User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Orphaned non-free image File:NiGHTs into Dreams Spring Valley.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NiGHTs into Dreams Spring Valley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

The wording "these claims are dubious" implies that Roger Hector may be a liar or a fantasist. Whereas the cited source concludes:

Sega-16 has absolutely no reason to doubt Roger Hector’s word, as he has contributed to several articles for the site, and his information has always been spot-on. Both he and Kalinske put Jackson at Sega during this period, talking with game designers, which heavily suggests that something was being done [with Jackson], at least informally. Most likely, Hector was going to pitch the idea to his superiors once a complete score had been done and enough of the game was ready to be shown.

– Smyth\^talk 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can selectively quote a source:

• "One has to wonder why Roger Hector would remain silent about such star power being added to such a major release’s development. He didn't tell Latham, who was heading game testing at the time and had been present at the meetings about the game. He didn't tell Pam Kelly, who was in charge of the game's marketing or Bill White, Sega's VP of marketing at the time, and he didn't tell Tom Kalinske, president of the company's American branch. Who then, did he tell? Surely someone at the company, outside of STI, was aware that Michael Jackson, perhaps the most popular entertainer in the world at the time, was working on Sega's flagship franchise. How does one keep such a thing a secret?... Can you imagine Sega "firing" Michael Jackson? Moreover, can you imagine someone as popular as Jackson working with the leader in 16-bit hardware of the time, and not a smidgen of advertising emerging from such a tandem?... If it's true, then Jackson went on and took music he originally scored for a Sonic game and reworked them for future albums, where they eventually became "Stranger in Moscow" and "Blood on the Dance Floor." He basically got fired from Sega, but he used music that was for its game for himself? Jackson was more creative than that...We have a senior producer, SOA's marketing director, and its president all mentioning that nothing was ever written up between the company and MJ. This doesn't mean he never worked on anything; it just means that it was never put into contract. From a legal standpoint, this means that the possibility of Jackson's compositions making their way into Sonic 3 in any form are quite slim, and in turn it supports the whole "inspiration" theory... There's no denying that there's something there, something certain people perhaps either cannot or do not want to comment on, but the fact that even Tom Kalinske himself has no knowledge of contract being signed is pretty hard evidence of nothing solid ever coming out of such collaboration."

Thus, Wikipedia's "Various interviews have made it clear that any involvement Jackson may have been done without the knowledge of Sega's executives or marketing staff, and no contracts or formal agreements had ever been made." There's no reason to water down "executives or marketing staff" with a "may have" or remove the bit about "no contracts or formal agreements", and claiming the latter is not in the source is manifestly untrue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that no formal agreements were made, and you can see that it wasn't me who introduced that grammatically-incorrect "may have". My only point is that the article, as it stands, casts doubt on Roger Hector's honesty, which is something the source explicitly does not do. – Smyth\^talk 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks

Seeing as you did not reply to me at the Jumping Flash FAC it looks like I'm going to have to talk to you here. Jumping Flash! is an article I care about deeply, and I myself have worked hard at bringing the article to GA and FA since April. Insulting me, my work, and the article by saying "this article is a sloppy mess that should not have been promoted to GA" and then using the FAC by judging me saying that it "says it all about his seriousness as an editor" is completely out of order. I said I appreciate you taking the time to check the article and I thanked you for your comments, but whenever I review an article (I've reviewed nearly 100) and when it does not meet the GA criteria, I politely tell the nominator the problems of the article and saying that it doesn't meet the criteria at this time instead of needlessly attacking the editor and using the review as an excuse to judge their capability as an editor. After two years of abuse on this website, I've had enough. I'm giving you a choice now, either you apologise to me or I'll move this forward. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 13:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, forgive me, but may I butt in? Jaguar, another editor expressing an honest view on an article that you have worked on is not a 'personal attack'. You need to honestly ask yourself, Is the criticism valid? Is this an opportunity for me to swallow my pride and grow as an editor? Might I also be so bold as to suggest that, if you cannot even take someone questioning your "seriousness" as a Wikipedia editor, you need to develop a thicker skin. Criticism, even the constructive variety, is not a pleasant way to learn, but it is unfortunately one of the best.

