User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Sorry for the trouble with the reverts.

This was something that, after some mixed responses, it looked like I was heading to do anyway after input from the Project Law group. It's something I should have shouldered. GregKaye 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Gamergate

I would like to clarify that I never doubted Gamergate being a harassment campaign. I just doubted its position on the political spectrum after seeing one study, but after other users showed me the study's flaws on the talk page of Gamergate, I changed my mind, which you seem to have not noticed. X-Editor (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you for clarifying.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: No problem. Thanks for hearing me out. X-Editor (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary to Depp v. Heard that did not appear to be appropriate, civil, or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Apologies if my usage of a template comes off as rude and thank you for your time. Originalcola (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Reasons?

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, in the recently raised discussion on Talk:Depp v. Heard#Social Media Reactions Edit Warring regarding "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" you responded, in regard to this talk page section, to add despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion." with reference to a response to me. Descriptions I give for my edits as found in Depp v. Heard&action=history have excellent clarity. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your reference relating to me from your response. GregKaye 08:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Except that I did not mention you in my comment, at all, and explicitly informed Gtoffoletto that "it was actually this thread's OP, Originalcola, who cut any mention of Depp v. NGN from the lede"—to be clear, that's Originalcola, not GregKaye. (Of course, my comment did not specifically address the merits of Originalcola's edit, either, beyond pointing out its highly misleading edit summary. Despite the misleading edit summary, I have yet to opine on whether the U.K. trial is lede-worthy.) So, no "reference" to withdraw, and please read more carefully.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your reference relating to me from your response." What relevance do you think your link to a response that had been made to me (regarding my having made a general application of your WP:Coatrack argument) has to "a chaotic revision history" - unless you just wanted to get the "wikilawyering" mention in? What relevance do you think any of this has to "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja"? I'm hoping that a mistake was involved but otherwise you're doubling down. GregKaye 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, Greg, you seem to be very confused, but I do not have unlimited time to deal with your confusion, so I will not respond here again, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from WP:BLUDGEONing my talk page. My comment speaks for itself: The whole point of my response to Gtoffoletto is that Gtoffoletto literally could not find the diff of an edit which he considered objectionable because the revision history is such a mess, which I used to illustrate a very simple point (and see if you can follow me here), namely that the revision history is a mess and difficult even for experienced users to follow. Logically, the merits of the edit itself, its author (Originalcola), Originalcola's edit summary, Gtoffoletto mistakenly attributing the edit to you until you (and I!) corrected him, etc., etc., etc., has no bearing on this extremely simple, direct, straightforward observation, which has no hidden meaning or coded message. Sometimes, not everything is about you. As for why I reframed Originalcola's section title by talking about the broader context of edit warring and the repeated, sustained attempts to water down the "Social media" subsection in particular, why would I be obliged to simply accept another editor's framing in my response? (NB: Please do not posit an answer to this clearly rhetorical question... Seriously, please.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI third party ANI mention

Greetings, as a third party I mentioned you at ANI here Feel free to comment, or not. The complaint is made by someone else against someone else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Miles Copeland

Thanks for pointing out that your citation on the Miles Copeland Jr. page applied to the whole paragraph. Would it be superfluous to include that citation after first sentence as well?

Regarding the internal link to Internet Archive, I changed it because I personally prefer PDF links where available since they are downloadable, but I’m happy to defer to your style choice. Do you happen to know if there is a Wikipedia guideline that specifies that internal links are always preferred over PDF links, or if that’s a style choice determined by consensus on each page? Just curious if this is something I should start correcting this on other pages too.

Regards, Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Would it be superfluous to include that citation after first sentence as well?" I don't feel strongly about the issue, but yes, if there are two or three sentences on the same topic (e.g., Copeland's relationship with Burnham) followed by a citation, it probably isn't necessary to repeat that citation multiple times. "Regarding the internal link to Internet Archive, I changed it because I personally prefer PDF links where available since they are downloadable, but I’m happy to defer to your style choice." I objected to your formatting change because it broke the functionality of the bluelink to "Wilford 2013." Readers should be able to click on (or hover over) "Wilford 2013" to access the full citation in compliance with WP:V. I have no reason to think that this functionality is related to the Internet Archive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump revert

Hey, just a quick question about this revert this revert. Your note stated change to the lead required consensus, but that sentence is not specifically tagged as requiring consensus, and per the current consensus on the Talk, number 43, if it is not specifically tagged as requiring consensus, it does not require prior discussion, and in fact, the fact that an edit has not been discussed first is not a reason for reverting. Did you revert believing it did, or did you revert to dispute the removal yourself? Fbifriday (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to +1 the comment from Fbifriday above as a point of clarification, per point 43, do you need more of a rationale to revert my edit? "Long standing consensus" doesn't seem like a good enough reason? (I was on an extended wikibreak and wasn't editing actively in 2020 when this consensus point 43 was added.) Andrevan@ 06:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus, or at least can (and probably should) be reverted absent consensus, as the lede reflects years of work by prior contributors. More importantly, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states: "A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination." In sum, Andrevan's edit removed important context from the lede, despite it being fully supported by the article body. That's not a good edit, even if my subsequent edit summary may have been a bit terse. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. According to the point 43 above. Please adjust your process. Any bold edit does not require consensus. Andrevan@ 20:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasons2?

