User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Recruiting at Cyberwarfare by Russia

The editor whom you pinged and cited as having made edits you like -- that editor has never edited the article to which you recruited him. This violates WP behavioral guidelines. You can remedy this either by informing the many editors who have edited there -- most of whom my not share your POV -- or by redacting your violation. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You've never previously edited Cyberwarfare by Russia. Were you recruited (i.e., by email), or are you stalking my edits to make drive-by revenge reverts? Is the latter better than the former?

Fact is, Thucydides411, unprompted, brought up "the PropOrNot and Vermont utility hack stories" just a few days ago at the main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and I would be interested in seeing him elaborate—especially when confronted by an editor making revenge reverts while refusing to participate on the talk page, and who appears (along with BullRangifer) to be one of the last two people on earth to have missed Wash Post's nine-month-old retraction. Until BullRangifer's recent edits, Cyberwarfare by Russia had been largely inactive, with the last non-minor edit by a named user occurring six months ago. To rectify your concern, I have asked everyone watching Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to participate. A ping can't be undone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump Tower Allegation

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging,

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

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

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

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

Thanks! Aviartm (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

True. It just sometimes I contact the user's talk page to make sure that they will read it, instead of an indirect potential. True. But I mean, would you be doing political business in Virginia and running a Presidential Campaign or work at your other residence of Trump Tower where you are running the Tower's owner's Presidential Campaign and do general business there. I agree we need to wait until it is verified, but it would make sense to conduct and run a Presidential Campaign at the same place were the Presidential Candidate wins. I agree with you. Imo, there is a very low probability of no surveillance at Trump Tower or the main stream media does not want to disclose such information. Aviartm (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The fact that some people might have had their private phones tapped while they were physically present in Trump Tower isn't that relevant to this subject. What Trump claimed was that his own phones in Trump Tower were tapped - "Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower" - so Manafort being tapped, even if he was in Trump Tower at the time, doesn't shed any light on Trump's still unproven (and unlikely) claim. What I do find to be not-yet-proven-but-likely is the possibility that some of these tapped phone calls involved the Feds listing to and recording a conversation between Manafort and Donald Trump himself. What a story THAT is going to be when/as/if it comes out! --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

We are all insinuating what Trump meant. We do not know if he meant his/his campaign/Trump campaign communication lines. Obviously the Presidential Campaign was primarily ran in Trump Tower. So, Trump could've meant that tweet as Trump Tower in it's entirety.

MelanieN is correct that there's no confirmation of Trump's twitter claims here. She's also very likely correct, to read between the lines, that the reason Trump himself got the two issues confused is that Manafort may have been doing Trump's business on Manafort's personal lines and so in Trump's mind and from the point of view of Trump's personal jeopardy, he may have been quite justified in his subjective sense that his "wires" were being "tapped." SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, told The Real News on March 7, the only way that Trump could have been tapped directly is in the unlikely scenario that the Obama administration asked GCHQ to do it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Which has been thoroughly, THOROUGHLY debunked by the British. They made it clear there is pretty much no way such a request could even have been made, much less carried out. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You Are On The Right Track!

Great Effort!

Young man, first and foremost, I want to personally congratulate you on your outstanding contribution to Wikipedia. I am one of the original Wikipedia editors with probably many thousands of edits. However, due to traveling to many countries over the decades and for personal security reasons, I have had no alternative but to modify my moniker as the years have past and the locations have changed. I see that you have edited many Wikipedia pages and that you enjoy video games. As you are likely aware, both activities--video games and Wikipedia--are similar insofar as one obtains points, status, and power by the volume of one's activity. That is essentially how one rises to the next level so to speak. With that said, what I tell my students and children is that quality is much more important that quantity. Also, reading between the lines is a crucial skill to intellectual development. In your case, I believe that with your passion for high-volume computer activity, if you combine that trait with taking a step back and assessing the entire picture, then you will better serve your overall maturation as an online editor and, most importantly, the Wikipedia community. I realize that this may take some time and may be a difficult talent to become comfortable with, especially if you are accustomed to strict video game protocols, but acquiring knowledge and mastery is not always an easy task. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of further assistance, and the only reason that I took the time to compose this memo is that I see great potential in you. And always remember to try to balance what you read, hear, and see on television and in the newspaper with insightful expertise. Best wishes, VeritasLaureate. VeritasLaureate (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Italics

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

Comment

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

Ummm...

Donald Trump on social media. You do know that article is under 1RR, right?  Volunteer Marek  17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)