User talk:Dino nam

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have raised the matter of your editing on the Administrators' noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 324th Division (Vietnam). 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.
Please stop reverting and attempt to obtain consensus for your edit(s) Tiderolls 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chinese POW 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chinese POW 1979.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PLA militia stretcher bearer 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PLA militia stretcher bearer 1979.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vietnamese artillery 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vietnamese artillery 1979.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Lang Son

This page was deleted per consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Battle of Lang Son, but you have gone and reinstated it. It contains no useful information and I request that you observe consensus, revise First Battle of Lang Son as necessary and delete this page. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WAM

Hi Dino nam, please considering to report Battle of Lang Son (1979) to Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Are you Nam in Warwick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.255.195.27 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No I'm not. Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.Dino nam (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sino-Soviet border conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | casualties1 =<800 killed<ref name=ryabushkin>See {{ru icon}} D. S. Ryabushkin, ''Мифы Даманского''. Мoscow: АСТ,
• the right (Chinese) side of the river, putting the river with all islands in Russian possession. (“The modern method (used for the past 200 years) of demarcating a river boundary “between states

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Đồng Đăng

If you would like the article Battle of Đồng Đăng to be moved, you at least need to explain why you feel both articles are equally important. Add your comments here. --Midas02 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Battle of Ia Drang

Here you are, showing your true face (lòi mặt chuột)! Your talk page shows why you resort to sock puppetry (222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116) to edit in bad faith.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm: look what I found: An anonymous editor keeps using various IPs to create disruptive editing on the page without explanation. Here’s his last editing [1]. Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC). Sounds like you, doesn't it?!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Hmm: The IP 94.254.225.68 has made another disruptive editing [3] I think it's sufficient to block all these IPs. If you don't have any method to deal with this, then surely I will have to deal with it by myself. Dino nam (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That IP had never explained anything; it's totally different. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about that. Just focus on, I think it's sufficient to block all these IPs. If you don't have any method to deal with this, then surely I will have to deal with it by myself. Dino nam . Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to follow your editing war with Mztourist at 324th Division...Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, care about your own history first please. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just interested in learning more about your tricks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy reminder: no need to use another account or create a new one and come back to vandalize this article again. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Ia Drang. 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. _Fortuna ^Imperatrix Mundi 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imperatrix Mundi Please be advised that Dino nam is ignoring your warning [1].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Fortuna ^Imperatrix Mundi 14:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

re:Battle of Lao Cai. Why is it becoming disruptive editing when you consider yours to be constructive with your abusive OR tagging practice?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Battle of Lao Cai 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. _Fortuna ^Imperatrix Mundi 13:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dino nam is ignoring your warning [2].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:McGeddon (Result: ). Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VAND

You are not reverting vandalism at Battle of Ia Drang as you stated here. I do not have time to examine the 3RR report presently, but if you call good faith edits vandalism again I will block you for disruptive editing. Read the page linked in this section title. Ask questions if you don't understand. Tiderolls 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I don't understand how can you call removal of tags without any explanations or consensus as "good faith" editing? Dino nam (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the page to which i directed you? Tiderolls 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I've read it and 've seen no section or content can be used as something to defend him. In fact I've seen this: "Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content."

If you think I quote it wrong, please state your point. Dino nam (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Battle of Ia Drang

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston As soon as the blocking period elapsed, Dino nam resumes his editing war [3]. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed war at Battle of Ia Drang

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You continued to revert at this article after your original edit warring block expired. For instance you re-added the OR tag. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to wait for consensus before making further edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016

@EdJohnson: I just tag it, not changing what he writes, and I will be very happy if he removes it only after being able to prove his point and reaching consensus with me. I think it's totally appropriate bold editing. It's him who need consensus before remove it.

p/s: By the way I'm still waiting for you to explain why removing OR tag aren't considered as avoidant vandalism. Thanks. Dino nam (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

My last editing was 48 hours after the block, which means it does not violate the 3RR rule that one user must not make 3 reverts or editing in less than 24 hours Dino nam (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for violating the 3RR rule, you are blocked for edit warring. Please have a read of WP:EW, where it says...

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so".

