do whatever they can to portray their POV and ONLY their POV, censoring out /suppressing anything critical of them, and funny how they accuse others of POV. Chien cong san!!! Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be civil: Zrdragon probably isn't "demonic". Unfortunately, while I was happy to work with him when he was still being constructive, at this point his pathological edit warring and hostility towards discussion has me baffled! I'd rather not post my email address, unless it's really neccessary. In any case, please do not attack him in such strong terms because that only make him seem more reasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. PBut can you please demand for an indefinte block, as Floquenbeam did warn Zrdragon that the next time she edit wars, they'll be an indef block, period. This is very unacceptable, and her presence doesn't help in building an encyclopedia, but rather turn an encyclopedia into some POV blog site. I'm not going to let this griffon drag me down to trouble like she did before. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I took the complaint to ANI, but there has been no response. One editor did state that both User:Stumink and Zrdragon should be given an "equal block", but no admin has acted. While his behavior does merit another block--if not for a week, then at least a day or two--I don't think he's done enough to merit an indefinite block yet. Of course, I don't expect that he will ever change his ways....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of IP editor for blanking and vandalism[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging! Thanks for your anti-vandalistic revert on the article History of the United States where IP editor User: both deleted a portion and vandalized it. Unfortunately, you did not warn the IP editor on their talk page, which is standard operating procedure that allows us to judge his further efforts, should they be vandalism. I have gone ahead and issued them a warning. Please make a note on the talk pages of suspected or undeniable vandals that their edit was reverted by you, and why. It really helps down the road if they continue in their ways, and allows for their blocking when they persist. Thanks, and if you want to reply, I will watch this page. Thanks again for helping to protect the encylopedia, Jusdafax 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know I need to remember to do that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries. By the way, a vandal-only account like this IP can and should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. My report on the vandal just now led to a one-week block, which means if they resume their ways that the block will be taken into consideration of a longer or indef block. My best wishes to you, and happy editing! Jusdafax 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

War Remnants Museum[edit]

Hey there, is the museum a propaganda museum or not? I know this is random, but I would like to know what other editors conclude about this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Although it certainly sounds like it from the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your response. I was wondering if other people see and say this too, or i'm the only one saying this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It's really not a matter of what any editor happens to think; it's a matter of what the reliable sources have to say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes absolutely true, the sources on that article, and from other sources i've seen, and even the, unreliable, posts from travellers on travel sites explicitly said that the museum is a propaganda and very biased museum, but a user keeps objecting to it being mentioned and calls it "POV", even though the reliable sources used said explicitly as such, atop of my experience. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed, however, that you claimed Tijfo agreed with you in your edit summary; whereas he simply did not disagree. In the past, you argued there was a "consensus" that Ho Chi Minh was a "Stalinist", but this "consensus" consisted only of your own comments on the talk page and the lack of a rebuttal. I would advise you not to so misrepresent other editors' positions in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I thought disagreement would be shown by a reply indicating their objection, and no replying implied agreement... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Discussion of Cold War#Second Cold War#Soviet war in Afghanistan resumed here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. Your proposed version is perfect. Cheers!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you watch the debates?[edit]

What did you think? --JTBX (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean all three?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, theres one with third party candidates tommorow moderated by larry king. --JTBX (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Peter Schiff provided the most incisive commentary. Schiff spoke about the second debate, but much of what he said can be applied to all three.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah! I always knew you were a righ....nah I'm just kidding. Well theres a lot to say about Peter Schiff but sure, in the criticism of the debate he's right in that they are two sides of the same coin, which is generally the criticism everyone agrees across the spectrum. He's also right in his criticism, from a free market point of view, of the protectionism of the parties, making them anti-free market. But again theres a lot to say about all this. Cya man. --JTBX (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Latin America Edits under Richard Nixon[edit]

Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging,

I had left earlier comments under the Talk section of the Latin America section, you've most likely already seen.

I changed the last sentence in that section as my understanding of the coup is that there was widespread economic, political, and social unrest. Much of it was precipitated by the US covert influence. I added a bit more supporting material on that on the Talk Page there.

My view is that the coup was primarily caused by the US covert interventions and that perceptions at the time were skewed by lack of knowledge as to what was going on. Schneider would not have been removed without that interference, and there would have been no coup. Black propaganda also targeted the military.

If I understand your view, it appears to be that the Chilean Congress wanted a coup and that Pinochet provided such. Can you clarify, and point me to sources that substantiate that point of view?

Thanks, very much. I think the Nixon Latin America section is much improved by our edits. Having different points of view can actually force us to refine our edits to precisely accord with the facts, and provide interesting discussion, too.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Schneider would not have been removed without [US] interference", because US arms or agents did not kill him, and Viaux had been discouraged from launching any attack. But even if the US did provide the arms that were used, the right-wing extremists had already attacked Schneider twice before, and there's no reason to think they would have been unwilling to do so again without American encouragement. Moreover, Schneider's removal may have been a necessary precondition for a coup, but it was clearly not sufficient to cause one; the whole nation rallied behind Allende in 1970. I'm skeptical of any claim that the US or CIA is particularly competent or capable of "creating" vast dysfunction in foreign nations with a few million dollars; many CIA operations have been complete failures or only succeeded through luck, and the CIA never keeps anything secret. The incredible inflation, destruction of the economy, and conflict between Allende and the Congress caused the coup. I already linked to the Chamber of Deputies declaration. Regarding the economy, as I wrote here: "Allende rightfully boasted that the Chilean military received several times more aid from the US under his socialist regime than it had in the years prior. The US continued humanitarian aid and never invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment; Chile's default alone was an effective transfer of resources greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration. The role played by US policy in creating Chile's economic crisis was minor--even if the net affect was negative (although certain US officials might prefer to believe in their own omnipotence). The US did try to hurt Allende at the IMF, but Chile still got $100 million in loans." Anyway, sources that I would recommend include Mark Falcoff's Modern Chile: 1970-1989 and "The Persistence of a Myth: Chile in the Eye of the Cold War Hurricane" by Joaquin Fermandois in World Affairs. But the truth is, Pinochet did not "provide" the coup (although he took credit for it in his memoirs). Pinochet was appointed by Allende because he was a military leader unlikely to support a coup; Pinochet was, in some ways, a progressive. Six hours before the coup, the rebel officers informed Pinochet that the coup was rolling. They gave Pinochet a piece of paper to sign ordering the army to support the coup, and told him that if he failed to sign it, this would "undermine the unity and discipline of the armed forces", which sounds a lot like "sign or die". Pinochet signed, then took off. Neither side could find him or contact him. They found him after the coup playing with his grandchildren and hauled him off to the bloodstained and still smoking presidential palace.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for spotting my mistaken edit of Democratic Kampuchea. While analysing the contribution history of User: (who I suspect of strong political WP:Bias), I erroneously restored an earlier version of the article. Thanks for your prompt revert. kashmiri 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Third World Traveler / Allegations of CIA Drug Trafficking[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, thanks for your attention at Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. I think you have have misunderstood my most recent edit, tagged as part of the Third World Traveler cleanup project. The issue with Third World Traveler, which Bob Rayner identified, is that it may quote books too extensively and infringe on their copyright. Thus, the goal is to cleanse citations of the offending Third World Traveler URLs but preserve the reference so that readers know where the information is coming from. At Allegations of CIA drug trafficking I simply restored a reference to William Blum's Killing Hope, which seems to be well-respected in its field. groupuscule (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You added two "external links" to TWT, and the material in question was already cited. Moreover, it's not clear to me that 9/11 truther Blum's collection of conspiracy theories is particularly well-regarded or notable, although I really wouldn't know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops, mea culpa. I didn't mean to undo that part of Bob's edit! I'll take those links out. Regarding conspiracy theories, I'm afraid this is simply the nature of the beast when it comes to the history of the CIA—by design, a secretive organization. William Blum is a relatively credible author in this field. He definitely has biases, as do many who write on the topic, but is still a good source for factual information. groupuscule (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for coming here to discuss the matter, for correcting your mistake, and for always being pleasant and polite. Have a good one!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good move on bogus Armenian Genocide edit[edit]

Regarding: 23:08, 4 December 2012‎ TheTimesAreAChanging (Undid revision 526420443 by Konullu (talk) Unencylopedic section with no sources that actually deny the genocide.)