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, Do you have any reason for believing that my edits here were driven by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and weren't A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits? GregKaye 20:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Do you have any reason for believing that my edits here were driven by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH"? Yes.

Starship.paint pointed out that your edit of 05:26, 12 June 2022 created a (WP:SYNTHy) "Differences between the US and the UK trials" section based on the following sources: "A few crucial differences explain why Johnny Depp lost his Amber Heard libel lawsuit in the UK but won the in US"; "Johnny Depp verdict: How Johnny Depp won his US case against Amber Heard, after losing in the UK" [permanent dead link]; and "Why Johnny Depp lost his libel case in the U.K. but won in the U.S."

Approximately three hours later, your edit of 08:50, 12 June 2022 contained the erroneous (and seemingly unsourced) statement that (pre-verdict) "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," which you repeated both in the lede and in your edit summary. I immediately noted that this directly contradicted the sources cited in the lede.

On 10:18, 13 June 2022, Starship.paint defended you against the charge of source falsification: "the edit you were referring to by GregKaye was certainly puzzling, but I think it's explainable (not straightforward misrepresentation). Simply put, Greg changed the lede based on ... three different references in the body, without changing the references in the lede. That was certainly clumsy. Now, the references in the body tried to explain why Depp won, and pointed to several factors ... It seems that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. So GregKaye, please be more careful. Ignoring the part where legal experts considered it easier in the UK due to defamation law was a mistake." You had recently made virtually the same argument on 07:06, 13 June 2022: "My edit to 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK' gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed 'Differences between the US and the UK trials' section."

According to WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research."

You did not assert that your 12 June edit was a "typo" until 16:59, 3 July 2022: "I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK." As documented above, you stated on 13 June that the edit was "accurate" based on the content in "the newly formed 'Differences between the US and the UK trials' section," not that it was the result of a "mix-up".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, as a neutral party (and as someone who actually had a dispute with TheTimesAreAChanging that was contentious, but we both agreed to walk away for civility) who has read through the ANI, that this type of "I posted this comment a couple weeks ago, you still haven't answered, I'm still waiting" is, at best badgering, at worst bludegoning. Editors are not required, nor should they be expected, to answer any and all questions posed by another editor, nor do they have to answer them to anyone's satisfaction. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Retracting, I will take it to the ANI, since that is the appropriate place. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A "hell" of a lot of things were said in the period between 01:59, 13 June 2022 when your accusations thread presented the fourth of my four edits[1] in isolation and 13:01, 16 June 2022 when I presented the quickly fixed subsection which quoted the four edits together[2] and the hell stopped.
In the quickly fixed subsection I also noted that "among achievements of which I'm proud, I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article" which was something that I did within these edits with reference to a previously used citation.
If I'm pointing out strong freedom of speech protections in the US, I'm not sure how the synth is supposed to work. It's also fair to say that it's fine for me to think that the trial conditions were more difficult in the US (and yet were still heading for a win). It's a view that I'd always been more than happy to present. In the subsection I said, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". Do you think that there's any chance this might reflect fairly on what happened? GregKaye 02:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

Your edit summary:

"Undid revision 1097877117 by Valjean Invalid tag; content has been verified by CNN, which is a secondary source. Removing the CNN source and adding is a misuse of the tag. If you don't consider CNN to be reliable on this topic, then the whole section should be stricken."

I didn't remove the CNN source. I moved it to the right spot (actually returned it to its original location). The part you added needed other sources, and you have since added them, so all's well now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a problem with citing CNN directly as a source for its editor's note, but I'm glad to hear that "all's well now."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting along

Hi friend, One thing I really appreciate about editors like Starship.paint is the direct communication. Starship and I often disagree and that's fine but we have mutually beneficial discussions and talk things through. When you launch into talk pages gunning for three editors with the three links "(e.g., "Potential misleading information", "Commentary on social media response," and "Reactions to social media content")", with quite some order of sequencing, it honestly gets annoying for me. My, at least, initial reaction can be more negative than I'd like it to be. That's cool because I can come back on talk pages and dial back - but I thought to run this by you because others might raise more problem. Mate, I'm trying my best with what ability I have to contribute the best NPOV content that I can and, after contributing a significant number of solid edits, to get your one comment of "Grammatically incoherent" on a content that was quite coherent and intended to provide a link to a section you value while having previously retracted this[3], it isn't well received.
I'd personally like people to be able to read the lead and get into article content free of potentially unwarranted preconceptions of potential influences on juror decisions but, while I don't agree, I respect your desire to replace the "majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and critical of Heard" text. Starship is an excellent editor. I don't know about the other editor but, after receiving attacks, I honestly lose the impetus to check. Please consider that not attacking or demeaning people[4] can be a route to avoid potential antagonization. We're trying to work together. GregKaye 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)