User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Suharto and East Timor

Thanks for your edits to the Suharto article. Please bear in mind that the article is about Suharto, and not about the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Ie, the Suharto article is not the place for an in-depth account of the varying estimates of the death toll. What happens if every issue that Suharto was involved in was expanded to the detail your now adding on East Timor? On the other hand, it’s not something that should be suppressed form the Suharto article. A well-worded once sentence mention is all that is required for the Suharto article. The details you are adding are far better suited to the Indonesian Occupation of East Timor article – indeed, there is room there for much more. And, the Suharto article can link to that article. --Merbabu (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Nice work on the Occupation of East Timor. I think the Cribb section is a tad ong - I think it could be summmarised without removing the main points. Indeed, the punch lines of the section would stand out more if it was trimmed down. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PS - is the following a quotation or your own words?

How many of these were guerilla fighters, rather than civilians? Presumably, at least several thousand.

If it is the former, then you'll need quotation marks, if it is your words, then it is original research and unfortunately not acceptable per WP:OR. --Merbabu (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit you made has been mentioned at Wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents

Hi, an edit you made on a talk page introduced a large volume of copyrighted text, your first edit in fact! I know it was done innocently, but I've requested that administrators remove it from the database, as it would be an on going copyright violation due to the length of the quote. The discussion at Wikipedia's Administrator's notice board for incidents is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_copyvio_in_the_form_of_a_slab_quote.2C_requires_admin_delete. Happy editing! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've redacted the quote because it is clearly much too long to qualify for fair use. If you'd like, you can replace it with a short except from the source that makes your point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User warnings November 2010

This diff's edit summary constitutes attack language. Please keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on civility to other editors. Thanks, happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Improving editing practices

Hi, you might like to read about the reliability of sources, particularly self-published sources like Youtube. If you're in doubt about the reliability of a source, the helpful and impartial editors at WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard can help. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You make like to read about wikipedia's policies on Verifiability. Wikipedia does not publish "the truth", it publishes all significant encyclopedic and verifiable material, and emphasises the scholarly consensus or largest scholarly narrative. If you believe verifiable material has been left out of the article, then please add it, but do not delete other _verifiable_ material. If you believe that the scholarly narrative has been misrepresented, then seek out literature reviews (usually the first chapter of an academic history, or contained in the "Review Articles" section of journals), as these publish the current academic consensus. When the academic consensus is internally divided, wikipedia's policy is to publish all major view points, and appropriately characterise their significance in the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 - Disruptive editing

You have been engaging in a pattern of disruptive editing across multiple pages. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please stop this behavior pattern. If the disruption continues, it is likely this account may be blocked. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for WP:Edit warring across multiple pages after warnings to stop.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to drop by and warn you to actually discuss things rather than just keep reverting back and forth, but it seems I was a bit late. When you get unblocked, Talk:Henry Kissinger (as well as many other pages) are at your service. Ray^Talk 07:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cambodian Campaign

Looks like you've been banned but I believe you can still post on the Cambodia talk page. Please post your arguement. -- Esemono (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can only talk here. The facts are clear: North Vietnam admitted that it "played a decisive role" in bringing the Khmer Rouge to power (Washington Post, April 23, 1985) and invaded Cambodia in 1970 at the request of the Khmer Rouge following negotiations with Neun Chea (Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda). Shawcross is not my "favorite author," although I respect his integrity. Shawcross wrote that "millions of Cambodians died" as a result of US bombing; what I deleted was a regurgitation of his opinion as an unquestioned fact ("millions of Cambodians would pay the ultimate price for these decisions").