Anyway, all my best wishes. Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a very thick skin after dealing with people like this, but under no grounds can any review be used to judge anyone's capability as an editor. Working with people like this makes Wikipedia a very unpleasant place. Anyway I'm dropping this for now, I'm not going to let somebody on the internet ruin my Christmas. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sega wiki page

I have to ask why did you remove my edits in the Sega page

I citied all my sources correctly.

First, I left the Sega Studios section in it's seperate article, as requested, to shorten the article.

The 2005-present section before is not very optimal, as it details the year to year financial performance and only Sega West activities and games, which is not consistent with the history detailed before and other gaming companies on Wikipedia. So I think it is better to summarize it, with official milestones featured on their website and statements from annual investor reports from Sega Sammy Holdings. I also removed the best selling game being Sonic the Hedgehog 2 bit, becuase it is not accurate anymore, and I thought it would be better to summarize the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise in it's own paragraph.

I removed Sega v. Accolade, because it has it's own article. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I will bring this matter to the Sega talk page, which is where further discussion belongs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is brewing at Massacre at Huế, again...

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, long time since we've last made contact, and I hope you have a great 2015 so far. But, the same exact nightmare over this same article might be returning, under the account dino nam [any relation to the banned MiG, idk]. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

May I butt in? http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg … I saw the montclair.edu and immediately grew suspicious, then went there and confirmed that the ~furgg is for Grover Furr. The guy is an absolute fruitcake, a professor of mediaeval English who thinks he's a historian. He doesn't even think the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939—I kid you not. The fact his website is being used tells you everything you need to know; I wouldn't trust anything that editor has added. OK, now butting out. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my 2015 has not been off to a good start, and my editing will be curtailed for at least a little while longer. I doubt I will be able to contribute anything this month. Best of luck,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear about the rough events that's going on for you. I wish you all the best in pulling through and that you obtain a favorable, good outcome Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

There will never be a consensus on the Sega article

Was there previously, with all the edits that were made that I deleted?

You still haven't responded to me in the Talk section of the Sega article. Until you do, I will revert the edits again.

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Monkey Ball (video game), 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) 09:00, 21 January 2015 (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)

Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy these past few months.

Anyways, if I remember correctly (no need to remember since I can simply read that discussion) I asked you to provide diffs that supported that I believed you had lied about the book, engaged in bad faith, etc? It seems that you can't prove anything since you have now switched to claiming that my motivates were "transparently political". You even stated yourself that the "only relevant diff" in this discussion is this one. Ironically, it in fact supports none of your accusations against me. If my intentions had been as such why didn't I remove other things to fit in with my supposedly "political agenda"? Easy, your accusations are simply baseless and nothing more. Even now confronted about this you have begun to call my responses "lengthy rants". However, they are all far from that since all I did was respond to your WP:PERSONALATTACKS and other baseless accusations. Sadly, nothing has changed despite my attempt to get you to cease them. As such I have asked for a higher power to resolve this issue. Seeing how you believe you're teaching me "how Wikipedia works" it should go smoothly for you.

By the way, after obtaining a copy of the book it states nothing about the attacks on page 257 but rather on page 205. AcidSnow (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the first paragraph of page 257:

By the Israeli account, the ceasefire was not observed. According to their reckoning, 270 terrorist actions were carried out by the PLO in the year following the ceasefire in Israel, the occupied territories, and on the Jordanian and Lebanese borders, and another twenty acts of terrorism were committed against Israeli or Jewish targets. Some 300 people were injured, of which twenty-nine died.

