Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 9 October 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)

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)

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)

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)

Viriditas, the fact that the owner of this talk page has removed your previous edits on his talk page, suggests to me that he/she does not want to have this discussion on their talk page. If you feel you have a legitimate and significant complaint that should be investigated against an editor, then you should use the WP:ANI board. But take care with WP:BOOMERANG. Otherwise, maybe it's time to move on. That's just my opinion. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which explains why the "owner" (nobody owns their talk page, btw) continues to post on my talk page. Right. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then you keep posting here in retaliation then. Makes perfect sense. --Merbabu (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that the editor is a hypocrite who accuses other editors of his own faults is not "retaliation". Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, seems like you have it all under control. ciao. --Merbabu (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to control. If you think that's what it's all about, then I'll just delete this section. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, why are you even here? I have stopped commenting on your talk page. I have not called you a "hypocrite" "delusional","ridiculous" or a "troll", nor have I suggested that you cannot read English, nor have I resorted to swearing to make a point--whereas you have done all these things and more. Calling one of your off-topic comments "irrelevant" is not equivalent to your amazingly bad behavior. We both know that you only took interest in the Korean War article because I upset you. But what did I do to get you so upset? Let's go back to the cause of our current conflict: Your off-topic commentary on the Paul Ryan talk page. On that page, you made the following assertions based entirely on original research (and were challenged by several editors for doing so):

• "Well, I have a hard time believing that Ryan listens to the band as they are diametrically opposed to his belief system. It sounds like something he was told to say to attract attention from people his age and younger. It's like that time when they released Romney's playlist from his iPod. You don't really believe that was real or that he even knew who those bands were, do you? This is PR."
• "Then you're helping to promote PR. Funny how that works, isn't it? They want you to think that everything is black and white, that's how they control you, through your own bias. Does anyone really believe that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against The Machine? Anyone?"
• "Come on, guys, nobody believes this stuff. In March, Mitt Romney's office released his playlist with "Somebody Told Me" by The Killers on it. Can anyone see Romney listening to that song, with those lyrics? Obviously, his staffer put that on the list as a joke. And, I think Ryan is joking about liking Rage. He's getting massive media attention because of it, so it's working."

I naturally assumed that you were a new user who thought Misplaced Pages was a political message board. I politely responded, but gave you little attention. Then, you left another comment, on a topic unrelated to the band in question:

• "Unfortunately, in the United States, professional politicians rarely hold real jobs like average working people who pay 90% of the taxes. They tend to hold few qualifications for any actual duties involving decision making, and instead rely on trusted advisers to help them reach decisions. They are really just professional politicians who specialize in running for office, nothing more. In the United States, it is a prerequisite for the job that you must first be completely out of touch with the average person who must work for a living. Anyone who has ever held a real job or has made money from providing a service or creating a product that has helped contribute to their country is generally not eligible for office."

I labeled this last remark as "off-topic commentary". You did not challenge that label--in effect, you agreed that you were trolling. However, even though the text in question had nothing to do with RATM, you responded--not by addressing my concerns on the talk page of the relevant article--but by invading my talk page with comments like this:

• "You must be kidding. Are you claiming that Paul Ryan, an avowed conservative and lover of Ayn Rand, listens to the Marxist-inspired socialist music of Rage Against the Machine? Does that make sense to you? Because to normal people, that kind of contradiction doesn't make sense. Either he's lying or he's a Republican who loves listening to Marxist-inspired music. Which is it? Of course, everyone knows that politicians never lie, so I must conclude that Paul Ryan is a Marxist."

In that comment, you implied that I am not a "normal" person, and suggested that only Marxists are "allowed" to enjoy your precious band. I characterized your comments on my talk page as "spam". You proceeded with a series of flagrant violations of Misplaced Pages policy: First, you threatened me by writing "See you on the noticeboards"--although you never followed through on the threat. You described my edits as "bullshit". You claimed that I was a sockpuppet, and when I asked if that was a serious accusation, you replied: "About as serious as claiming that Paul Ryan was a Marxist". Of course, I never claimed Ryan is a Marxist--and yet it was you who wrote "I'm getting the distinct sense that there's a major communication problem that exists on your end, not mine" (!). Why the violations of WP:HOUND? Why the swearing, harassment, and name calling? If you really think that I was wrong to label your comments "off-topic", why didn't you challenge me? Why have you made this a personal vendetta? I may have no choice but to take this complaint to an administrator if you don't cease your behavior immediately. If you think you can intimidate me because you've been here longer and made far more edits, you're wrong. I have laid out the record of your behavior here, and it is damning. With regard to the Korean War, you actually made at least one legitimate point in your recent comments, and I will respond to you there in good faith. Don't bring it up here, please.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Chile