In general, Wikipedia has become a place for dishonest revisions of history; contrary to recently removed Wikipedia lies (ones that are surely soon to be restored), the Vietnam War cost fewer than a million lives (Charles Hirschman et al., “Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate,” Population and Development Review, December 1995) and one-third of all civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities (Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp272-3, 448-9). On the Cambodian War, it should be noted that every demographic survey ever conducted found that 200-300,000 were killed by all sides--2 to 3 times less than our "free encylopedia" says--and that the 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself (Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995) , p48). Virtually every controversial topic in modern history has been distorted beyond noticeable recognition by Wikipedia's radical propagandists, who innocently maintain that Wikipedia "publishes all significant encyclopedic and verifiable material, and emphasises the scholarly consensus or largest scholarly narrative." Wikipedia is so scrupulous in respecting these high standards, it posts unverifiable, self-published, fabricated interviews from the neo-Nazi online website CounterPunch on articles about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to "prove" that America secretly armed the mujahideen prior to the invasion; in fact, this allegation has been extensively refuted (The Nation, November 12, 2001) and declassified government documents available online have long since debunked it (see the following for what was actually authorized: http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1581.jpg and http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1579.jpg) --indeed, the deeply moral and compassionate National Security Advisor Brzezinski could only laugh off the charge when recently asked about it (see also Gate's and Brzezinski's memoirs, Vice-President Mondale's 1981 interview with The Christian Science Monitor and Brezhnev's infamous speech about the invasion being precipitated by "a shift in the global correlation of forces" in favor of "Socialism" resulting from US defeat in the Vietnam War, as well as commentary from analysts like Oliver Kamm and military historians). Since no noted scholar supports this assertion--period--one must wonder what "consensus" Wikipedia is arguing in favor of. Wikipedia falsifications of history boggle the mind; citing Noam Chomsky, it pretends that America supported the mass killing of Indonesian Communists in 1965-6, although this myth has no factual basis (H. W. Brands, “The Limits of Manipulation: How the United States Didn’t Topple Sukarno,” Journal of American History, December 1989, p801; New York Times, July 12, 1990; AIM Report, September 1990). It endorses the rigged Sandinista elections of 1984 by citing outspoken genocide denier Edward Herman; the election was for posts subordinate to the Sandinista Directorate, a body “no more subject to approval by vote than the Central Committee of the Communist Party is in countries of the East Bloc,” according to a detailed study, while “the finally announced results of the election were determined through administrative manipulation – that is, they were rigged” (Martin Kriele, “Power and Human Rights in Nicaragua,” German Comments, April 1986, pp56-7, 63-7, a chapter excerpted from his Nicaragua: Das blutende Herz Amerikas (Piper, 1986). See also Robert S. Leiken, “The Nicaraguan Tangle,” New York Review of Books, December 5, 1985 and “The Nicaraguan Tangle: Another Exchange,” New York Review of Books, June 26, 1986; Alfred G. Cuzan, Letter, Commentary, December 1985 and “The Latin American Studies Association vs. the United States,” Academic Questions, Summer 1994). No doubt Wikipedia is only respecting the current academic consensus!