To inform: Not only did "Konullu" not provide any sources denying the genocide, but the references to Cardashian's book, "Should America Accept Mandate For Armenia?" were bogus. There is nothing on the pages indicated as sources in Cardashian's book that has anything to do with the text of Konullu's edit. And even if Cardashian said what Konullu quotes him as saying elsewhere, it is completely irrelevant and inappropriate for use in the article. For these reasons, your removing the edit was more than warranted. Diranakir (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comment[edit]

I'd urge you to choose your words wisely, especially if you erroneously fault an editor for a mistake that you just committed. You can find a recent discussion about the numbers in question here. Malljaja (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Your source says perhaps 40 million total victims, including the Holocaust--You've doubled the number erroneously.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, your comments are rather puerile and uncivil. Perhaps you thrive on such conflict and use bluster to incite it, but in the long run it's not going to do you much good, at least not here on WP. Take the time to read the whole entry, especially the legacy section before making blanket statements. Note that the wording that you keep wanting to change is the result of earlier extended discussion and based on sourced information—I did not "double" any numbers because I was not immediately involved in these earlier discussions nor have I written the section in question. I merely want to make sure that the entry isn't damaged by fly-by-editors who have little insight into the topic and little interest in educating themselves. Malljaja (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Where is this "earlier extended discussion"? Why didn't you produce it the first time?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I did—see end of my first comment: "You can find a recent discussion about the numbers in question here." The link at the end points to the most recent discussion on the topic of total casualties and what the sources are that support these numbers. Malljaja (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't support 61 to 81 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it"—the discussion there or the sources that were discussed? From your comments, it seems to me that you're only making a very superficial effort of trying to dispute earlier content. If this is your best foot forward, it is completely unconvincing, or perhaps you're just unable to do better. The relevant entry puts the number of total WWII deaths at 62,171,600–78,041,700. Now, it's your good right to dispute these numbers or their attribution to different war theatres (preferably on the talk page); however, you will need to provide sources to do so. To change the numbers in the lead from a specific range (consistent with the main body of the article) to the vague "tens of millions" is very a very poor contribution indeed. Malljaja (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There was no discussion about the numbers used in the lead. It never happened. The discussion you linked to was a red herring.
There was discussion about the legacy section, which states: "The Nazi regime was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the European theater of World War II." That's only 50 million, including the Holocaust, and not all of those were entirely the responsibility of Hitler. (Indeed, the numbers may overlap a bit because Rummel is giving separate estimates of war-dead and of Nazi democide.) The lead should not contradict that section by double-counting the Holocaust and suggesting a much higher toll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion I pointed out to you—as I made clear above—is the most recent one I am aware of. There are earlier ones, which you can pull from the archives. Again, if you see the need for revision, you should do so by opening up a discussion on the talk page rather than replacing numbers with vague statements on the fly, peppered with flippant edit summaries. Rummel is not the only authority on the topic, so his estimates need to be balanced against those of others. It's really basic WP stuff that I need to explain to you here, which I'd be happy to do were it not for my impression that you do not really care what others views are. Malljaja (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't really have any idea how these inflated numbers got in the lead. It's not a matter of going back in time--further back than the discussion you mentioned, deep into the talk archives where serious evidence was presented--but of going forward. Until September 8, 2012 all the article said was: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivsted policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews." On that day, with no discussion and no sources, a single Wikipedia editor added these numbers based on his own misreading of a different Wikipedia article. Most biographies of tyrants avoid detailed analysis of the death toll caused by their policies in the lead. I didn't think it neccessary to repeat the text of the legacy section.
Whether these numbers are inflated has not been settled—so far you're leaning on Rummel's estimates, but he's not the only authority out there. Again, I do not have an issue with revised numbers, I have an issue with your replacing a number estimate, which had been established in prior discussions with a vague off-the-cuff phrase and a poor edit summary. Malljaja (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are aware of higher estimates than Rummel's--estimates which may exceed 80 million or more--please provide them. No source or consensus or discussion supporting these made-up numbers currently exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above; also, there has been/is extended discussion that has been a lot more civil and productive than what you have displayed so far. Malljaja (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam War casualties[edit]

Hey TheTimesAreAChanging, can you please take a look at the long blurb that contravagatas has reinstated in the U.S.-caused casualties section and share your ideas on whether it hould be kept or not? Because from my position, many things that are included in there are speculations (like the part about who knows how many VC/NVN prisoners were tortured by US troops), and are laden with communist-sympathizing POV overtones. The part about the supposed massacre of 50 or so VC was also troubling, considering that the VC themselves also committed massacres that size, and larger, on ARVN troops and on South Vietnamese civilians many times through their terrorist attacks and so on throughout the war, and yet little attention is given each of those individual incidents. Funny how there's no mention of NVN torture, killings and abuse of ARVN and U.S. POWs in their prisons, like in the Hanoi Hilton and other jungle labor camps, from contravagatas. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Greiner is a reputable source?
  • He has Marxist leanings, he's part ofthe Center for Marxist Peace Research since 1987.
  • He's a university prof at the U. of Hamburg, but so is the controversial Noam Chomsky at MIT...
  • Published a few books on the US in the Cold War
Even if he is a Marxist, I'm sure he qualifies as a reliable source, but the specific incidents mentioned belong in the "Specific Incidents" list.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Please stop removing important information. You need to read that entire abstract and get a pretty good idea of the events and then review my edits carefully. Your version starts "The movement originates from Afghan refugees living in northern Pakistan". What the hell does that suppose to mean? Helpless Afghan refugees who don't even have food to eat and have to rely on UNHCR all of a suddent became Taliban government? Wikipedia is suppose to go more into details, something Britannica doesn't do.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are based on original research. There are no reliable sources that maintain the US "created" the Taliban or even supported the Afghan Arabs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Interest in new article[edit]

I am searching for users that may be interested in contributing to a new article titled Presidency of Richard Nixon. Would you be interested in contributing? It will be placed into a sandbox until February 9, 2013. Afterwards, a section template will be placed in the biographical article Richard Nixon leading to the new presidency article. Mitchumch (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I will probably end up making some additions to the article at some point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kissinger's Role in Chile[edit]

Hi, TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a section on the Kissinger Talk page discussing the edits we are making. Please see there and add any comments you would like to. Thanks. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait until I've run through the appeals process before undoing my edits. If all appeals fail, then I'll leave all the current material in place, even though it was inaccurate without the edits.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Land Reform in Vietnam[edit]

Hey TimesAChanging, i reverted some edits by MigVN to a previous version, because some of his changes made no sense, and that Vietnamese language ref is unacceptable. For example, his change stating that "Internal Hanoi government figures record that 172,000 North Vietnamese signed in "enemy of the people" during the land reform campaign" made no sense, has incomprehensible broken English, and sounded like a desperate attempt at inserting POV. And, the source he put in stating that "Lịch sử kinh tế Việt Nam (tập hai): Địa chủ cường hào gian ác: 26.453 người. Địa chủ thường: 82.777 người. Địa chủ kháng chiến: 586 người. Phú nông : 62.192 người. Tổng cộng: 172.008 người" translates as: "Economic History of Viet Nam (part 2): Evil landlords: 26453 people. Normal landlords: 82777 people. Antirevolutionary/Resistive landlords 586 people. Rich farmers: 62192 people. Total: 172008 people". This whole ref didnt properly refer to a proper source, e.g. author, publisher, place of publication, year, and i'm not so trusting of this source based on the way its given, and it's tone. Nguyen1310 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume it refers to The History of the Vietnamese Economy, Vol. 2, edited by Dang Phong of the Institute of Economy, Vietnamese Institute of Social Sciences, and published in 2005.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Sorry I lashed out at you there bro, I didn't know sockpuppet was established wikipedia jargon until just now. I thought you were just referring to me by some very odd insult. I assume you edited because you refuse to acknowledge US support for Iraq, not because of the Soviet Union or France. The United States did "encourage" Egypt to give a load of its Soviet tanks to Iraq, it also encouraged Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to fund Iraq so it could buy weapons from other countries (i.e. Soviet Union, France). I can't remember where I read this, but I read the United States would clandestinely buy weapons from Eastern bloc states and give it to Iraq. Of course you probably will refuse to acknowledge this plus I don't know exactly how much weapons (by weapons I meant armor and planes, more direct stuff) the US gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immykant (talkcontribs) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s not standard policy to list countries that sell arms as belligerents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


I would agree with your edit at Quadrant magazine - but it was well known it received funding for pro-usa stance in the past, not sure where the refs would be though... it was long time common knowledge in Australia that it was a 'front' for US interests and policy and its propensity for espousing conservative political line. sats 02:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The CIA's connection to the Congress for Cultural Freedom was not public knowledge when Quadrant was founded in 1956. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the Quadrant staff was aware of the CIA's role, much less intentionally slanting their work to suit the CIA's agenda. Quadrant does not deny either its conservative position or its past support from the CCF, but the uncited claim that it was part of an anti-communist "culture war" struck me as excessive. I'm also not convinced that the magazine was simply a "front" for US propaganda; scholars like John Kenneth Galbraith received CCF funding without appearing to act as CIA vassals. Encounter certainly published work more substantial than propaganda. The CIA invested in anti-communist publications, but this does not mean that the publications had no autonomy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yup - I can see all that as relevant, and your edit was correct - but at some stage if I find a good ref for the CCF funding and Quadrant - at some stage, I would consider adding that in - but deifinitely not in the info box which you edited - cheers sats 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


OMG, thanks for fixing this! How embarassing! KConWiki (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this pic [[1]] allowed in the South Vietnam article?[edit]