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ia Drang dispute

When your apparent nemesis told me that you were continuing to edit war, I first wanted to congratulate you on creating an account, but it appears you were indeed editing as an IP, which is a show of bad faith. I suggest you read WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:EW, and WP:SOCK. Do not log out to make problematic edits again. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88:

• I think the tag replacement you've recently made regarding the South Vietnamese involvement is OK. I agree with it.
• What I disagree with you is about the removal of OR tags at the Battle of Ia Drang#Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley. What user:Tnguyen4321 has written, though using RS as references, is totally out of context, thus constituting OR, as I have previously said on your talk page.[4] Moreover, his editing is not only OR, but also some wrong OR. For instance, his comparison between 96 sorties vs 3 battalions is totally senseless, as the units of measurement are not the same; it's just like saying 2 meters is larger than 1 square meter (and of course such comparison can't be found in the RS he cited). I wish you can consider this more and allow me to restore the tags. Dino nam (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the sentence in question in detail; it isn't OR, but it is SYNTH. Original research is drawing new conclusions that aren't in the sources; synthesis is combining sources to draw conclusions made by neither source. @Tnguyen4321: please read WP:SYNTH so you understand. I have removed the sentence. Dino nam, I originally removed the OR tags because you placed them inside reference tags. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest editing. A question: So actually synthesis can be considered a variant of OR, isn't it? Dino nam (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you Sturmegewehr88: It is not SYNTH drawing new conclusions by me; I just reworded the summaries stated by both sources of Kinnard and Vinh Loc. I refer you to the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang where I quote in length the sources. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: Neither source makes the explicit claim that the air action was larger or more significant than the ground campaign. You can compare the two (stating facts), but you can't draw new conclusions. So yes, SYNTH is technically a form of OR. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response @talk page of Battle of Ia Drang.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: user:Tnguyen4321 is continuing his disruptive editing on the page. I think that with someone who keeps refusing to understand what others say, edit warring is inevitable, unless a block is used. Dino nam (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any disruptive editing aside from edit warring, although I am now disputing the necessity of the sentence I previously removed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: He has just recently revert your editing without appropriate reasoning. He should wait until reaching consensus with you, shouldn't he? Dino nam (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a WP:RFC to get community input. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ia Drang cont.

Hello, Dino nam. You have new messages at Sturmgewehr88's talk page.
Message added 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DO NOT respond on my talk page as a logged-out IP; respond here on your talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move on

The editing situation is now different. You and Sturmg88 disputed about the ARVN involvement based on lack of verifiability. I have provided reliable and verifiable sources in the talk page. You can not dispute those citations. Please consult with Sturmgewehr88 before you risk starting an editing war. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: Your sources do not prove direct combat between ARVN soldiers and those of the NVA/VC at Ia Drang; they only show a supporting role.

I only state the involvement of ARVN II Corps Command at LZ X-Ray and Albany at the operational control level.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dino nam, on a farewell note, I think the reason that Tiderolls said your RfC wasn't formatted correctly was probably that your RfC intro statement wasn't very neutral, and that you didn't inform the WikiProjects of the RfC. Also, do not edit other's comments as you've done a few times to Tnguyen4321's. The proper way to "strike out" off-topic or inappropiate comments is with Template:Hat. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've undone your alteration of Tnguyen4321's posts at Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Please do not repeat this action without proper reason (see WP:TPG). Tiderolls 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop your disruptive editing on the same issue of ARVN involvement, the discussion of which you have ended? As Tiderolls have suggested to you, if there is still a problem you should seek help at the Military history WikiProject and/or the WikiProject Vietnam.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You cannot close an RfC in which you are involved unless you withdraw the request. You should not have closed the RfC at Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. I warned you not to edit the article absent an establishment of consensus. If you do not self revert your edits to the article subsequent to my warning I will block your account for disruptive editing. Tiderolls 08:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll restore it then. Dino nam (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Dino nam had effectuated a bad faith editing here by lumping together various edits without mentioning them in the summary or talk pages. Specifically he deletes a reference source and some links to document. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiderolls 18:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

• I haven't intend to wage edit warring. It's user:Tide rolls who has demanded me to restored the RfC unless I've aborted it, and I just also restored the contents before I had prejudically closed the RfC. So it's not edit warring. * In case it had been edit warring, user:Tnguyen4321 would also have deserved a similar block, because he has also made repetitive reverting here [5] and here [6]. Dino nam (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; not currently blocked. Yamla (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Additionally, your continued edit warring has made it impossible for your opposite to make good on their self revert. As a consequence I will not be able to block them. With these latest edits I am becoming convinced that you make lack the competence to edit here. If you return from your block and continue this same behavior you will face an indefinite block. Tiderolls 18:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unblocked your account as I see you had made an attempt at self reversion. Please do not edit the article again until consensus is reached. I hope that is plain. If you do not understand this, please ask before editing. Tiderolls 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Dino nam had effectuated a bad faith editing here by lumping together various edits without mentioning them in the summary or talk pages. Specifically he deletes a reference source and some links to document. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked2

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiderolls 10:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

• The block comes without explanation or warning.
• As far as I guess, it's because of my latest editing on Battle of Ia Drang. However, my latest editing was legitimate, as I had renewed the discussion on the talk page by a new RfC as suggested by user:Cunard. What I did on the article was simply a restoration of the dispute-discussion tag, not any material content. Dino nam (talk) 8:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

Declined.