Good luck with the rest of your tirade.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Who doesn't like stroopwafels, ffs? YeOldeGentleman (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sega Rally

Just wanted to give you a very belated thanks for your wonderful November 2014 addition to Sega Rally Championship. You put in some great info into the Development section and I really appreciate how well you integrated it with the stuff I had already put in; not everybody takes the time to do a proper job of that. Nice work.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work, yourself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sowwy

I read you're tied up irl, but your friend is busy again at the 'US support for Khmer Rouge' page. He's badly mangling sources (see talk)—part was just an honest mistake, but another is simply outrageous. It's not really an article that interests me too much, so do you fancy taking action on him? If you don't have the time and/or inclination, I will do so myself. Best etc. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you

Sorry for the late response as I was away for the last 2 weeks, but anyways, I share your disinterest in Wiki political disputes as well which explains why my activity is increasingly shifted onto other topics, ranging from geography to gastronomy. Great meeting you again, Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Super Monkey Ball (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Super Monkey Ball (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SuperHamster -- SuperHamster (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again - just a heads up that I've started adding a few comments if you wanted to take a look and/or provide input and/or make any changes. Cheers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Super Monkey Ball (video game)

The article Super Monkey Ball (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Super Monkey Ball (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SuperHamster -- SuperHamster (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Concept of "undue"

I've noticed that this user has a tendency to remove certain kinds of relevant, referenced information with the note "undue." I assume this refers to the Undue weight policy which pertains to the representation of minority points of view in a topic overview page. It does not allow one to arbitrarily remove good faith contributions to an article because one does not consider the selection of facts covered to be within the specific purview of what the editor feels is part of a general overview for a topic. While the revert you reverted might not be a super great example, if you'll glance through the user's contribution history, there is a tendency to remove information which doesn't specifically violate any undue weight policy, to my reading. Andrevan@ 06:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

S0mewhat Damaged05

I'm pretty sure the the editor you have encountered on United States and state terrorism is a sockpuppet of Horhey. The type of info he has added about El Salvador and Phoenix program is virtually identical to what Horhey and his sock-puppets added.Stumink (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop following me

Isn't it a form of harassment to check my contribs, then go to articles you've never edited before purely to revert me? How describing a historian as "documenting" something is loaded language is not yet apparent to me. For example, Raul Hilberg's Destruction has these things called "footnotes", which point to the documentation he based himself on. One therefore says, "Hilberg documented such-and-such." Thank you for your time. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I like it when you follow me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are both among the 1,596 on my Watchlist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sure! That old chestnut… Ah, and to think I was about to ask if you had that idiom in Yankland—you own it!

Now, listen up, American worm: I have 614 pages on my watchlist so far. I'd also ask you to keep in mind that I have incredible power.

Also, please, do not misunderstand my keeping out that edit on Juan Cole. It honestly was just that Mediaite (sp?) cannot be considered RS, as well you knew. I am not interested in defending that maggot—"Let's invade Libya! It will be totally cool!"—because Cole pronounces himself a person of the Left. If you want to fire reams of criticism into his article, be my guest. Truth told, there is already some embarrassingly precarious synth criticism of him inserted by me. I ought to snip it out, but I just can't find the time, you know?

Continuing with Cole: I do think the bit about the "far right-wing Jews" is just the usual attempt at smear with antisemitism (he's a critic of Israel, as you know). He, of course, knew this would happen, which is why he phrased himself so carefully: not just some Jews who are right-wing, but far right-wing!! Yikes, talk about covering one's buttocks. He should have known it would do him no good, for criticism of Israel means you are painted indelibly as a target. Still, these are only my thoughts and experiences and sensual appurtenances.

I have been sad to read analyses saying (WP:SAY) that Wikipedia editorship is declining with the uptake of tablets and smart phones.

This has gone off at two different tangents now, neither of which is interesting, so I end here. Let us now return to collegial editing. With ♥ --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No-one accused Cole of being anti-Semitic—It was merely pointed out that his assertions have no basis in fact. Perhaps the haste with which he blamed the Jews was not the result of antisemitism, but merely the product of his desire to smear his political foes. Either way, it's nothing to admire.