I'll reply back to you when I have time, maybe tommorow, on that page and notify you about any changes. We'll work something out. Bye. JTBX (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm incorporating your changes with regard to the Nixon administration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan comment

Um.... you just reverted my pro-Ryan edit by restoring a "gotcha" fact that plays into the anti-Ryan narrative that he is anti-defense in a way Romney recently criticized. Believe it or not, I actually do want the article to be balanced and NPOV, and I thought that "gotchas" like that were silly. So you made the article worse, and for that I am sad. But since I also want Ryan to lose the election, I suppose I can be happy that you're helping that to happen. Have a nice day. Homunq (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to TV news or campaign ads, so it didn't occur to me that Ryan was vulnerable on national defense. Looking at the article, all I see are passages that endlessly criticize his "fiscal conservative" reputation on the grounds that he doesn't support military spending cuts:

• Ryan was a "reliable supporter of the administration's foreign policy priorities" who voted for the 2002 Iraq Resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. Ryan also voted for the Iraq War troop surge of 2007. In May 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310, which would increase defense spending, including spending for the Afghanistan War and for various weapon systems, to the level of $642 billion – $8 billion more than previous spending levels.
• In 2009, Ryan termed the Obama administrations' "reset" of relations with Russia as "appeasement." Daniel Larison of The American Conservative wrote that Ryan "seems to conceive of U.S. power abroad mostly in terms of military strength" and "truly is a product of the era of George W. Bush."
• In 2011 President Barack Obama criticized Ryan as being "not on the level" for describing himself as a fiscal conservative while voting for these policies, as well as two "unpaid for" wars. Columnist Ezra Klein wrote in 2012 that "If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government."
• Ryan's budget "envisions continued increases in Pentagon spending" and "significant cuts to the much smaller appropriations for the State Department and foreign aid," with diplomacy and development spending being reduced sharply.

Given all this, when I saw you remove the cited material from Hannity in which Ryan asserts his support for billions in defense cuts, I thought it was unjustified. I don't see how it is inappropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we both failed WP:AGF on this one. I see now that while your comment seemed to be a battleground attitude, the edit itself was in good faith. I hope you see the same. Cheers, Homunq (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough. Thanks for coming here to express your concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Senseless and unacceptable reverts on Authoritarianism article, call for mediation

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, there's an ongoing edit war happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect.Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ps. I'm sorry for not responding to your compromise edit in the Battle of Khe Sanh article, because i was just so frustrated of the comments and responses made by, again, Zeraful, about Vietnam War history, comments that are historically incorrect, and in denial of some things that happened during and after the war, but nonetheless i agree with your compromise edit there and appreciate your efforts in resolving the edit war there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will help you as soon as I get a chance. I'm absolutely amazed by how flagrantly Zeraful has violated Misplaced Pages policy on that page, from euphemism to synthesis to original research to edit warring to personal attacks. More broadly, the whole paragraph has serious grammar problems and needs a rewrite.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TheTimesAreAChanging for making a compromised edit for that paragraph. It was excellent and addressed almost all of my concerns on there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just hope that Zeraful doesn't start edit warring again. He doesn't appear to understand Misplaced Pages policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, although I am surprised that you devoted an RFC to such a new user.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Hue Massacre photo in Vietnam War casualties