Hey TimesAChanging, with your much longer experience with editorship and Wikipedia editing policies, do you believe that this photo should be added or kept out of the article? This IP user [[2]] kept insisting that the Saigon Puppet-U.S. Imperialist photo be added in the Relationship with the US section of the S Vietnam article. I personally object to the addition of this photo, because it's added to put a personal message that VNCH (S Vietnam) was a puppet of the U.S. and that the U.S. is an imperialist, which is blatantly POV and neglects the fact that S Vietnam was fully independent of the US, only that the US had considerable say on certain VNCH political/military matters. This is a new IP editor from Hanoi. Also, when i explained the rationale behind the photo's removal, indirectly discussing the POV and distortive nature of the photo, the ip said that "I [alone] think that", and somehow the conclusion of most historians saying that VNCH was independent but under US influence must yield to what some random, non-academic protesters think. Also, i'm getting increasingly frustrated with the number of pro-communist, paid online propagandaists (chuyen gia but chien), of which i suspect are paid by Hanoi, to delete anything critical of the Vietnamese communists, or downplay/extort it, and push their position and opinions on here. BBC and Nguoi Viet news has confirmed that these online propagandaists exist [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] . Even the regime admits it [[6]]. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. For a relatively short article about a former country, I would say showing photos from anti-war rallies is probably undue. BTW, not all communist apologists are paid for their work. The thought of tens of thousands of summary executions, hundreds of thousands killed in concentration camps or drowned trying to escape, and millions enslaved in a vast gulag for as long as`17 years probably makes anti-war Leftists feel uncomfortable. (Just as the thought of 1,386,734 Cambodians executed and 800,000 more starved to death by the Khmer Rouge--reducing the expected 1979 population from 8.4 to 6.2 million--must have made Tip O'Neil uncomfortable--given his famous remark that "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier.") It would have been much easier for them to feel self-righteous and indignant about the U.S. role in Indochina if the U.S. had won. Apologetics for tyranny, mass murder, and slavery are now the only way to retain their pride and prejudice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png For updating content on the Korea War article may I present to you this cheeseburger. May it fuel you in your continued editing of Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
And I give you one more (in text) for your revertings in the article about Pinochet. You seems to do a great job! Best regards, Adville (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalin my hero[edit]

thanks for the laugh you right wing twit, and FYI I rewrote the Stalin lead multiple times to include his oppression. --JTBX (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You should try this![edit]

This chili sauce is really good and you should try it some time. I've been using this for 2 decades now a topping, dipping sauce and condiment in soups and noodles. It's not just spicy (at the right level, not overly spicy like in western hot sauce), it also has a really nice aroma to it. Try the one with garlic with twist-on green lid.
Well, thank you for the suggestion! I'll certainly consider it. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support from the UK[edit]

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging. You removed this edit: [7] saying "Pilger's work on Cambodia has been so thoroughly discredited he had to pay libel damages for making this claim. You would need a historian of Cambodia to even consider adding this claim to this biography."

The libel claim was specifically taken by two individual soldiers who were interviewed in a documentary. Those individuals said they hadnt trained the Khmer Rouge. Other SAS soldiers did.

It is widely reported that the UK provided military support for the Khmer Rouge. Here is the UK government admitting this support in Parliament [8]. I am curious to know why you think these reports are wrong or discredited? ... Seabhcan 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no "UK government admission" in the transcript of that Parliament debate; to the contrary, your source makes clear that the "official position" of the UK government was that it was training the non-communist forces of Son Sann and Price Sihanouk. (On the extensive fighting between the non-communists and the Khmer Rouge, see Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.) Perhaps some aid did fall into the hands of the KR, but Pilger is not a good source for such a claim, given his "very substantial" libel damages and hard-left POV. Recent discussion has concluded that there is no credible evidence of any American support for the KR; perhaps that is not the case with the UK, but the sources seem scarcely more reliable. Even if UK aid benefited the KR, we would still need to establish that that was the intention of UK policymakers, and it's difficult to imagine why it would have been.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The original story comes from the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Janes Defense - neither are 'left wing' by any measure. [9] If you read the press coverage of Thatcher's death, most UK media mention the military support given to the Khmer Rouge - it is not a disputed fact. ... Seabhcan 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If "most UK media" agree that there is "no dispute" whatsoever regarding this "fact," then it should not be hard to find an expert on Cambodia, a historian, or a biographer of Pol Pot to support your claim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I was traveling from Bombay to Manila on Pan Am in mid-1981, and intended to stop in Thailand to drive out to the border to nose around. I suspected that the U.S. might be providing support for the KR (the enemy of its enemy, the SRV) and thought it would make a good story, if that appeared to be the case. Unfortunately, I got deathly ill on the plane, no doubt due to my last meal in Poona or Santa Cruz, and was too sick to deplane. I continued on to Hong Kong and flew directly to Manila from there on another carrier, rather than use my free ticket ('round the world for one price) that would have taken me to Tokyo first. I was sick for two weeks in Manila before returning via Guan and Hawai'i to San Francisco. I dropped any interest until years later I met an American nurse who had worked at a border refugee camp and said that she believed that the U.S. was supplying the KR with logistical support at the time of my intended visit. Again, I didn't pursue her claim at all. I really need to get back to work as I just spent an hour on the phone with a reporter and I'm ever further behind. Activist (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ed Herman[edit]

Shall we try to resolve the dispute here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweig23 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It's not a personal dispute; it's a content dispute, which belongs on the talk page of the article in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I posted my main points on the page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweig23 (talkcontribs) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I was posting at the bottom of your page, I noticed that you had edited Ed Herman immediately above. Curious, I searched for the page, but it's not under "Ed Herman" and there's no disambiguation, but rather the page can be found under the name under which he authors books, Edward S. Herman. Activist (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rios Montt[edit]

Thanks for your comments on this page and our edits. I responded to your latest comments on my Talk page. I hope this helps to amicably resolve the situation. Activist (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Xenophrenic RfC/U[edit]

I noticed that you had some interaction with User:Xenophrenic on the David Stannard article and Talk page. I've started an RfC/U regarding Xenophrenic's editing habits. Please feel free to participate if you have anything to add about your experiences.

regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

John Tower[edit]

Hi there, could you please explain your rationale for this edit a bit more? It seems decently sourced. I don't know Vietnam War-era history all that well, but is your objection that the conclusion about the Peace Accords went too far or something else? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a dispute with an editor called “Plumber”, on several different articles, in which I felt he was using unreliable polemics and primary sources in a deceptive manner. My primary concern was his suggestion that Kissinger leaked classified information about the talks to Nixon, which is completely false and not supported by any reliable sources whatsoever. While we eventually reached an amicable compromise, I got carried away on the John Tower article (which he never edited, and used better sources). Tower really was involved in Nixon's efforts; maybe the text I deleted was a bit lacking in neutrality, but I shouldn't have blanked the whole section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian killings...[edit]

Hello there, there's been some new editing on this article, particularly, and predictably, around "sexing up" the US/foreign involvement section. Would be nice if you could have a look. Particularly with regards to some of the Jstor sources you used. :) Many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal thought...[edit]

...That while you have done many major contributions to various topic, several of those changes are major, and should require a discussion in the article talk page or the project page, otherwise many people could not able to "keep up" with it--Zeraful (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello. You seem like an experienced editor. I saw that Boba Fett TBH had been banned and his edits reverted via the Vietnam War article. I asked him on his talk page about using Chomsky, and he said it wasn't a good idea, so I replaced Chomsky in the Wietnam War article. But he also said he used primary sources all the time. Can you confirm that primary sources are never allowed? I thought they weren't, and I'm sure the rules say primary sources are not allowed, but he made it sound like there was some occasions on which it was permissible. I have not been using primary sources, and will not, but can you just confirm that? LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert. I try not to use them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

South Vietnam[edit]

Hello I would like you to have look at the South Vietnam page an editor insists on adding the claim that South Vietnam was a "Client state of the United States" in the type of government section. Regards.Stumink (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Chomsky's not a notable expert on Nicaragua, and don't assume too much regarding my familiarity with his work.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume nothing; your views make your familiarity clear. Notability is an issue if we are discussing opinions. We're not. We're talking about the facts he presents, and if notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there. Do you have evidence that Chomsky has made factually incorrect statements? and don't say you "know" he's wrong, that carries no weight.Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is so absurd it almost has to be dissected line-by-line:
-"Your views make your familiarity clear."
Please, as if I didn't go through a Chomskyite phase when I was younger and immature.
-"We're talking about the facts he presents"
Chomsky is the last place to go for facts. On the rare occasion Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies, there should be a reliable source that could be used in his place.
-"If notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there."
Notability is an essential Wikipedia policy. Feel free to leave.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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

If you're not aware of such evidence, haven't looked hard enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this time the burden of proof lies on you. Chomsky writes a book, which I read, with a couple of hundred references, which I look up and find reasonable. I then find that that book has itself been referenced a bunch of times. Based on this, I decide he is a good reference. Then you decide that no, he is making factual errors, his citations are bullshit, and those who cite him are merely subscribing to propaganda. And you refuse to provide evidence, despite my asking several times. What else do I make of this, except a lack of openmindedness?Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed Chomsky because he isn't a historian or an expert on Nicaragua. I don't need any more evidence than that. I'd rather not get into political discussions here, but if you really want criticism of Chomsky, start with The Anti-Chomsky Reader and Paul Bogdanor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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


WP:ARBEE Due to your support of the use of known genocide deniers as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

As you have taken it upon yourself to follow me to the topic area I edit and, unsurprisingly insert fringe material into various articles be aware this topic area is also under discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


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


A user by the name of Michaelwuzthere is adding rudiculous POV information to communist related pages especially Cuba-related pages. His edits often unsourced and blatant POV including removal of sourced info. Just thought you should take a look. Regards. Stumink (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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


Why was my reference not a reliable source?

Balgill1000 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Well the direct source is a Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman book, but the source that they cite is: Bombing in Cambodia, Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 93d Cong., 1st sees., July/August 1973, pp. 158-60, the primary source on the "secret bombings." Should I source that instead? Balgill1000 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good source, albeit not ideal. Ideally, the quote would be mentioned by historians and not just by primary sources (if, indeed, it has historical significance.) However, unless you have seen this source with your own eyes, we can't take Chomsky's word for it. Can the report be found online?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with me less about historical significance and more with historical accuracy. I could not find the report online, as on the webiste, reports only go back to 2001.