• The block was not without a warning. You were already blocked two times for the same behavior. That is enough warning.
• It is not true that in your latest edits were just a restoration of the dispute-discussion tag. In this edit you changed the "combatant1" without consensus. Starting RfC on the talk page is good, but it does not mean that you can make a controversial edit as soon as you start a discussion. You should wait for the discussion to be closed, and then make an edit, if needed. That is the whole point of discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I've altered your unblock request so that other administrators will be able review the request. You were warned, and blocked more than once, regarding edit warring. You still appear incapable of comprehending the simple concept involved. Beginng or participating in talk page discussion does not entitle one to continue to revert artlcle content. Tiderolls 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To add; this edit did not replace the disputed tag. Tiderolls 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

About the allegation, I had already realized that I had made a mistake and fixed it by a self-reversion plus restoring the tag here.[7] Therefore my action is acceptable and the block is inappropriate. Dino nam (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The block is failing to achieve article stability and is therefore unnecessary. Tiderolls 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have reported you for edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: ) Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I have filed an SPI against you here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dino nam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Battle of Lao Cai, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sennti (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Battle of Cao Bang (1979) 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 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. UserDe (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UserDe: Reverting disruptive editing cannot be considered edit warring. Dino nam (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dino nam: Labelling it as reverting "disruptive editing" is not an excuse to edit war. I have issued a warning to Fury 1991 as well. UserDe (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UserDe: WP:DDE instructs thoroughly how to deal with disruptive editing. Multiple reverts are allowed, if not even encouraged. Dino nam (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dino nam: Again, you can't go around edit warring while claiming to be reverting "disruptive editing". Based on the many earlier warnings I see here, I'm becoming doubtful.

@UserDe: Earlier warnings doesn't make any sense. You have to follow the regulations, otherwise your point is nonesense. If you can find any regulation claiming that reverting disruptive editing constitutes edit warring, cite it. Dino nam (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:UserDe (Result: ). Thank you. UserDe (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revengeful behavior

Instead of heeding to warning of vandalism, you falsely accused me of personal attacks [8].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your view re: disruptive editing

Interesting reading of topic April 2017 above and finding how you think about disruptive editing and edit warring. Let me quote:

Quote

Your recent editing history at Battle of Cao Bang (1979) 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 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. UserDe (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@UserDe: Reverting disruptive editing cannot be considered edit warring. Dino nam (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dino nam: Labelling it as reverting "disruptive editing" is not an excuse to edit war. I have issued a warning to Fury 1991 as well. UserDe (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@UserDe: WP:DDE instructs thoroughly how to deal with disruptive editing. Multiple reverts are allowed, if not even encouraged. Dino nam (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dino nam: Again, you can't go around edit warring while claiming to be reverting "disruptive editing". Based on the many earlier warnings I see here, I'm becoming doubtful.

@UserDe: Earlier warnings doesn't make any sense. You have to follow the regulations, otherwise your point is nonesense. If you can find any regulation claiming that reverting disruptive editing constitutes edit warring, cite it. Dino nam (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

End quote

I think you use double standard on this issue. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: I don't see any here. Dino nam (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clever use of sneaky vandalism. Double separate deletions! No problema, though. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: Quite curious when you've not explained your concept of "double standard". Dino nam (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy dealing with your "sneaky vandalism" acts for the moment.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Ia Drang. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   -- There'sNoTime ^(to explain) 09:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some silly edit wars here on Wikipedia, and this one comes close to the top of the list - you're both to blame, and you've both been blocked for the same period of time. I note you've both previously had blocks for edit warring, and I'm being way too lenient by only dishing out 48 hours. Here is what I expect to happen when your block expires:

• You don't edit Battle of Ia Drang at all for a couple of days
• If, and only if, you're still convinced something needs changing on Battle of Ia Drang you use the article's talk page to request consensus and ask another editor to make the change