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a photo of the Hue Massacre in the "Specific Incidents" section. Since there's already a photo there of My Lai, it's important to also add a photo of the Hue Massacre, since Hue was the deadliest massacre committed by any party in the entire war, with a death toll of ~3000 - 6000, 10 to 20x more than My Lai. Hue is also one of the lesser known massacres in the war, far more unknown to the public than My Lai, (thank you foreign media for your "balanced and neutral news coverage"), even though far many more people died there, and it deserves to be more prominently displayed in order to attract more awareness of that tragedy. As well, by only displaying a photo of My Lai there, it implies that the Americans were the main ones who engaged in the killing of civilians, even though the communists were also very active in the slaughtering of civilians themselves. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to tell me, or explain your motivations, although I appreciate that you took the time to do so. I'm actually glad you added the photo. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The continuation of the edit warring over the marathon issue.--v/r - TP 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was helping by restoring the material you said was acceptable. Note that I was against its inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't say the material was acceptable, I said that the initial edit by Homunq wasn't exactly warring. However, when it was disputed, that brought it back into the WP:EW arena. I hate to ban over misunderstanding, but edit warring cannot be tolerated.--v/r - TP 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for replying.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your understanding. It's tough to patrol these articles.--v/r - TP 04:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have to expand the boring and long details about the 20th century when we already have specific articles?

Please read this. For the article about history in general, let's try to shorten the part about the 20th century, not to expand them because we already have specific articles about them. Waorca (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't "have" to do anything.
• The poorly sourced previous revision was inaccurate, at least with regard to war casualties. I mostly added sources or revised existing text; the net increase was only a couple of sentences.
• I'm not sure what you told the IP that you didn't tell me directly.
• You say that the 20th century is given disproportionate coverage, but that may be because it was a relatively significant part of Vietnam's history, or because the other centuries need expansion. I was only improving text related to highly relevant topics that were already considered important enough to cover.
• I do not intend to add more.
• Do you want me to trim the text I added (when I'm unblocked)? Is there anything in particular you want to see cut? We cannot go back to the old version.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right, please do so. For the section about the Nguyen Dynasty and afterward, please summarize them and put in other main articles such as Nguyen Dynasty, First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Casualties of the Vietnam, and History of Vietnam since 1945. IMO, they make the 20th century so significance just because it just happened recently in the previous century. I linked to the talk page of IP because I'm lazy to rewrite those words. See also History of East Timor and history of Malaysia, guess what, I read those articles and think this is annoying when the contents about the 20th century cover half of all contents in each article. Doesn't matter how important a period is, I prefer all details about all periods have to equal in length. Cheer. Waorca (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help with all that. I'll just trim what I added.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Contacts

Hey, is there any way I can contact you privately?? I'm really busy for the next month, or longer, so my sessions here would be short and intermittent, I'm not like the griffon who has no work/commitments that she has to tend to in her life... Communists are always like this, they know history and politics, and society, are against them, so they do whatever they can to portray their POV and ONLY their POV, censoring out /suppressing anything critical of them, and funny how they accuse others of POV. Chien cong san!!! Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be civil: Zrdragon probably isn't "demonic". Unfortunately, while I was happy to work with him when he was still being constructive, at this point his pathological edit warring and hostility towards discussion has me baffled! I'd rather not post my email address, unless it's really neccessary. In any case, please do not attack him in such strong terms because that only make him seem more reasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. PBut can you please demand for an indefinte block, as Floquenbeam did warn Zrdragon that the next time she edit wars, they'll be an indef block, period. This is very unacceptable, and her presence doesn't help in building an encyclopedia, but rather turn an encyclopedia into some POV blog site. I'm not going to let this griffon drag me down to trouble like she did before. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I took the complaint to ANI, but there has been no response. One editor did state that both User:Stumink and Zrdragon should be given an "equal block", but no admin has acted. While his behavior does merit another block--if not for a week, then at least a day or two--I don't think he's done enough to merit an indefinite block yet. Of course, I don't expect that he will ever change his ways....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of IP editor for blanking and vandalism

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging! Thanks for your anti-vandalistic revert on the article History of the United States where IP editor User:68.185.245.210 both deleted a portion and vandalized it. Unfortunately, you did not warn the IP editor on their talk page, which is standard operating procedure that allows us to judge his further efforts, should they be vandalism. I have gone ahead and issued them a warning. Please make a note on the talk pages of suspected or undeniable vandals that their edit was reverted by you, and why. It really helps down the road if they continue in their ways, and allows for their blocking when they persist. Thanks, and if you want to reply, I will watch this page. Thanks again for helping to protect the encylopedia, Jusdafax 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know I need to remember to do that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, a vandal-only account like this IP can and should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. My report on the vandal just now led to a one-week block, which means if they resume their ways that the block will be taken into consideration of a longer or indef block. My best wishes to you, and happy editing! Jusdafax 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)