Wikipedia is by far the most extensive re-writing of modern history ever attempted in any free society and is worse than propaganda I've seen from totalitarian dictatorships. It's nothing but a vast wasteland of ignorance and deceit, mainly from official Communist sources, Islamic terrorists, and Chomsky cultists reminiscent of Dylan Avery. The false atmosphere of "tolerance," the monitoring of users, the seeming open-mindedness combined with the flagrant deletions of credible material that contradicts a uniquely paranoid and fanatical worldview all combine to create a profoundly disturbing and bizarre experience. Perhaps I was foolish to even bother trying to reform the site; no source that I submit, no matter how obviously credible, is accepted--but any source, no matter how absurdly ridiculous, is taken at face value as long as it's anti-American. The irony is that I'm very liberal, but I have no tolerance for such outright lies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some your edits are valid and sourced, but you must study and follow WP:NPOV, WP:Consensus and other similar policies. Two most obvious problems: (1) you do not discuss disagreements at article talk pages; and (2) you frequently remove opposing sourced views. That's not the way. Instead, you should add alternative sourced views per WP:NPOV. Of course something may (and sometimes must) be removed, but this should be explained and decided at article talk page if anyone disagree with your edits. Otherwise, you will be quickly banned. P.S. Do not try to evade your current block by creating an alternative account or editing as an IP. If that happens, you will be banned right now. Biophys (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And another problem: this belongs to an article on a different subject. This is article about a specific book, not about Communist repressions. Only something written in this book or better about this book in other WP:RS belongs to the article. Hence the revert of your edits.Biophys (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. The User Yellow Monkey has simply decided to revert every edit I make, no matter how obvious and no matter how non-controversial. He deleted “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda from the Pol Pot page, saying that Yale University was trying to "cover up US support for Pol Pot." He deleted “Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate,” Population and Development Review, December 1995 in the Vietnam War article, replacing it with a barely literate self-published fringe website that says 3-4 million Vietnamese and 1.5-2 million Laotians and Cambodians died in the war. Every demographic survey ever conducted--Kiernan, Sliwinski, Bannister, Johnson, Heuveline--concluded that 200-300,000 died in Cambodia; the Monkey deleted every one as an "extremist POV right-wing source." Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Communist news agency is the source for the "3 million dead" figure (Associated Press, April 3, 1995), while the most widely accepted estimate is 1.5 million, and the most exact demographic study concluded less than one million were killed by all sides. YellowMonkey just edited the Operation Menu article to attribute all of the deaths caused by all sides in the entire Cambodian Civil War--multiplied, naturally, by a factor of 4 or 5--to American bombing, in truth only a minor factor. (Another editor acknowledged that my edits were well-sourced and accurate on the TP, and that his random deletions made the article far less accurate, but did not restore my work). Frankly, if he really believes that Sliwinski's demographic studies are just right-wing propaganda, then he should go straight to the nearest mental institution. The "edit wars" began because YellowMonkey told me he intended to go through every article I contributed to and revert my edits without reading them. He did so even when none of my edits were controversial in the least, just out of spite (look at my minor additions to Human Rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq--there were no conceivable grounds for removing them, and its doubtful YellowMonkey read them). YellowMonkey randomly deleted material from credible sources over and over again, saying that the NYT, Significance, UNICEF, William Shawcross (at times!) and Population and Development Review were really just part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and that only CounterPunch and other self-published left-wing blogs told the real truth. All the while, he maintained that only "unreliable, fringe sources" dispute the idea that the American bombing of Cambodia killed as many people as Pol Pot. He eliminated my work, rejected appeals to stop, refused to respond on talk pages, personally attacked me and took time to argue that Henry Kissinger was a war criminal--adding, "are you Kissinger, lol" to one of his messages and thereby declaring his deliberate intent to vandalize Kissinger's article. Honestly, you might want to read Conservapedia's article on the Vietnam War, because even it is far more informative than anything Wikipedia has to offer on US foreign policy.

