User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

BTW do you play current consoles?

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?

**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.

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.

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

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)

Is this you playing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLCqBwNEQc 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)

I spy an ani

@Txantimedia:@88.104.216.130: 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)

Looks like MiG29VC is back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&diff=606269936&oldid=606269118 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) 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

Some clarification

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

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)

What does this mean?

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)

Rudolph Rummel's causal assertions

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolph_Rummel&oldid=607866878&diff=prev, 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

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)

Comment

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)

Horhey420

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)

Horhey

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)

Barnstar

		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)

		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

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.

• Next Generation preview
• Next Generation review

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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)

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)

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

Hi,

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)

Iran

[1] 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

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

Please can you refrain from making personal attacks against me. Above you were calling me names and attacking me[2] and now you are leaving attacks on me personally in your edit summaries.[3]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

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)

Sega Saturn - some repairs, and maybe another run?

Hiya, TTAAC... hopefully you're still cool with that abbreviation as I knew you to be earlier this year. I thought I'd let you know that I've gone through Sega Saturn with the check links tool and archived every occurrence of a broken ref. Fortunately, 1UP it appears disabled their robots.txt and I was able to go through and recover all of those sources in their original form, something I've had to do with a lot of the Sega articles I've worked on this year. With the article's referencing now perfect again, I wanted to ask you a question: would you be willing to consider another go at WP:FAC with the Saturn article? I am certainly past all the old drama from earlier this year and I know I'm considered a significant contributor to it myself, but with respect all the credit goes to you for the fantastic work on this article, and though I'd be willing to support it and make necessary changes during the nom, I don't think I necessarily deserve to be the nominator; you do, though. I don't know if I would have had the time or the patience to put that much research into it and make it look so amazing. A user named PresN currently has List of Sega video game consoles at FLC and the only Sega console I have left to work on is Dreamcast, and I'd love nothing more than to see Sega Saturn get its FA star as well. Let me know what you think; I know you've said before that you're not terribly interested in another run, if I'm not mistaken, but I am and would be glad to support it all the way there. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work repairing the article. That said, I don't think my feelings have changed about renominating it. Do you think it is more likely to win support with another go, considering that it hasn't changed much since the previous FAC closed? If either you or Indrian renominate it, I will of course address any concerns that relate to my work in the discussion. In any case, I am eager to see what you do with the Dreamcast article!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Something I found with my Sega CD FAC is that sometimes it takes a second go just to get feedback. I only had one responder to the first FAC, and it was archived. I gave it some time and did Sega 32X in the meantime but really didn't change Sega CD all that much, and by mentioning it had a previous FAC I was able to get more feedback on the second one, not to mention used the first to show the feedback it's received. In Saturn's case, you can definitely link the first one if you choose to renominate to show what a comprehensive source review it's already had. Dreamcast may take me a while; it's getting to the busy season where I work and I went ahead and put up a FAC nom for Master System, so as of right now I can't renom Saturn at least until that runs its course (and honestly, I'm still of the opinion that I don't deserve the credit for its FA level writing; my work at it was substandard and rushed at best). Interestingly I've had a hard time getting a hold of Indrian lately, so I'm not sure if he's still intending to make a run at it or really what he's been up to lately at all. Come to think of it, I haven't heard much from yourself either, for that matter :P Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Saturn