Here is a link showing support:

Though there are no citations that I could see. Balgill1000 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can disregard Chomsky as a RS, other than maybe because you don't like his politics. His main subject may be linguistics, but that shouldn't mean that he can't be an expert in more than one area. From his Wikipedia page alone it is easy to see how he is one of the world's most renown intellectuals. He has authored over 100 books (not just on linguistics, and from reputable academic publishers), he is the eighth most cited scholar overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index from 1980-1992 which includes the subjects: the Arts, Humanities, Language (including Linguistics), Poetry, Music, Classical works, History, Oriental Studies, Philosophy, Archaeology, Architecture, History, Religion, Television, Theater, and Radio. He has won numerous awards and been given many, many honorary degrees from all over the world. With all that being said, I can say it is safe to assume that he has the ability to research primary sources and write about them. Balgill1000 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So do you and I.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Although we may have the ability (I don't know your educational background so I'm making the assumption), how many books have you authored?Balgill1000 (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all published works qualify as significant RS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why its important to do the due diligence and check if it has been using proper primary sources, which it has.Balgill1000 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War article[edit]

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

Thank you!(Nguyen Do Hoang Dai (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen Do Hoang Dai (talkcontribs) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't delete the photo, the user before you did. I reverted your edit because it wasn't just a North Vietnamese victory; the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao also won their respective civil wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


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


Enjoy this recent publication, Yank:

Gary J. Bass, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (New York, NY: Knopf, 2013).

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

Hey how's it going? You should really try this some time :)[edit]

This is the version with Cha

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

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


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

Malcolm? Is it really you?[edit]

Man who...

TheTimesArentAChanging (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Iloveandrea, is that you again? Should I open another SPI?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, but WHY? All I want to do is be wubbed by you! Look: you and I working together could provide some awesome balance on articles relating to good old US-of-A. Besides, you're not quite as unreasonable as I first suspected. Besides (again), I am English, I am as good as American. We are closest allies. Let us love each other, not hate. Let us edit together, as brothers. All my best wishes, Yank! IHeartTTAAC (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, why has that person ^^ got a problem with Bose? His few-hundreds-of-thousands estimate seems reasonable, so what gives? IHeartTTAAC (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for telling the truth; saves me the trouble of filing the SPI. That said, I feel I have no choice but to report you. As to your question: Darkness Shines dislikes Bose for any number of reasons, but none of his criticisms of her work have much substance. Darkness Shines is a rare POV-pushing cherry-picker with no ideology; he simply thinks accepting only the highest estimates for every atrocity is a sign of moral virtue (and he's a bit of a hothead). (Because of that, there have been cases in the past where we were on the same side, and it was obvious to me even then.) The British Medical Journal estimated 269,000 civilians were killed by both sides, but their study hugely overestimated war deaths and was essentially far-left propaganda intended to defend the Lancet study on Iraq war deaths. The only reason to believe them is if we trust the Bangladeshis, who had great incentive to exaggerate the death toll. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the 58,000 figure from Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. Considering that substantial atrocities were committed by both sides (Darkness Shines' favorite R.J. Rummel gives equally ludicrous estimates of up to 500,000 killed by the Awami League), I'm very strongly inclined to believe the Hamoodur Rahman Commission's estimate of 26,000 civilian casualties caused by the Pakistani army. The report was emphatically not a whitewash; it was written by political foes of Yahya Khan and condemned him in no uncertain terms; it was kept classified until 2000, and the Pakistanis had no reason to lie to themselves. But to Darkness Shines, anyone who questions the official Bangladeshi propaganda figure of 300,000 mistranslated as 3 million is an evil Nazi "genocide denier". (If you're going to ask me about my own use of Rummel, my answer is "Use with care and caution". Catch things like Rummel double-counting North Vietnamese "land reform" killed as North Vietnamese "rent reduction" killed. When Rummel's estimates are inflated by a factor of 10, as they are for the Soviet Gulag and the 1971 Bangladesh "genocide," simply ignore them. After all, Rummel's method of estimation is completely transparent.) One final point: Yahya Khan just wanted to hold onto East Pakistan, he had no motive to commit "genocide".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a number of America's Muslim allies during the Cold War have been unfairly demonized. The Shah of Iran, who executed 300 people, is the personification of evil--not the Mullahs who have liquidated over 100,000. Suharto supposedly committed genocide in East Timor, though the UN report suggests the 100,000 deaths were spread pretty evenly over the whole 24-year occupation, and that FRETILIN was responsible for up to 49% of the violent killings. Then there is the Chomskyite obscenity of comparing the 24-year war with the peacetime Khmer Rouge autogenocide: As Robert Cribb has written, "the circumstances leading up to the Dili Massacre indicate a society which retained its vigor and indignation in a way that probably would not have been possible if it had been treated as Cambodia was treated under Pol Pot," while Indonesian military strategy was based on winning "hearts and minds" rather than "genocide." Of course Chomsky also compares the Indonesian mass killings--carried out "face-to-face" by ordinary citizens with widespread popular support, which the army actually had to intervene to stop on a few occasions, in which less than 1% of the Indonesian population perished--to the systematic extermination of 2-2.5 million Cambodians (27% of the population). Suharto was no Pol Pot: "Although Indonesia was never a democracy under Suharto, there was a wide degree of permissible discussion, by Southeast Asian standards a fairly liberal press, and many of the procedures of social consultation that characterise a democracy. Under his rule, millions of people were freed from poverty, Indonesia became self-sufficient in rice, and a sizeable manufacturing economy grew up." But even American foes like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been demonized (the latter by left-wing feminists); the propaganda machine that is The New York Times said in 2003 that Saddam had executed 200,000 Iraqis and killed hundreds of thousands more in war for a total that might approach 1 million; in 2007, they claimed Saddam had killed up to a million in democide and another million by attacking Iran (his invasion was supposedly "unprovoked").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, you have already been blocked....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
PS--ILA, if you're still out there, note that the ARBEE thing was actually about the Armenian genocide (not Bangladesh).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch[edit]

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

"Hell, I like you. You can come over the my house and..."[edit]


I should very much like your support in coming in from the cold. As things stand, I cannot edit my first loves, since doing so would render my account discoverable, and thereby open all my hard work to totally unwarranted reversion.

I have materials and informations to contribute. "Because I am hard, you will not like me—but the more you hate me, the more you will learn." I feel that with your loving support, I could make a good Wikimarine. (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking me to do?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem user, yet again *sigh*[edit]

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

calm down boy, this's what he call "pushing his POV":

  • in Ho Chi Minh, i just delete the article Nông Thị Xuân which already have in Legacy section. For the YouTube links, it's just a self publish videos and i think i can change it for another self publish video.
  • in Reunification Day. it's an article about a public holiday in vietnam so it should talk only about the public holiday in vietnam. for vietnamese american's "quốc hận" or "đen đủi" day... he can write his own article.Jspeed1310 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That Reunification Day/Black April refers to the same thing and only you want to make 2 separate articles, which is not allowed on English wiki because the 2 things are too similar and too short to have separate articles. Plus, you're deleting the 2 Overseas Vietnamese commemoration photos because you don't like it and it doesn't conform with your pro-communist POV. WP:NPOV is being maintained by having those photos there, to balance out the Vietnamese red propaganda banner.
  • Second, you're deleting the link to Nong Thi Xuan because you don't like readers to read about Ho Chi Minh's mistress, otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with that link. And, you're changing a Youtube link of a Ho Chi Minh documentary on his life and work to a Youtube channel full of videos that barely just glorify him, which is considered propaganda and violating WP:NPOV, which is orders that ALL views be reflected in articles, not just one view which is called BIAS.
  • Third, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE BEEN TROLLING THROUGH MY EDITS, which is the only way that you came to TimesAChanging's userpage without being approached yet. The first time was when your SPI, seen here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jspeed1310 was first filed. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

calm down boy! you think anyone who edit different from you is TROLLING you :D. i said you can, not you must separate articles. As i see, those picture is still there & i just move it to balance the article content. for Nong Thi Xuan, as i said, it already have in Legacy section and it's very easy for readers to read it.why do you think i don't like readers to read Jspeed1310 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh stop lying already! That is such a blatant lie as anyone can see those 2 images have been removed, you haven't "put back anything". Yes you are trolling, following through my edits and edit warring as you go, reverting my contribs in minutes after i've added them. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Kid, don't think that you can push your POV, post "chau ngoan Bac Ho" propaganda, and censorship by deleting stuff you "don't like" can survive in English wiki as you've done in Vietnamese wikipedia. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

i beginning want to troll this little boy, he act like my brother :D. in That Reunification Day, i edit first and you jump in and revert my edit. in HCM, you change the word officially to unilaterally and require source. i put source but you come back and revert my edit. so who follow who. about those picture and youtube link, my mistake, for those self-publishing video, i should move both 2 link to External links, where it should be or delete it. As you see, i still keep the picture when i saw my mistake (history).btw, read it carefully, it still there, just in diffrent position.Jspeed1310 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ya look at who trolls who. OHHH. o_o Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I editted those many of those articles for some time before you came along. Just you know :D Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. relax boy. We both know Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit so "you editted those many of those articles for some time before" doesn't mean i can't edit. i edit in 1 article and write a summary "bingo" that i love to write & you think i troll you :D. You such a sensitive boy.
  2. you always try to convict me that i follow you, but i don't get it, what's wrong if i follow you. as my knowledge, follow someone doesn't mean guilty in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspeed1310 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: first i thought this conversation will end soon but it's seem this kid won't stop yelling how bad he has been trolled, followed by me. i think i don't have enough time or patience to talk with him anymore & this will be my last comment. Sorry for keep argue with him in your talkpage again, again & again like this. hope you may forgive me. sorry my english is bad.Jspeed1310 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trolling, edit warring, POV-pushing and POV-motivated deletion of content, sockpuppeting and discrimination, are all against WP policies. And, your trolling is harassing me, as I "don't want to spread the fire elsewhere". Stop your disruptive behavior, then I'll stop talking about your problems. Uh TheTimesAreAChanging, is there anyway I can stop this madness once and for all?? I am totally sick of him!!! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese Boat People[edit]