Consider the following propositions: "Majority rule in the Middle East may only empower theocratic demagogues. There may not be an American yearning for freedom inside every one of our little brown brothers. The great crusade to make the world safe for democracy may not be applicable to faraway lands with vastly different cultures than our own. Change should be gradual. The best-governed states in the Arab world are the monarchies, not the demotic regimes." Does the stance I just described belong on the Left, or the Right? How can any Leftist resist spreading progressivism, secularism, pluralism, and feminism by the sword if necessary, or seriously entertain the notion that Arabs must be ruled by strongmen for their own good? If Bush was wrong to blow up Iraq due to his sincere belief in building a modern Westernized state in the heart of the Arab world, what does that make Obama for bombing Libya into chaos without any similarly optimistic intentions of picking up the pieces?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, TTAAC!

"he blamed the Jews…" He did not blame "the Jews"; he spoke about some "far right-wing" Jews. Do you wonder why I believe Cole was the target of a typical antisemitism smear? Again, I do not like Cole. Here's an RS on Cole's blog post, if you feel like adding it.

"Does the stance I just described belong on the Left, or the Right?" Both and neither. I mean, you hear people on the Left and the Right talking about how there's a good little American/European inside every stinking Arab waiting to get out; but I wouldn't say this is a left-wing or a right-wing view—just ludicrous, imperialistic racism.

"what does that make Obama?" I assume this question stems from an assumption that I like Obama, or would at least seek to defend him because he calls himself a liberal. (I hate liberals). If my assumption is correct, then your assumption is mistaken—though obviously the mistake is forgiveable, since we do not know each other. I loath Obama in many ways more than I loath Bush.

I urge you to reconsider your opposition to nekkidness. With ♥ --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam infobox

multiple sources within the section prove the low estimates wrong. also, it's clearly old and outdated. can't see any reason to keep old, proven inaccurate, sources in the infobox. SyriaWarLato (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sega Master System

Hello, I just wanted to state the reason on why I added that to the Sega Master System article. After I noticed on a sentence stated on the Atari 2600 article that the Atari 2600 was surpassed by the Sega Master System as the longest-lived console. Seqqis (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Here's some food for you. With ♥ YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

don't insult

if you want to make changes or delete, you should communicate your reasosns as to why in the talk page. insulting and serial blanking will achieve nothing, but get you reported and blocked. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a different response written originally, but I just realized you're SyriaWarLato's sockpuppet! Cut it out or you can guess who will be reported and blocked.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

but of course I am. if you think i'm a sock, go ahead and report me. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

wow. instead of trying to talk it over your actually use the sock puppet excuse to push your POV. that's low man. Go ahead. report me. but be sure i'll be reporting you for language and edit warring. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ameteurdemographer: I suggest you rethink your hostility. TTAAC would not lash out without provocation. Perhaps you need to reflect on your own behaviour in this little episode. Certainly, using sock puppets is no way to earn people's respect. Thank you for your time. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to suck up to me just because I didn't report you, YOG.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed you had reported me. Anyway, I am not sucking up; this is merely the most recent manifestation of a deep respect for you. I will buttress you in times of difficulty. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Judge George Daniels edit removal appeal

Naterade21 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Hello, I see that you removed the 'Important Cases' section I added to the Judge George B. Daniels article, stating Seems like a pretty standard interpretation of existing law. No evidence this is particularly notable. I would like to both appeal your removal of this section, especially based on the premises you stated.

Specific edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_B._Daniels&oldid=prev&diff=683575593 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterade21 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, to first assert my originally clean position before your argument arose, I do not believe that I violated any BLP core policies; 1) Neutral point of view - there was nothing stated, or inferred, that suggested I, or the sourced articles, have any bias towards the individual 2) Verifiability - two sources were given of reasonably reputable status; Reuters and NY times. 3) No original research - again, my edit almost mirrored the language of the two independent (not my own) articles, with only grammatical shifts for clarity.

Additionally, none of the other BLP considerations appear to have been violated, as all included information in the article is both relevant to the individual, and clearly in the public domain and on record.

