Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 20 August 2012

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, TheTimesAreAChanging, for recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to articles on international politics, and for persevering in spite of earlier friction with some of the community's policies and guidelines. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam war

Is the relevant portion of FeuerHerd (2005/2006) the 321st minute, or is that the length of the work? Please cite the time range when death totals are discussed. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean citation 9: "Aaron Ulrich (editor); Edward FeuerHerd (producer and director) (2005 & 2006) (Box set, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Full Screen, NTSC, Dolby, Vision Software). Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 (Documentary). Koch Vision. Event occurs at 321 minutes. ISBN 1-4172-2920-9." This is used for the estimate of 1.1 million North Vietnamese military deaths, as well as Kingdom of Thailand military deaths. It sounds like it occurs at the 321st minute. But I didn't add this source to the article. So I wouldn't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

TheTimesAreAChanging You should take at look at these pages if your concerned about NPOV, bad sourcing and/or too much info:

Guatemalan Civil War

Salvadoran Civil War

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

The user Horhey420 who added a lot to the Foreign Policy of Reagan added a lot of info to these pages. It is quite alot of good info but he has made little attmept to add counterpoints (defenses of Reagan and Carter) and I think the articles may end up violating neutrality. There really need to be some defense of US policy because virtually all of the quotes are condemnations of US policy. Think you might be interested to take a look. Stumink

I may do so. The Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration article was just such a mess; it read more like a blog, and I couldn't ignore the problems. I figured that there were other slanted articles, but I'll just have to see how bad the bias is and how much time I have to fight for any changes. I will say, though, that the third article you listed isn't particularly egregious. In any case, thanks for your suggestion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Other pages would be Contras and CIA activities in Guatemala by the way.Stumink

Indonesian killings

Thank you. You're braver than me. :) why must all these types of articles have a united states involvement section? Lol - which style guide makes them apparently mandatory? Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the article except that section, and it's style (and length!) had long bothered me, but I did not know how to go about fixing it, apart from just removing it which would not have stuck. Your changes are just about perfect. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with merbabu - btw interesting all this stuff about the usa - I am sure somewhere in the recesses of my long filed away secondary sources in my storage boxes (all pre-internet) - the british embassy was a up to its eyeballs and may have been feeding the us embassy or operatives with material... SatuSuro 09:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people always prefer to emphasise the real or imagined US role in things, and not the role of other states. You would think that the US (and not the USSR) sold Saddam most of his weapons in the war with Iran, or that the US gave more aid to the junta in Argentina than France, or that the CIA overthrew Mossadegh all by its lonesome (and not at the request of the British). I don't doubt that the UK was involved in Indonesia to some extent, but I don't have the sources to back that up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is not repeated on the Indonesian article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey edit warring

His restores without consensus are not acceptable. But I don't know the best way to respond. His actions and comments don't suggest he will respond to or respect rational or standard Misplaced Pages procedures. You will also see from his contribs that he has received some bad advice from another editor. --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PS - it appears to me that the three of you might have some history. If that is so, and as I already said on the talk page, it would be nice if these battles could be kept off this page and that we focus on the specific issues. I and others really don't care about the other troubles you may have had. just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk)|

I'll discuss his edits with him. I'll handle it. I don't want an edit war. Thanks for the tip about the bad advice he got.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please don't split other editor's comments up like this. It makes it really hard for a third person (like me!) to understand who's saying what.

Thanks for your work. will be monitoring what happens. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? I'll have to watch that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another one of your changes just got reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted it back, because he's so clearly, blatantly in the wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This might be helpful: Scroll down to slow revert]--Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being reported for censorship

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Horhey420 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*grabs popcorn* --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this another joke? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For your reference...

The archive of the section on ANI opened by Horhey can be found here. For your reference. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(as for the recent blocking, IMO probably best if we let the admins carry most of that load - let's just chip in if really required. :-) Otherwise, the risk is a perception that things are murky. And perceptions are what counts unforunately. cheers) --Merbabu (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to worry about. I wasn't responsible for his being blocked; he was blocked before I could consult an admin. Nick-D noticed that virtually everything he added violated copyright. It's pretty clear cut.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Noble Lie

Sure TheTimesAreAChanging, I will do my best to communicate, although I haven't gotten the impression that this editor is an attentive listener. This sure is a frustrating edit war, eh? Best, CCS81 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is. Thanks again for your help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility Issue: Personal Attack vs. Sourced Editing