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

Ethnic groups of the Middle East[edit]

Jews has never been one ethnic group. This heresy was invented by the Zionists to pretend the world that the Jews deserve an own homeland.--Uishaki (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I figured you would say that based on your maps of Palestine, but it would be just as easy to assert that the likes of Feynman, Einstein, and Oppenheimer are the products of thousands of years of Jewish religion and identity. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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

I found that Michaelwuzthere is from Prince Edward Island.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Article New Economic Zones program[edit]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I wanted to award you this way earlier but didn't know how, until i changed my Wiki interface. I am pleased to award you this for your endless content contribs across many articles under various categories Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, and means a lot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)



I could not help but notice that you have met Jakandsig, one of our newer and shall we say, less agreeable editors. Jakandsig has cut quite the swath through several video game articles over the last month in which he has removed sourced material, engaged in original research, misrepresented the content of sources, launched numerous personal attacks against multiple editors, and received a 48 hour block for edit warring, after which he engaged in a little sock puppetry to top things off. As such, I am most likely going to be putting together an RFC/U about his conduct in the near future. I already have a few other video game article editors on board, and I was hoping you would be willing to drop by and endorse the RFC if it comes to that. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that I'm actually dealing with him, I have to say admin action is overdue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. The other day he contacted me on my talk page with what seemed like a genuine attempt to reform, so I briefly put off starting an RFC while that played out. Now that it is clear he has learned nothing and is only digging himself a deeper hole, I will begin typing up the RFC/U tomorrow. I will let you know when it is ready to go. Indrian (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Dreamcast[edit]

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

For your consideration[edit] - Funny how every time a user gets blocked there is another new user that takes an interest in Atari's fortunes after the video game crash. He also seems not to sign his talk posts. It's probably too early to say any more at this point, but its worth keeping an eye on. Indrian (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Another Potential Sockpuppet[edit]


It's too early to say for sure, but we have another new user, (KombatPolice), that was just created and immediately honed in on two of the pages Jak and friends love to edit. He is beginning to make some of the same arguments and also seems unable to sign his talk posts, repeating similar patterns. It is really too early to make any accusations yet, but I just wanted to alert you to the potential. I keep putting off doing an RFC for Jak because he keeps getting blocked and I do not think it fair to start the process until he is able to defend himself, but if this keeps up, an RFC will be coming eventually. Indrian (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to file an SPI over Tigersuperman because he appeared to stop on his own, but perhaps I should report both of these socks. I don't know if there is enough proof to convince an impartial admin to agree to another checkuser, but I would think the proliferation of new users with passionate opinions about these same articles would be of interest, and this type of comment (identical in its reasoning to those made by Jakandsig and socks) is certainly suggestive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I filed an SPI. Feel free to add any salient examples I may have overlooked.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on "Suggestion to split Guilty Gear XX/X2 updates into different articles"[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Generation History Page[edit]

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

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

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

Misusing Giant Bomb[edit]

One more message with insults on my talk page and you will be reported.

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

TheKingsTable (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I would also like to add that it isn't SYNTH as I stated above. If I had wrote that "The Sega Saturn did not look at the Jaguar before it and made complicated processors, and suffered the same", or said "The Sega Saturn had THE SAME issues as the Atari Jaguar with processing issues, and had a related fate of failure" then it would be SYNTH. I made no actual claim other than that both consoles have been discovered to have the same problem. Just like if i found 2 sources of 3 different people enjoying Apples, oranges, and Grapes, I can say that people "A lot of people enjoyed these fruits" without having one source with the same person liking all 3. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You added something while I was replying. Apparently you are having issues with another user. That's great, but don't put your personal anger on me because you don't like the changes I made and decided to express that by vandalizing my talk page and claiming I am that user. As i just wrote above, the changes I made are not SYTH. I looked up SPI, that's not going to work. You need to learn to work with people instead of insulting them and expecting them to just go with what you say. Especially after your "Can you comprehend" comment. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


"Why do you also edit with this IP? You should avoid engaging in anything that might be construed as sockpuppetry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)"

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

Re: Big the Cat[edit]

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

I guess I hadn't thought about the difference; I didn't realize that's what your interpretation was. I'll change it. Tezero (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I SPI with my little eye...[edit]

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

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

Your change.[edit]

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


For your work on that SPI report. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering...[edit]

Do you actually understand Vietnamese? I'm just wondering... Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Afraid not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there![edit]

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

Hue Massacre[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, i'm just wondering if you know of, or could find, a response from an academic that's critical of apologist Gareth Porter's denial of the Massacre? I found results of academics like Hoang Van Chi for Porter's denial of the North Vietnamese land reform killings, but not for Hue. IPs belonging to MiGVN insist on the inclusion of Porter's Massacre denial, claiming that he's credible simply because a university (Montclair U) published it (which is completely wrong as the PDF cited was not originally published by any university, rather it was Ramparts Magazine (now just archived and made available by Montclair). Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Douglas Pike[edit]

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

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


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

Hey Man[edit]

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

[citation needed]TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Why are you restoring info? I cleaned it of arguments. Did you read that other post? SuperGangsterRapper95868686 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove other users' comments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your ANI comment[edit]

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

Holla, please review the revised versions of Hue Massacre and Tet Offensive?[edit]

I found out that the decomposed matter actually smelled even more putrid and objectionable than I thought it was, upon a second review Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

BTW do you play current consoles?[edit]

A lot of guys I know who are into classic consoles like the Sega Saturn and similar seem to not be going into the new generation easily. I know I am lumping you in with an anecdotal group, but i wanted to know what you think of the new consoles buy the big 3? Oh and I guess those 40000 android consoles too. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, while all 3 seemed to start slow for me (Xbox One did have an interesting game launch though) the PS4 and Xbox one are shaping up to possibly make this one of the best generations of gaming. Especially since Mattrick got the BOOT and Phil Spencer is head for Xbox, and on the PlayStation side, they really made sure to not make another PS3 tragedy.

The only two concerns I really have is for the Wii U, which is becoming a problem for Nintendo. Then there is my fear that if Android consoles have one company push it hard enough to be successful, we will be overrun. When you think about it, we are overurn now, but Android on TV has not had the right company pull it off yet. Nvidia(launched), Madcatz(launched, 750,000 sold), Google, Huawei, and Amazon are/will be trying to release new android consoles soon. 5 big companies! Then you have the IOS console Apple has been rumored to be making. I am afraid if these succeed enough it may be the new console standard. I could just be paranoid however. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, these days I spend more time reading about games than actually playing them. I don't have any strong opinions about the PS4/Xbox One, although PS4 appears to be offering more value for less money.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah a lot of people seem to be in your boat. I have all 3 but don't really put much time in buying many games (not that there are a lot out yet) maybe when some interesting games come out things will kick up. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mig29VN is back at his POV-push campaign again at Hue Massacre and Tet Offensive. Should we bring in other editors for mediation?[edit]

**To TTAAC: parts of this paragraph are redundant, but i'm just typing it anyways in case external mediating editors want more info to understand the whole dispute situation**