Now, as to address your stated argument that it was "a pretty standard interpretation of the existing law"; that is correct, I agree, and anyone should agree with that, but that is not makes, or even doesn't make, a case more/less "notable" or important. I would believe, as I hope both you and anyone would, that the ambiguous terms may be relatively interpenetrated, however, one should concede that any activity that gains global attention (or news, as in this case) could and should be considered important. Simply because this, or any, judge did not rule outside of standard interpretation, does not make the decision any more or less important or 'notable' if it was ruled in line with standard interpretation (as it was). I take for example a few cases in which in issue was considered important information or news (determined by it's reach or length of reporting), although it was in line with the 'standard interpretation of existing law':

1- The Terri Schiavo case; although the issue was one of national, if not global, news reporting, the ultimate outcome was that her life support "After appeals through the federal court system upheld the original decision to remove the feeding tube, staff at the Pinellas Park hospice facility disconnected the feeding tube on March 18, 2005, and Schiavo died on March 31, 2005." Although this case describes a contested legal position via appeal (much like this issue edit I posted), and the ultimate action taken in the end was 'pretty standard interpretation of existing law' (medical), it did & does not make the issue/case any less important or notable, as there continues to still remain an entire Wiki page on the issue.

2- The Execution of Rizana Nafeek. Although the contested evidence on appeal to the case was brought to the Saudi Court (no intent of focusing on SA), the court still ruled in accordance with the "standard interpretation of existing law", and she was executed, amid the presented appeal evidence.. however, again we still see, not only an edit, but an entire page on this issue. This, again, is because although it still may be a legal action in accordance with the law, it does not mean that the issue is/was not important or notable.

3- Judge Thurgood Marshal. Even on his wiki page, one of his notable cases (as included on his page, as it was apparently notable) describes the case of Murray v. Pearson, in which an action was overturned via lawful appeal, in accordance with "standard interpretation of existing law" (constitutional), in this case invoking standard constitutional law as "Compliance with the Constitution cannot be deferred at the will of the state".

Essentially, the point being made here is that the rejection & deletion of my addition to Judge Davis's page is not substantiated by the claim that the case was simply "standard interpretation of the law" or that is was not notable. I think we could (and should) agree that something notable would be something that at least gains national attention, but especially global attention. Allow me to source those who (both reasonable reputable and/or far reaching) thought the issue was important enough to make an article about this very issue/case/my edit alone:

1)Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN0RT2ZP20150930 2)Aljazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/saudi-arabia-september-11-150929233729163.html 3) The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/30/us-judge-dismisses-september-11-victims-case-against-saudi-arabia?channel=us 4) AP (Associated Press): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SEPT_11_LAWSUITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-29-20-35-38 5) RT (Russia Today); https://www.rt.com/usa/317129-saudi-terror-funding-dismissed/ 6) WND: http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/u-s-judge-tosses-911-case-against-saudis/ 7) The Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-is-dismissed-as-defendant-in-9-11-lawsuits-1443581766 8) The Hill: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/255419-judge-dismisses-9-11-charges-against-saudi-arabia 9) Deutsche Welle (DW): http://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097 10) Haaets: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.678115 .. and ongoing..

Obviously, we can see that the case / issue was both notable & important to both reputable and global news reporting agencies. So ultimatly, I additionally refute the 2nd part of your claim and subsequent action of removing the addition to Judge Daniel's page on the premise of it not being 'notable', as this clearly is not that case, and the issue was (is) of note and importance.

Respectfully

Naterade21 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The AP reports on terror-related cases all the time, but that does little to demonstrate long-term significance or notability. See WP:RECENTISM. While I don't feel that strongly about this, I am not convinced that Judge Daniels himself is sufficiently notable to warrant an article based on the sources provided.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Foreign support for the Khmer Rouge

I was going to add information about China, France, UK, Singapore and Thailand. Sorry for hurting your feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.145.52 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Given to you with the utmost respect, but also with profound admiration, affection, and so on. Have a great weekend.