Hi...I called out the unsubstantiated, emotioned characterization of my recent edit as "offensive".it is obviously the knee jerk reaction of the user. This and my edit description thus is not a personal attack. This was in hopes of discouraging such knee-jerk edits and encouraging cooled, sourced editing. --Retrospector87 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK's reference to "offending" material that violated Misplaced Pages policy was not a statement that he was personally offended by your edits and therefore reverted--and hence deserved to be attacked as overly emotional.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Hello, I would like you ask you why the infobox doesn't show all the information written. Kevin4762 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Kevin4762

I'm wondering the same thing. I know nothing about infoboxes and I didn't create it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We really need to find an appropriate infobox rather than keep using the one designed for economists. Do either of you know how to design or modify a template to make it suitable for a businessperson? Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're only allowed to show the information that is allow by the economist template. That is why I changed it to person instead of economist. Kevin4762 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Kevin4762

I would like to ask you if it is possible to disallow the anonymous user to stop editing. I would enjoy cooperating with you, but the anonymous user is making it very difficult to. Kevin4762 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Kevin4762

TO K-E-V-I-N: Kevin, you are the one who changed the infobox from Economist to Person. Now however it has been changed back, not by you. So it is as it previously appeard, "Economist" and you are not explaining how any other users are preventing you from cooperating. One thing I urge you to do is read and give careful thought to my comments on the various talk pages so that collaboration can proceed without repetitive edits prior to consensus. Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TIME: I see you undid my contribution first, then checked as to why I did it. Consider what that might indicate about your attitude and objectivity.Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At least I did check. I shouldn't have to. That's what edit summaries are for. As a non-registered user with a history of edit warring on a BLP, you are under close scrutiny.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obamacare

You say: "Discuss". so please do so rather than just undo the edits again and again :) Talk:Paul_Ryan#.22Obamacare.22 Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Peter Schiff. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

The template was for the snarky "if you can read" comment in your edit summary. Because I used a canned template, it referred to removing your comments, which of course I can't do on an edit summary. Is this clearer now? Mesconsing (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Historical Fact

Yeah, but it says that his government ended in 1968 so I always get confused :P And didn't the Ba'athist coup in 1963 fail? I always thought the Ba'athist regime came in to power in 1968. 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the coup succeeded in 1963--but there were two coups that year! The Ramadan Revolution split power between Abdul Rahman Arif and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr; Arif purged the Ba'ath from the government in the November 1963 Iraqi coup d'état. The Ba'ath did not have the Presidency until 1968. However, the Ba'ath was the dominant faction in Qasim's cabinet, and had significant power from 1959 on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule

I didn't know that Qasim's government ended in 1963, I thought it was 1968. And the reason why I added the Pre-Ba'athist flag to the History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule was becuase Qasim's government was the regime before the Ba'athist Republic, so that's why I added Qasim's flag in the top right corner link, to represent the previous Iraqi government before the Ba'athist Republic of Iraq which was Qasim's

And with regards to the Totalitarian debate, I must insist that Ba'athist Iraq was Totalitarian in nature and was a Totalitarian Dictatorship as control was vested in one man which had a centrally controlled government that required complete subservience to the state and leader. Certainly it was a Dictatorship in some respect. I'm not saying Ba'athist Iraq's government was Totalitarianism which makes no sense, but it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship, of which I found referenced material to back up my claim. I just would like you to consider it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddam's Iraq was unquestionably totalitarian. But you should discuss your changes on the talk page. Do any other articles list "totalitarian government" under "government type"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, under "Government" on the Misplaced Pages article, it's listed as a form of government, as is a Constitutional republic or a Constitutional monarchy. Nazi Germany for example lists it's form of government as a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and since I've seen countries with a Constitutional republic or monarchy I though there would be nothing wrong with it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good argument. I restored it for now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea

This was a really bad idea. Never revert-war on someone else's talk page. Trust me on this one. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That was an accident. It was the result of an edit conflict, and I don't know why I clicked what I did.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Burden of Proof II, Son of Burden of Proof

Please take a look at WP:BRD. I think it explains why Viriditas insists that you have the burden of proof. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

‎I'm going to resist the urge to verbally abuse Viriditas in this edit summary, even though he verbally abuses me in his edit summaries.

Now you're reduced to accusing others of your own misdeeds and falsely portraying actual events in favor of a fantasy world you've created in your head? Really, this kind of delusional behavior reflects poorly on you. I seem to have to remind you that you wrote in your edit summary directed towards me, "More irrelevant rants from the same user that speculated about whether Ryan truly liked RATM". You wrote that at of 02:58, 20 August 2012. I then followed up with this reply, after which you began falsely accusing me of misdeeds over and again. Since the page history disputes your version of events, has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)