Hi again, he's back at re-inserting that fringe POV massacre-denial content again from Young and Porter. The main reason I object to the inclusion of the Hue Massacre "Dispute/Denial" section in the Tet Offensive article, is because the Tet Offensive article provides an over-arching summary of all military operations and events that occurred around and during Tet 1968, including a short summary of the Hue Massacre, but, the denial of the Massacre's existence is only held by a very small minority of historians - the overwhelming majority accepts that the Hue Massacre was committed by the Viet Cong - even captured Viet Cong documents record precisely how many people they killed and they've admitted to perpetrating it! By MiGVN inserting that large Massacre denial paragraph, which only few, fringe, partisan historians/political analysts hold like Young and Porter, it is completely disproportionate to the rest of the Hue Massacre section in the article, since the massacre paragraph is already short (~several lines), and therefore, a minor subtopic such as Massacre denial, in particular a fringe subtopic, should be even shorter (1 - 2 lines maximum ), or absent altogether, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight (see 1st paragraph and Jimbo Wale's 3 points). Also, apparently MiG29VN considers using captured Viet Cong records of the number of people they killed as "POV", and using Douglas Pike's Hue Massacre report to a US Government hearing as "POV". Even user Eyesnore responded that my edits were constructive and achieving NPOV, after MiG29VN falsely and deliberately claimed I was a vandal, in attempt to mislead Eyesnore in removing my edits and MiGVN evading any accusations of edit warring and blocks. MiGVN claimed i was removing his Gareth Porter/Marilyn Young section, even though it is clearly still there. Following MiG29VN's logic, academic who rely on secondary information sources - second-hand info, such as Porter and Young, which deny any wrongdoing from the Communists in all or part, are "reliable", "valid", "neutral" sources, while first-hand data from the Viet Cong's very own documents, Douglas Pike's report to Washington, and investigative data from South Vietnam which prove the Massacre's existence, as "invalid" and "biased".Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the section in Tet Offensive should be trimmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
MiG29VN is a liar. Nowhere in Dr Ajie Vannema's Hue Massacre report mentions of a "477 death toll", let alone of a claim that the Hue victims "died of American bombing" rather than a commie massacre. He's been using fake references which doesn't even contain the article data he claims the refs support, ie concerning Dr. Ajie Vannema's "68 victims" claim, several times now. The Vietnamese communists are so eager to wage war with, slaughter, abuse and oppress their own countrymen and countrywomen, but are so submissive and cowardly when it comes to foreign aggressors who hold the Hanoi regime's umbilical cord - their own political survival, in the balance. Examples: North Vietnam giving away Nam Quan Gate, Ban Gioc waterfalls, some frontier border lands in Cao Bang Province to China in a 2000 Border Agreement, as a wartime "thank you gift" for Chinese troop deployment; attacking Vietnamese protesters, from 2011 till few months ago, for protesting against China's territorial expansion, aggression in the Paracel and Spratly Islands and murder of Vietnamese fishermen near Vietnam's coastline; Hanoi kowtowing to China, endless human rights abuses, and stealing land from poor people for little or no compensation for foreign business use. The protest and arrest videos are plentiful on Youtube under search words "bieu tinh". Nong Duc Manh, former VCP Gen. Secretary Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about new article.[edit]

I was looking at this new article that was created yesterday and I was going to mark it for speedy deletion, but I wanted to check with someone who is more familiar with new articles of this length before I did. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these awards, but considering the opening paragraph and the reliable sources about it in the article, I doubt it would meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Possibly WP:AFD, if you wanted to pursue that... Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's actually what I was going to do until I realized that some of the references were just general nods to their existence instead of really giving substance to the article. But considering the size of this new article was larger than a paragraph, I wanted to ask first. I'll probably send a message to the creator and see if he has anything more to add. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate about Impossible Mission article.[edit]

I'm having a debate with JakIIDax about Impossible Mission here. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know this till now[edit]

There wasn't just one self-immolation, there were two in Hue - this one in 1993, with 40,000 demonstrators. Darn, that window of opportunity to topple the regime in 1991 was lost, why didn't the Vietnamese people take advantage of that? Even prison guards in Hoa Lo prison told prisoner poet Nguyen Chi Thien, in 1991, that Gorbachev was toppled, they knew but didn't seize the moment. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I spy an ani[edit]

@Txantimedia:@ Ok, this problem wouldn't go away unless this disrupter is dealt with once and for all. This disrupter's conduct is totally unacceptable in Wiki, and our patience and tolerance is running extremely thin. Should we proceed? Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this you playing?[edit] Is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ECA:C150:F1D6:9E85:6C0D:8C84 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You've found me out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like MiG29VC is back.[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talkcontribs) 03:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to revert his sockpuppetry; I'll file an SPI.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Bon matin tout le monde, MiG-29-VC has been blocked indefinitely, and sanity has returned. Thank you again to TimesAChanging for his efforts :) Enjoy your early 39th commemorative 04/30th gift, Mr Bede MIG-VC :D Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
His stuff will be gone now as well

What does this mean?[edit]

I have a notification that I have been reviewed by Mxn 12 hours ago. I can't find a user named Mxn. It has a checkbox on the left with a green check in it. What does it mean? --Txantimedia (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a user named Mxn, an admin on the Vietnamese Wikipedia who took offense to Nguyễn Quốc Việt's unfounded accusation that such admins routinely provide the Vietnamese secret police with the IP addresses of anti-communist editors. Beyond that, I don't know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey TimesAreAChanging, i would just like to elaborate on the IP address matter a little. The Vietnamese regime has employed about 1000 chuyên gia bút chiến (online trolls) to attack online dissidents both domestically and overseas, and tout the Party line and fabricate online support for the VCP and Communist Vietnam (via commenting and "liking"), on web forums, social sites like Facebook and Google+/Youtube video comments section, news sites etc. Those chuyên gia bút chiến also work hand-in-hand with Internet secret police to gather info and report on dissidents for arrest, that's the way they've managed to arrest and imprison scores of domestic cyber dissidents. Communist secret police also injected malware in VPS-Keys (a popular application enabling support and typing of the Vietnamese alphabet on keyboards) to monitor dissident cyber activities. Chinese police are doing the same thing with their "50-cent army" government polemics, and collusion with hackers and cyber criminals to launch attacks at dissident sites/computers. What makes Vietnamese (and Chinese) secret police from infiltration the World's most popular, and open, encyclopedia ie sending their "propaganda and troll army" and creating long-term accounts here? I'll be frank, one cannot accept things at face value with devious, deceptive, Machiavellian groups like Communists. I write this as one-on-one correspondence between us, i do not care about Viet wiki because of the heavy bias, partisanship and unfree editing atmosphere there, as such i do not contribute there. I, however, do have a sense of trust with most admins and all checkusers here. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Due to my limited role at the Vietnamese Wikipedia these days, I'm only inclined to comment on our use of IP addresses there. We have never shared them with any authorities. (I'm a natural-born U.S. citizen. Proof of my identity is on file with the Wikimedia Foundation.) IP addresses of logged-in users are only exposed through the CheckUser tool, which is restricted to Dụng, me, stewards, and Foundation staff, and all use of the tool is overseen by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's true that spyware was sneaked into VPS-Keys at one point, but I never used that software and I understand that Dụng doesn't either.

Txantimedia, reviewers like me see an annoying little "Mark this page as patrolled" button at the bottom of every new page. By clicking it, I satisfied my OCD and verified that your user page is neither vandalism nor copyright infringement. Clicking it literally has no other effect. I only happened upon your user page out of curiosity after responding to Việt's earlier comments. Sorry for any alarm I caused you.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I just wasn't sure what it meant, and when I couldn't find a user page for you I got suspicious. So I asked here. --Txantimedia (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some clarification[edit]

Hi, TTAAC. I'm just stumbling by while on wikibreak and checked my watch list really fast, and I couldn't help but notice some of the feedback on the Sega Saturn FAC. Well done with the article, although I politely would be willing to challenge a couple of the things that were brought up. I thumbed through and saw my name thrown around quite a bit without any links, and I thought it unusual, so I thought I'd bring to light a couple of things that may help with some of the source discrepancies brought up at FAC:

  • As it pertains to Super Metroid... I had to look at this myself because I know I did not throw that into the 32X article. I was right, and missed this while polishing it up. So yes, Super Metroid would be inaccurately sourced and should be corrected, as I will also do on Sega 32X. Let's just say that for as much as he's done and tried to be helpful, that particular editor sometimes tends to be a bit overzealous in not checking references first and going based off of "truth" which isn't always accurate. No knock on SexyKick, of course; he's a worker.
  • Kent and citations: I've seen it both ways on the page numbers; it was accepted in Sega Genesis but it was not accepted in Sega v. Accolade, and a spot-checking editor was gracious enough to provide them in that case. I too happen to have the ebook of this publication and don't have page numbers, so I used chapter titles to bring it as close as possible. If you can find page numbers, that's the preferred method, but I'm of the opinion the chapter titles ought to be enough, especially considering the prevalence of ebooks these days.
  • Transition away from Genesis and toward Saturn: I was not made aware of any inaccuracies with this paragraph, although I wouldn't be surprised especially since I've stayed out of Saturn discussion since the GA review. A user named Anomie was once a huge advocate of using the book in 2008 when the first real surge was done on Sega Genesis and the article made it to GA status albeit with what were flawed sources before the standards of Wikipedia improved. We've come to uncover some inaccuracies with Kent's prose, but I have yet to see more evidence that this is incorrect. Conversely, I can't say I've studied this paragraph with depth; work on Sega Genesis centered mostly on article structure and improving reference quality, and this section was already written with good reliable sources; I had not spot-checked them for accuracy. Certainly Sega did officially support its Genesis products longer than 1995 (Sega Channel is a great show of support of this), although Nintendo's late run of titles proved to be quite successful after the Genesis tapered off in 1995 (Retroinspection: Sega Nomad further supports this as well).

Hopefully some of that might help you out. I'm sure you'll have plenty of FAs and GAs going forward; the biggest key is to find your passion and run with it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging. Perhaps you can help. This refers to the contibutions by user Stumink, no stranger to you.