What do you mean with lack of sources? Some sections like Sega Pluto have enough/reliable ones whereas the Compatibility does not. Clearly it differs so some of it should be okay. I personally think there are lots of useful information and details here that I think deserve to be on the article. Hunting for reliable sources and adding them should be okay enough, don't you think?--G&CP (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Take this to the Saturn talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on War on Terror. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Uishaki (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I would delete outrageously duplicitous spam such as this. However, I find it helpful to point out hypocrisy, self-righteous moral preening and exaggerated pretenses of civility. You are waging an edit war to delete sourced material added by myself and other editors while rejecting requests for talk page discussion. I called you an "anti-Israel activist", which you are, considering that your user page openly calls for the destruction of Israel and your latest edit expresses praise and support for designated terrorist groups committed to the murder of all Jews. You called me an "Israeli propagandist." Yet you have the nerve to proclaim yourself holier than I, to come here and patronizingly inform me that I must "remain cool", to act as though you are merely giving me impartial advice, to presume you even have the right to give such advice after you accuse me of being an Israeli propagandist? For shame!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

please enable you mail

I want to send you two pieces of Newspapers regarding casualties in 1982 war--Shrike (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre

Re. your edits to Sabra and Shatila massacre, thank you to keep in mind the guidance at WP:TERRORIST, esp. as to the use of the words "terrorism"/"terrorist". Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 09:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to a discussion

Hi. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaza beach explosion (2006) should be moved to Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I would like to know your opinion about this issue.--Mevarus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Saturn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Senn. 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) 12:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason

I removed the material as it did not pass WP:VERIFY because the page cited is inaccessible. Can you access it? The other ref was just a quote from what I saw. I have seen others do similar things before. I have no intention of being disruptive or anything similar to that. So if you can verify it, then I am fine with your revert. AcidSnow (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course; I have the book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Your edit summary made it seem like you thought I was only being disruptive. AcidSnow (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You were, even if you were acting in mistaken good faith. Why would you assume editors are lying about what a book says? There is no Wikipedia policy requiring all print sources to be visible on Google Books.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I never did and nor was disruption my desire. It seems pretty odd to claim that considering that all I did was state that it was unverifiable. So it seems to be you that fails to grasp WP:GOODFAITH. Anyways, It's true that Wikipedia poses no policy regarding Google Books. However, it does have one regarding verifying content. According to the policy, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". As anyone can see, my revert was just and so was yours since you state that you "have the book". That's being said, if you want to delete this conversation like the rest of the ones here, then feel free to do so since this is your talk page. In the end, you can believe what you want but it changes nothing. AcidSnow (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the material in the first place; check the edit history. Your assumption that editors might be lying about the contents of the book is the failure to assume good faith. The material is verifiable if you purchase a copy or find one in a library.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*, you must be joking at this point. If you read the policy you know that wither it's true or not doesn't matter, only if it's verifiable. So it doesn't matter wither I assumed anything. In fact, I never did. If I did, then can you please provided diffs or anything backing your claims? If not I will ask you drop them as it's getting quite annoying at this point. All you are doing is violating PERSONALATTACK and WP:GOODFAITH. AcidSnow (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Think so? Take this conversation to WP:ANI. I'm just trying to teach you how Wikipedia works, although you are too obstinate to listen. (In fairness, there may also be a language gap, as it seems English may not be your native tongue).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem fair for you since for all I know this could be an isolated incident. "too obstinate to listen", making more attacks does not help your case. Why don't you just provide diffs for your accusations against me? You seem pretty confident that your right considering that you claim your teaching me "how Wikipedia works". Though, it seems that you have opted out of it. As such, I will ask you once again to drop it. AcidSnow (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant diff is this one, in which you delete a print source not accessible via Google Books, citing WP:VERIFY. Your edit summary had nothing to do with the motivation for your deletion, which was transparently political. I would like to assume this was an isolated incident on your part, but would be more easily convinced if you had admitted error, rather than posting these lengthy rants.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis

Why have you reverted my edit? It's grammatically and factually correct, I haven't changed the meaning of the sentence, nor have I changed the original sentence structure: the Mega Drive was released in Japan in 1988, later known as the Genesis in North America. You can rewrite an equally factually correct sentence from the North American perspective: "the Genesis was released in North America in 1989 (released in Japan in 1988 and Europe in 1990 as the Mega Drive)" if you really wish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.143.227 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I've written on the wrong user page by mistake – please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.143.227 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)