YeOldeGentleman (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting

Concerning this edit, my counting of two games was correct, but I did not read that sentence further to catch the Japanese game and was confused since there's no mention of that third game in the Release section further down. Sorry for the error and thank you for that snarky edit summary. 72.218.244.159 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash!

Hi, I'm not sure if you have the time or would be willing but I've requested a peer review for Jumping Flash!, which can be found here. It's improved since the FAC last year, and I've removed most of the content that didn't follow the sources. New additions have also been found and added to the article, which I will slowly work on once the peer review has gathered more comments. I know you're good with sources, so any small spotchecking would be a great help and a potential pain-reliever for its second FAC. Anything would be welcome. Regards JAGUAR  23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have the time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. JAGUAR  13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 13:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your scrutiny, precision, and community service are more than admirable. I salute your editing and enjoy your tendency to incorrigibility, which brightens up Wikipedia no end. Cheers! YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War

Partly so I can understand where you are coming from, which books do you recommend on Iraq War? Just a few, and obviously only if you have the time and can be bothered. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I considered myself an expert on the topic, or that most of what I know about Iraq comes from books (though I did consult Charles R. H. Tripp's History of Iraq). To understand Bush's position, Decision Points is as good a resource as any as far as I'm concerned. Before I realized the Bush foreign policy was insanely far to the Left, I read a lot of Christopher Hitchens.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I realized the Bush foreign policy was insanely far to the Left…

Ha ha ha! You are amusing, I'll give you that! Best wishes etc. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Saturn

Hello. The reason I moved that onto its respective section is simply because it would be too biased to put it in the intro paragraph. There are several reasons for its failure, not just the Sonic X-Treme cancellation, so putting that in the intro would assume a reader that that was the main reason why, which is false. I personally think that the surprise 1995 launch was the main reason behind the failure, but whatever my opinion is, I don't think any 'factor' should be put in the intro. --G&CP (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't think the lead should include any relevant information because that would be "biased"? What an, er, interesting approach.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Regardless of your personal feelings about Christopher Hitchens, he is a "person of note" and his opinions presented in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger are legitimate criticisms of Kissinger's foreign policy. Furthermore, it is important when stating the praise heaped upon Kissinger that criticism is included also, for the purposes of objectivity. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism should come from reliable academic sources, not polemicists like Hitchens. Kissinger's article is already likely in violation of WP:BLP, although there is little point in contesting the violations due to the sheer number of drive-by editors seeking to add contentious claims. Adding extreme inflammatory hyperbole from a non-expert like Hitchens to the lead is, however, too blatant a violation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would explain what you mean by "non-expert polemicist". Hitchens was widely (by senior academics and first-person observers, including Roger Morris)) acclaimed for assembling from primary sources the forensic evidence against Kissinger for his involvement in the orchestration of the events in Chile, for example. Hitchens very evidently went about the task in a highly expert manner. sirlanz Sirlanz 05:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As expert as his attacks on Bill Clinton and Mother Theresa, or his claims about Saddam's close ties to al Qaeda? (I think we have some more leads to update!) What historical training did Hitchens have? Was he an expert on international law? Very evidently, "war criminal" as uttered by Christopher Hitchens is a polemical broadside on a par with the rhetoric of Ann Coulter or any other pundit, rather than a serious critique. Coming from an outspoken advocate of worldwide Leninist revolution who praised the Viet Cong as "valiant guerrillas", it is nothing short of a farce. (BTW, it's interesting that you bring up Morris, who on numerous unrelated issues I have found has a propensity to invent quotations with no basis in the historical record, selectively edit quotes to reverse their meaning, and cite sources that say the exact opposite of what he claims they do or are completely irrelevant even when said sources later go on the record as disputing his characterization of the facts—that Morris briefly served on the NSC before resigning over the invasion of Cambodia does not make him an expert historian, to say the very least!)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we can work out who you don't like very much. And that seems to be distorting your sense of the truth because, when you make your case against Hitchens as "non-expert", you do so in the face of his attendance at Balliol, Oxford, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics, which begs the question: what level of "historical training" do require as a pre-qualification to be an accepted source of controversial comment? The man spoke with the greatest erudition on a wide range of subjects and was able to do so at the drop of a hat without notes; his expertise and speed in advocacy outclassed many a recognised expert. And we're dealing here with work on Kissinger, not Clinton, Mother Theresa or anyone else. So focus on the work at hand. Given his exquisite academic training and praise from at least one professor of international law (Alfred Rubin, Tufts University Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Professor of International Law) for its reported (I confess I've not read it and should have, I accept, to comment at all) detailed forensic analysis from primary documents, how could he not be considered "expert" at least within this narrow scope? So I think you've demonstrated deep bias (POV) undermining your objection to the text added. Whether it should stay is fairly debatable but your contribution to the debate so far is, as I've intimated initially, not very helpful, so let's narrow the focus and make the case on each side more effective. sirlanz Sirlanz 11:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon further reflection and pondering the page as a whole, my view is the addition to the lead section may not satisfy balance guidelines, given it seems a small minority view (which is not to suggest it's wrong), and the point is handsomely covered in the perceptions section anyway. sirlanz Sirlanz 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