  • 1. I could have dropped the editor a note, but I see now that this is a concerted effort on quite a wide range of subjects where the editor is displaying a blatant POV. I don't know what the procedures are to take this to ANI, so I am fisrt bouncing it off people I believe will make a fair judgment of this situation.
  • 2. The editor in question has been changing information (in most cases calling it "adjusting wording" in the edit summaries) on Angola, South Afria, anywhere where there was a Cold War conflict, changing to sanitise the image of the West and denigrating the other side, sometimes blatantly as here. Elsewhere, the editor has sought to delegitimise the Angolan government on various pages, by replacing it with MPLA every time; removing references to US involvement here, here; removing huge chunks of information without explanation here; removing mentions of the term apartheid on a number of pages, here, in general sanitising the SA government side here; has changed valuable information on a NZ treaty to improve the image of the settlers here; In efforts to sanitise, when unsure ("pretty sure", editor says in edit summary), editor removes information notheless, as [here, and here;
  • 3. What the editor does in relation to the Cold War, he/ she does in relation to Israel/ Palestinians
  • 4. The same goes for West versus Arabs/ Muslims, see here
  • 5. Same goes for Western vs indigenous peoples as here, and here
  • 6. Sock? From the consistency of the edits, as here, here, here, and the wording in the edit summaries, I have reason to suspect that the editor is the same as this IP.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have informed Stumink of the SPI. Stumink has made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and not all of his deletions are unjustifiable, but it is fair to say that he frequently acts without seeking consensus. As for IP editing, he's been blocked for that before, so I can't say it would surprise me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel's causal assertions[edit]

As per, you have immediately removed the material which I have included on the page (arguably, I should have only included such material within the talk page - but Wikipedia does say one should be bold). I have some questions :

1) Why did you remove the relevant Rudolph Rummel criticisms. And which particular aspect of Rudolph Rummel's online and other works do you pretend are authoritatively written? I am aware of many good historians who both cite and use photographic evidence within their works, as well as who cross-refernece their various sources in such a way as to reduce the likelihood that there observations are fallacious. On this point, Rummel's online works seem to fail (I have even tried to get some indication of his offline works, but the University of Hawaii's contact does not seem to be responding anymore).

2) I agree that my points may lack citation (though I could find citations). My concern is essentially that Rummel makes many assertions whose veracity is far from obvious (take, for instance, his unrepresentative sample of authors).

3) I also note that Rummel's references (or what little of them are directly available upon his site), do not seem to be representative. I have not fully researched this as of yet (though the lack of response from the University researcher who is the main contact for the maintenance of his archives and his site does not help). So will forgo this point, for Now.

AnInformedDude (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your signed and unsourced personal commentary per WP:V, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NPOV. The burden is on you to make constructive edits backed by reliable sources, not on me to address your frivolous complaints.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention[edit]

You're free to hold your opinion, and the last thing I want to do is get into an edit war on the edit warring noticeboard... that might be rather silly.

But, that being said,

  1. he's stopped bringing friends,
  2. he's starting to present arguments, and
  3. he's not actively edit warring any more.

What more do you want? More importantly, what would you like an admin to do that hasn't already been done? And if the answer includes "block him," what would be the justification for blocking an editor who seems willing to try to work through the process at this point? I suspect it will end one of three ways: either 1) an effectively permanent block, 2) devolving back into edit warring, or 3) ceasing to listen to reason, resulting in the need for a topic ban. But what if he surprises us? Shouldn't we assume good faith and give the chance? Jsharpminor (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not been a big fan of your good faith attempts at mediating this dispute, from your naive insistence that all parties are equally at fault to your condescending warning to the admin Rmhermen about the 3RR. I considered your decision to close the section without admin involvement premature, part and parcel of your even-handedness actually protecting and perhaps even emboldening Qwaider (who has responded to your semi-encouraging remarks with long walls of text denouncing GraniteSand and myself). A block now may actually deter future bad behavior from Qwaider, and expunging this edit warring from his record will only make it harder to build a case against him if his POV-pushing continues. Should we forgive those who flagrantly violate the 3RR if a short time passes without further disruption or admin action? I honestly had not thought of it that way, because I've been blocked for less than Qwaider, and I can't say I didn't deserve it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've heard it said that you can tell that you're being a good and impartial moderator when all sides are equally mad at you. Qwaider is obviously pushing his POV, but now he seems willing to push it within the boundaries of Wikipedia guidelines. the reason that I closed the discussion was because he was starting to argue his point. The correct place to do that is on the article's talk page. once his point has had its say, then we can shut it down. I also shut down 5 of the 6 comment threads on the subject on the article talk page, simply because they were redundant complaints that had no place being there. Certainly he was more at fault for his POV pushing, but there doesn't seem to be any protracted history of this behavior. It might be that he could either provide good sources explaining why this particular fact ought to go, or, in any case, become a valued and contributing member of the community by learning how to discuss properly and get changes implemented by consensus rather than edit warring. Edit warring helps no one. So he removed this information? So what? Put the article on your watch list and discuss it. We'll get it fixed before the deadline. Jsharpminor (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You're not helpful, you're not "moderating". You're interjecting yourself were you lack both the competence and the tools needing to effectively resolve problems. You're dealing with several experienced editors who don't need to be condescended to about how to resolve disputes. WP:AN3 is not WP:3O or WP:DRN, it's an administrators' noticeboard for people who need adjudication of misconduct by people with admin tools. You're not that person; in fact, your naive conflation of neutrality and objectivity has exacerbated the problem. I appreciate that you're excited to be helpful and volunteer your time but you've exceeded your prerogative on that board and you've done so with poor judgement. That you would unilaterally close a request for admin action before admin action, admit the obvious presence of a meat puppet attack yet remain agnostic, issue a template 3RR warning to an experienced admin reverting vandalism, and change the actual content of others' talk page comments in a confused and unsolicited effort at "moderation" is outrageous. After we've resolved this meat puppet attack your presumptuous activity on admin boards will be my next non-content project. GraniteSand (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd thank you very much for helping me with that.
By the way, I did explain my rationale for closing that particular discussion before, but I'll say it again: Qwaider had stopped edit warring, had stopped bringing meatpuppets, and was starting to use AN3 as a talk page for his proposed changes — which is exactly the behavior we're looking for. (Yes, it was horrible POV-pushing, but everyone's allowed to bring up a point and have it shot down with good, sound logic. There's no rule against that.) Since he was turning AN3 into a discussion board, I closed the thread in an attempt to redirect the discussion back to the talk page.
Further, there are protocols for non-admin closure on AN3. Perhaps doing so when two editors are loudly calling for a block and there was a meatpuppet attack was out of place. This time may have been bad judgment on my part.
I deeply appreciate your offer to help me better understand what ought to be done. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Just to let you know, no one is countering or replying right now. So the consensus for now, especially before your revert with pretty much no reasoning at that time, is North Vietnam's victory which is how it already was for the majority of the time in the article. Also, you're still barely countering at all right now. And just to let you know, though I'm not going to, but I can technically put the information back to how it was before(I'm only talking about that one Smallchief agreed with, and not the others which were nothing technically, except the Start date of course.) Like I said, no one is countering, except for you but even you're barely doing that at all right now. Sorry for putting this on your talk page, but that VW talk page is starting to get a little crowded right now so that's why. But I can repost this on the relevant page if you want though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not correct. There was a previous consensus for "communist victory". If there is no new consensus yet because no-one is commenting, then there should be no change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware there should be no change yet, but it's not like two consensus is enough for "communism's" victory either. However, I actually just might for now, but only the one smallchief supported, since no one else has a comeback for now, but not all of it, and only for now. But I'll wait for a while to give you time to respond or clarify some more. Also, my question is, do you have anymore arguments for this, or are you just waiting for others to respond at this point? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Smallchief brought no new arguments to the table; I have nothing more to say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, now that clears it up then. Thank you Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the alleged Horhey420 sockpuppet, you should probably mention it to Nick-D since he dealt with it before. Regards.Stumink (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Stumink. I appreciate it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also from me Stumink Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