Is it the "current academic consensus" that the American bombing of Cambodia was as bad as Pol Pot's Communist Genocide? That's what our heroic comrade YellowMonkey now has the Operation Menu article saying. He truly must be applauded for his heroic efforts to fight against reality.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood the reason for the deletion on the Black Book of Communism article and did not attempt to appeal it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where YellowMonkey told you that "he intended to go through every article you contributed to and revert your edits without reading them"? Any diff?Biophys (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to produce an encyclopaedia by writing. The goal you present is to reform wikipedia for a political purpose by writing. These goals are not in alignment, and I think you'll find that the community of editors will ensure Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia produces an encyclopaedia from all scholarly narratives in the area of history, and discusses their merits. This is in conflict with the goal you present of rewriting wikipedia from an internal narrative. These goals are not in alignment, and, unless you find a way to convince wikipedians to change their policy in this area, they will preserve the encyclopaedia project at your cost. Please do examine the lettering and spirit of wikipedia's encyclopaedia writing policy before editing again. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I was mocking the very idea that any of my changes had a political purpose and pointing out that Wikipedia extensively censors actual scholarly resources in favor of obscure left-wing blogs and self-published neo-Nazi hate sites. Wikipedia is cheap, barely intelligible propaganda, not an encyclopaedia. It is not an encyclopaedia, it never was an encyclopaedia, no encyclopaedia would contain errors and outrages like those I just described--let alone helpful editors like my pal YellowMonkey. In all seriousness, are Charles Hirschman's, Ben Kiernan's, and Marek Sliwinski's studies just right-wing propaganda totally undeserving of a place in an encyclopaedia? Jimmy Wales, ostensibly a pro-American Objectivist who holds the "peace" movement in contempt, should have remembered Ayn Rand's words before making a free encyclopaedia: "Everything of value must be paid for."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• You might consider calming down; quite a significant bit. I had a similar experience when applying standards external to wikipedia (academic standards) to a major Featured Article about a revolution. The article still fails to meet wikipedia's own standards; and, still fails to meet the range of scholarly discourse (a standard of wikipedia). The reason why my attempt to better that article failed was mainly to do with my tone and conduct in seeking to improve that article. My tone and conduct then, reminds me of your tone and conduct now.
• You could start by adding alternative scholarly narratives not currently present in articles from reliably sourced material. YouTube, and primary sources, are not reliable sources (ie: Nixon Tapes). Wikipedia editors cannot convert primary material into secondary material by considered scholarly historiography; because editors aren't historians. Reliable sources need to make the claim which is added to the article; and, they need to be reliable for that claim. A NYT interview with an individual claiming that Soviet archives support a position is not reliable, as the appropriate forum for historical claims is scholarly historical publications.
• When removing text from the article, it is better to discuss it first on the page. "The claim made that Fred was in Cambodia in 1977 is an exceptional claim, and is currently supported by a blog. The blog has no editor, and the blog author is not a recognised specialist. As such the blog isn't a reliable source. I'm going to remove the citation and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag tomorrow. If a reliable source isn't added in a week or so, I'm going to remove the claim as it is exceptional." is a good example of how to approach this.
• If a complaint is about the article failing to weight scholarly narratives correctly, you really ought to raise this on the Talk page first. "According to Nguyen (1999)'s "Review Article: The state of contemporary Cambodian historiography" viewing trees as green is not the scholarly consensus, scholars primarily view trees as blue (in the Japanese sense), though a minor group views trees as red. The article doesn't represent this scholarly consensus, viewing trees as green, using non-scholarly sources. I propose we rewrite the article using scholars from the blue, and red historiographies." Simply assembling a bunch of "Trees are red" and "Trees are blue" scholarly sources doesn't demonstrate that this is the scholarly consensus.
• You could also improve your editing by fulling citing material you use. Links to external sites without the author, title, publisher, year, page range, work contained in do not inspire confidence. Particularly when your link is to a Self Published Website, such as youtube. If you had cited the Nixon tapes correctly, for example, "Richard Nixon in conversation with Fred Nguyen 11 October 1970, commonly known as The Nixon Tapes unpublished but distributed by samizdat and available online at Youtube, material referenced in time range 00:40-04:30." you would have recognised that this is a primary source, that Youtube is not known to retransmit material faithfully and in full, and that it isn't adequate to demonstrate a claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at WP:RS. It explains how exactly secondary and primary sources can be used. The key idea is "verifiabity, not truth". A primary source can be perfectly verifiable but must be properly used. Youtube is not a good source for several reasons. I saw you posting some images rather than movies from YouTube. In that case you can upload the image/copy of a letter by Nixon and use it in the article as an image (see "upload file" button and the letter by Beria in Katyn massacre as an example of an image of a letter), but only if this is not a copyright violation (see related WP policies and CC-BY-SA 3.0 license). But you did not answer my question above. Remember that making unsupported claims about other users may get you banned.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)