About Morris, I found your comments a real tickle. I don't know anything of him except to say that he convicted himself from his own mouth on the first count of your indictment: he stated that it was a key feature of his task at NSC to doctor transcripts of what was said during Paris peace talks with Thieu et al. in order to enhance Kissinger's image! In the face of that confession, nolle prosequi from me. sirlanz Sirlanz 15:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TheTimesAreAChanging, you seem to be trying to inject your own political opinions into this Wiki article, by censoring any criticism of Kissinger. This is a very serious issue. You should be reminded that Hitchens is not by any means the only one to accuse Kissinger of war crimes -- indeed, the man cannot travel to several countries in Europe and South America for fear of being arrested. Hitchens is simply the most notable critic of Kissinger, having written a book that details the actions committed by him that can be legally construed as war crimes. It is important to add this angle to the intro for balance issues, as the rest of the intro is largely favorable toward Kissinger, including as it does the opinion that he is the most effective secretary of state in US history. I am going to restore what you deleted, although I will rewrite it and add more sources to clarify that the accusations of war crimes are not restricted to Hitchens. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting rather frustrating now. You have no problem with the opinions in the lead that praise Kissinger, but you reject any source that suggests he is being pursued for war crimes, including an Oxford-educated public intellectual (Christopher Hitchens) and a mainstream US news network (CNN). It seems to me you have a vested interest here; you may not personally like people trying to convict Kissinger of war crimes, but your personal feelings are irrelevant to an objective biography. Personally, I don't know if Kissinger is a war criminal; all I know is that several notable people, including journalists and human rights campaigners, believe he is. If you do not want their opinions in the lead, then you should be fair and also delete the opinions that praise Kissinger. I am tempted to undo your deletions, but I am genuinely interested in resolving this with sound editorial judgement, so I have marked this as an active dispute and will now await a 3rd opinion. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The opinion is not that of a CNN contributor. CNN makes it clear that this is a fringe view and there isn't going to be a successful "citizen's arrest" of Kissinger anytime soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The opinion does not need to be that of a CNN contributor. It is written by one, and points out that both a UK human rights campaigner and a Spanish judge have attempted to indict Kissinger for war crimes. This illustrates my assertion that many people feel strongly enough about Kissinger's actions to accuse him of war crimes. And their opinion should be included if we are going to include the opinions of those who regard Kissinger as the "most effective Secretary of State". And no, it can't be dismissed as just a "fringe view" as Christopher Hitchens was a well-known public intellectual, even if you personally don't like him. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I used to be a big fan of the Hitch, but that doesn't make him an expert in international law, or the most scrupulous fact-checker. Hitchens also claimed that LBJ installed the Greek junta (the truth is exactly the opposite) and peddled the discredited myth that Jimmy Carter ordered Saddam's invasion of Iran. (In fact, out of all of the articles that I read in which he repeated these claims, in none did Hitchens even hint at what his sources or evidence might have been.) Hitchens specialized in scurrilous and hyperbolic allegations, like his description of Bill Clinton as a psychopathic serial rapist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