Okay, I was wrong. It is unfortunate, because he clearly has the potential for research.....regardless, good spotting, and here's to hoping he does not return. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't give me too much credit: If you had experience with Horhey or any of his previous three alternate accounts, you would realize how little he tries to disguise himself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you deleting so much content? Is there any reason to believe the content is inaccurate? Everyking (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated numerous times over the past couple of years, Horhey (and his various sockpuppets) has a history of large-scale copyright violations, source misrepresentations, and POV-pushing. Cleaning up the staggeringly unencyclopedic mess he leaves behind is an unpleasant, but necessary, task. As with certain other banned users, it is now appropriate to strike any of his contributions on sight, as Nick-D and I have done. I have made exceptions for material heavily modified by others, but I would not recommend restoring any of Horhey's text directly unless you independently verify the sources. Even then, my own editing philosophy holds that most of his work would have to be heavily rewritten to the point where it was barely recognizable to truly meet Wikipedia's standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
All right, that sounds reasonable. Everyking (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, It's entirely your call on what you post on this editor's talk page, but I'd note that highlighting their editing quirks may lead to changes in behaviour which make it more difficult to spot any further sockpuppet accounts (though the behavioural evidence was very clear here for a whole bunch of reasons). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Video Game Barnstar Hires.png The Video Game Barnstar
For your incredible research and editing at Sega Saturn, which I am sure will reach FA status soon. Indrian (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, I was going to wait until Saturn actually hit FA to give this to you, but since it will need to go another round, I did not want to wait. The Saturn is a tricky subject due to the scarcity of good info and way too many urban legends and rumors. I am truly impressed at the way you have navigated that minefield. I have found that the video game project is pretty worthless when it comes to actually nurturing and promoting quality articles, but I have no doubt that if you give this another nomination after the required waiting period that you can see it through. Well done! Indrian (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, which mean a lot coming from an editor I respect very much. That said, I've been here since 2010 and have never felt the need to have my work approved as Good or Featured before, so I don't have any intentions of renominating. I got what I wanted most from the FAC, namely an extremely thorough source review by Chrisfjordson (or most of it, anyway; he hasn't been active in some time). Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you are really not interested in renominating it, I think I will give it a go once the waiting period is over. I agree that the source review was great. I've enjoyed working on this article with you. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega Barnstar.png The Sega Task Force Barnstar
For your absolutely awesome work at Sega Saturn, one of the task force's most important articles.
this WikiAward was given to TheTimesAreAChanging by Red Phoenix let's talk... on 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see Indrian beat me to this one. I'm so sorry about the FAC going south; I've had that before and it's not fun when it just doesn't draw any feedback. On the plus side, a renom could take advantage of the past heavy source review, and I would very much recommend you go for it. Even if you don't want the recognition of the process, wouldn't it be neat to have on the main page as today's featured article someday? Heck, if you had it sometime this year, you could have it on time for the 20th anniversary of "Sega Saturnday" where it'd be a great feature for Wikipedia visitors to read. I wanted quickly to also thank you for the comments on the Sega CD FAC and say thank you for taking the Saturn article much, much farther than I ever could. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for turning the article around in the first place, because that was almost certainly the harder part.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hah, well, I wouldn't say that. In retrospect, it was probably the sloppiest article turnaround I've done for various reasons, and I don't know if I'd have the patience or diligence to do the in-depth research work you have with this article. Anyone who is willing to be bold can do an article turnaround with one or two full-topic covering sources (i.e. retrospectives) and a little bit of elbow grease, but only very few can put such fine detailing to take an article to its potential limit such as what you have done with the Saturn. Red Phoenix let's talk... 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Either way, I've never done anything that felt like work on Wikipedia (if I did it would be time to quit for good), but I imagine it may have felt like work to restructure an article that was in as poor condition as the Saturn was prior to your edits. I'll also say that I highly doubt I have better access to sources than you do, although I still have a reasonable collection of Game Informer back issues (as well as all three of the books used, but Kent is by far the most useful to this article). I got Next Generation off the Internet Archive, GamePro by pure chance from my brother, two issues of Edge from a Sega-16 forum member, The New York Times article announcing Sega's collaboration with Hitachi by following a series of tips on various websites, ect. I was able to find two of the "Retroinspections" you used online, and Indrian helped point me in the right direction, too. Because I've always been fascinated by Sega in general, and the Saturn and Dreamcast in particular, I knew in advance what information I was looking for, even if I wasn't sure I would be able to find it. The worst I can complain about is having to pay for the Business Wire article on Kalinske's departure, but along with Next Generation Online it did provide enough information to rewrite the relevant paragraph without any of Kent's small errors. In any case, I'm certainly glad Sega Saturn will be at least a fairly solid Good Article in time for the twentieth anniversary of the system's Japanese launch.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic R scans[edit]

I scanned Next Generation's Sonic R review. I found a preview in one of my Next Gen issues, too, so I threw that in.

The preview is from issue 34, October 1997. The review is on page 115 of issue 38, February 1998. Good luck with the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you planning on working on that article? Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm planning on rewriting the "Reception" section, yes. We'll see how substantial my changes are; there probably won't be as much to say about the game as there was to say about Sonic Lost World, but there's certainly room for improvement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy[edit]

I would like to dispute your reversion to my edit. On what grounds do you make the assertion that Spartacus Educational is an unreliable source? Please let me know of any unreliable material on the page I linked to. It strikes me as being a very detailed biography with material additional to the Wikipedia page. The primary sources quoted are also extremely useful. Tartarusrussell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a self-published free encyclopedia written by one man, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. To my knowledge, this is entirely uncontroversial, but take the matter to WP:RSN if you would like to make a case to the contrary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I see you have also taken down my link on the Russian Revolution Wikipedia page because it is to the Spartacus website. I will follow your suggestion and take it to WP:RSN. Tartarusrussell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Another favor[edit]

Unfortunately, EGM's system scores (and Game of the Year awards) were released in a separate, yearly magazine called the "Video Game Buyer's Guide". I don't have any issues of it in my collection. The Saturn review is in the December 1996 Video Game Buyer's Guide, but I wasn't able to find scans online. Sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation should be to "1996 Video Game Buyer's Guide" (it wasn't called EGM), with the article title "EGM Rates the Systems of 1996!". It was released in December 1996, to my knowledge. See the cover here and a video of the article here (starting around 1 minute). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda about Vietnam[edit]

Hi. The things you are writing in Vietnam-related articles is pretty close to what I would call propaganda. The claim that it was North Vietnam who refused to hold elections is just a lie! The US feared that Ho Cho Minh would win the election, and refused to hold it! Please stop using government sources - they are NOT reliable! I also find it very weird that you have taken the name of a Bob Dylan song as a username when all you do is writing pro-war propaganda. You may use a blog to promote your far-right views instead. This expression makes it clear that you really shouldn't edit more about the Vietnam War on Wikipedia: My opinion, which is irrelevant, is that Diem was Vietnam's true nationalist hero---whereas the French returned to Indochina at Ho Chi Minh's request and... What?! Diem was a racist dictator who oppressors buddhists! I can't see how that makes you a hero! At least not a nationalist hero because Vietnam is a buddhist country. The French returned to Indochina on Ho Chi Minh's request?! WHAT????? I reverted your vandalism on the Vietnam War article. POV pushing is under the defination of "vandalism". It actually violates Wikipedia's ground principles. Te og kaker (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an insult, a violation of WP:NPA, and an unserious explanation for why Hirschman, Thayer, Lewy, and Wiesner need to be purged. If you look more carefully, you will see that the infobox includes the official Vietnamese government figure of 2 million civilians under "Vietnamese civilian dead". To suggest that we shouldn't even attempt to provide a statistical breakdown of casualties by country because the Vietnamese press release did not divide the civilian casualties between North and South Vietnam is to betray your own political POV. On what reliable sources it is based remains to be seen.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's strange with an estimate gap of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims between the two places. I'm sorry, but the most cited estimate is 2 million victims. And I see no reason to have civilian casualties for the Vietnam War listed TWICE!Te og kaker (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
And there are no personal attacks here. Sorry mate. Te og kaker (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You're not a sockpuppet of Zrdragon are you?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't even know who Zrdragon is, and please refrain from insults. Te og kaker (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Rally Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daytona USA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating what?[edit]

Hi, I have left a comment on the talk page about your edit on the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict here. Kingsindian (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You pinged me already. Your inability to read the whole edit doesn't speak well of you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reversion in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

In your reversion summary, you've mentioned the recent consensus as a justification for your edit. But, as I referred to the mentioned discussion, I noticed no consensus for removing the "2005 withdrawal" paragraph. Moreover, you'd participated the debate by saying "A source from 2005 can tell us nothing about this war" which shows that you even haven't paid attention to the Guardian article being published in 2014 ! Another thing to mention is that, you removed the "first Hamas-Fatah" reconciliation too! why? Mhhossein (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The real question is, what consensus are you citing, when the removal was initially stable and endorsed by several editors? As to your second point, I was unaware that you added a whole extra section without alluding to it in your edit summary in any way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. You have new messages at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#Jews_from_Arab_countries.
Message added 22:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. You have new messages at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#Jews_from_Arab_countries.
Message added 09:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. You have new messages at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#Jews_from_Arab_countries.
Message added 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

1948 Exodus[edit]


Regarding this, you are right. That was not too much. I didn't understand that there were 5 references to the sentences. Your edit complies with due:weight. Sorry for my revert. I would just suggest that you keep only 1 reference, maybe 2. The one that refers to Palestine betrayed seems the best from my point of view given this is a reference book from Karsh. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


[10] DO NOT make assumptions about the gender of a user; it is most remarkably offensive when one has chosen to keep that information hidden. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, my apologies. That was thoughtless and unnecessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Accepted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Israeli teens kidnap and murder[edit]

The claim made there is that Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts, other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.All this is related and sourced from a Guardian article which is dated 21st August 2014. In that article it states that, and I quote "Claim by Saleh al-Arouri, a founder of Hamas's military wing, is doubted by experts and not supported by other Hamas sources". It also states "His claim has not been supported by any other member of Hamas." It further states "Hugh Lovatt, Israel and Palestine coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while al-Arouri was a significant Hamas figure – serving as the group's most prominent representative in Turkey – the former militant could have an ulterior motive for making his claim.

"Given the timing I would be very suspicious about his claim. I still don't believe Hamas as an organisation and its upper echelons sanctioned the kidnappings – something that Israeli intelligence also believes," he said.

That covers the statement that I put in that article. You have no reason whatsoever to delete it as it is sourced and up to date.Would you care to explain yourself please?Thanks GGranddad (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please could refrain from calling me names like "toady" and personally attacking me on your sandbox rant.I will have to check if that is against the rules here.I think it might be. Thanks GGranddad (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) without even getting into this dispute, this seems to be a violation of WP:NPA. TTAAC, I suggest you remove the term; otherwise, I'm fairly certain you can do as you please with your sandbox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93--I'd be flattered, if I didn't know better than anyone that my talk page isn't worth a second of your time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Please can you refrain from making personal attacks against me. Above you were calling me names and attacking me[11] and now you are leaving attacks on me personally in your edit summaries.[12]I would like to bring your attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you.GGranddad (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That was borderline! I attempted to trim your text because I thought it was grammatically poor and the lead can be more succinct.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you left a personal attack on me in your edit summary, which is against wikipedia rules.Please stop it,last warning.GGranddad (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He's back[edit]

Holla, how's it going? I just want to let you know that mig29vn is at it again, so just keep an eye out on his changes to VN War articles. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)