While Hitchens may have had a penchant for hyperbole (what polemicist doesn't?) I think your criticism of him downplays all the great contributions he made. His book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger is on the whole extremely assiduous, methodical, and rigorous. However, in an attempt to resolve this dispute, I have added a last line to the article lead that makes no mention of Hitchens, and instead refers to accusations against Kissinger by human rights lawyers and activists, which are frequent enough to ensure he is careful about where he travels. I have included sources from the New York Times (which points out Kissinger's travel fears) and the Times of Israel (which highlights one of the many attempts to perform a citizen's arrest on him). I hope this provides some middle-ground between us, so we can move on to better things. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you dropped that Global Research article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Guatemalan coup

Pointy editing much? Please find relevant positions in reliable secondary sources, instead of trying to throw in barely relevant commetary of a POV nature. Wild accusations about the communist party of Wikipedia are not going to get you anywhere; the article was GA reviewed by an editor who is probably Wikipedia's most prolific writer on central America. Is he a member of the party too, then? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably just a fellow traveler.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[1] Jokes are in general are quite alright with me. When they are used as the justification for a significant change in an article, not so much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Zawahiri and the FSB

I won't protest your revert at al-Qaeda. Not a big deal, just FYI: The sentence isn't relevant to fatwas, but it really doesn't fit anywhere else either. The first source isn't reliable. Litvinenko gets the date wrong. The allegation really isn't credible. Litvinenko had an ax to grind and what type of training would the FSB give to Zawahiri in 1997? He'd been involved in terrorism for 20 years at that point. I couldn't find any supporting sources beyond fellow defector Konstantin Preobrazhensky. I'm really surprised the BBC included the allegation in Litvinenko's obit. Google "Saga of Dr. Zawahri Sheds Light On the Roots of al Qaeda Terror" to get past the WSJ paywall for that article. No mention of Russia training Zawahiri. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the allegations are implausible, and I would not contest deletion on those grounds.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran–United States relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Armitage. 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) 15:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• You know this isn't vandalism, TTAAC. Disruptive, perhaps, but not vandalism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Your recent editing history at Genocides in history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Genocides in history

I think that everyone already made their comments on article talk page, and the disagreement is obvious. If you care about this subject, I think you should start an WP:RfC about it asking "Should the Indonesian killings be included on this page?" I probably do not care about it enough to start an RfC myself. Happy editing and keep your effort to improve pages on political subjects! My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the same boat as you. An article like Genocides in history is probably forever doomed to be a mass of contradictions. It's better to focus on subjects where progress is more readily attainable. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

True. But I posted an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Re: [2]. First, I didn't "hurl accusations at others" in any of my edit summaries. So please don't make false accusations. On the other hand, *your* edit summary of "Learn to read sources before hurling accusations at others" IS in fact a personal attack. So cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, may I ask how you came to the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Remark Volunteer Marek is an extremely irritating individual. Sadly, he crops up all over the place. Don't let him draw you in. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you think?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do I know you? I don't think we've interacted before. Care to explain your interest in my person? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I have any interest in you personally.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not you, Mr.BowlandSpoon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. To return to your earlier question to me, I have the page on my Watchlist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@BowlAndSpoon: Your WP:PERSONAL and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour has escalated to the point where it has become evident that you're WP:NOTHERE. I suggest that you stop traversing article talk and user talk pages specifically to throw your weight around. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I suggest that you stop traversing article talk and user talk pages specifically to throw your WPs around. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Auto-block

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Enlish 1102". The reason given for Enlish 1102's block is: "We need to deal with the copyright issues. Please respond here regarding what you are doing

• Blocking administrator: Doc James (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock cleared. PhilKnight (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)