If, however, you continue after this block expires the next one will be extended or possibly indefinite. I've added the same message to both of your talk pages, as frankly you're both to blame -- There'sNoTime ^(to explain) 10:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I've already acknowledged and had no intention of waging edit warring; in fact, I have stopped right after I realized that there had been too much reverts, as I have informed on the WP:AN/I report. I've also agreed to both of User:There'sNoTime's request above even before this block takes place; it is user:Tnguyen4321 who made disruptive editing before any consensus reached (which theoretically should be reverted, according to WP:DE), not I did. As I already have good faith, such a block is unnecessary anymore. Dino nam (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your history of edit-warring on this article, a 48 hour block is incredibly lenient. Actions speak louder than words, and unfortunately your past actions present a fairly convincing case that this will not be the last time administrators have to step in to deal with your behaviour at Battle of Ia Drang. I'm therefore not willing to reduce this already very generous block. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• (Non-administrator comment) Dino nam, Dino nam. Just a word to the wise: note that it is not impossible for a 'reviewing' admin who comes along to agree with TNT's own opinion (that he may have been "way too lenient") and increase the block- particularly as your block request seems to be centred on blaming another party with no acknowledgment of error yourself. Now, I apologise for involving myself, but I need to point out that on my own talk this and similar issues were already discussed (see User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/Archive 6#Disruptive editing by user:Tnguyen4321), and that was May 2016. For all this time you and the other party between you have effectively had these various 'Nam-related pages on a lock down, I think that for those pages to be put in good shape after a ?fifteen month long edit war will take over 48-hours. Can you see this point? — O Fortuna^semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

If you need some material proof of my good faith, I will provide: * My last revert of the same issue was at 03:53.[9] * After that (03:56), I did acknowledge on WP:AN/I that there have been too much reverts and clearly assert to stop it: "As there have already been too much reverts and unreverts, I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day."[10] * The history clearly shows that I did keep the promise: that was the my last revert[11]; there were another editing of mine later but on a totally different section.[12] In short, I didn't deny that I did have more reverts than necessary, but those prove that I did intend to stop and respect the regulation after realizing my own mistakes. Therefore, the block is not necessary anymore. p/s: It must also be noted that reverting is a mean to deal with disruptive editing according to WP:DDE, so even the action of reverting had a legitimate nature at first.Dino nam (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, given your extensive history of edit warring, you are not getting out of this block early. Did you see the comment above by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, "it is not impossible for a 'reviewing' admin who comes along to agree with TNT's own opinion (that he may have been "way too lenient") and increase the block"? I seriously considered it, as you are still blaming the other party for the problem, and I agree the block was very lenient. You're lucky I'm in a good mood today, and I have merely revoked your talk page access for the remainder of the block (largely to help you avoid digging yourself in deeper).

Now, please be very very careful in future, and be aware that after multiple blocks for edit warring within the past 12 months, patience will be getting extremely thin - and you increasingly run the risk of very long blocks, perhaps even indefinite, if you do not seriously re-appraise your approach to disagreements over article content.

Also, be aware that if this long-running feud continues, it is very possible that the community will seek a topic ban on all involved parties. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@There'sNoTime:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:@Boing! said Zebedee: I guess may be you'll just ignore it, just like my reports on WP:AN/I, but I still have to say. Yeah, may be you were right; may be the 48 hours was too lenient for both me and him, and may be this edit warring was the most ridiculous thing you (and I as well) have ever seen. In fact, I had already expected that you guys were going to turn down my unblock request, at least with the reason that this could be a sort of lesson to remind me that I should be even more careful and abiding. However, the reason was a totally different thing (because I was "still blaming the other party for the problem"), and that was what I was dissappointed about. What I supposed to think when you had already said that "you're both to blame"? Admitting that it was all my fault, and the other was innocent? Did I say anything showing that I think edit warring was still a good thing? That explanation sounds not really fit for an admin.

But that's not the worst part. WP:COMMUNICATE says that discussion is needed in order to resolve disputes. You seem to respond quite quick to block people, but where were you when I issued a report about disruptive editing on the noticeboard? Where were you when I reported about his continuous personal attacks and harassment against me? Would you still have known about the edit war that quick if I hadn't reported directedly on TNT's talk page? How worse would it have been if it hadn't been me but another person who had intended to further prolong the edit war? Actually, I would have been happier than now if at least you had stated that those reports of mine were totally wrong and baseless, or even simply a big "I DON'T CARE" on the section! But all you did was just silence, something without which edit warring would have just never happened. So was I wrong? Yes. Was he wrong? Yes. But were you admins right? I don't think so.

Anw, thank you when at least your block did successfully stopped him from harassing my talk page, even though because of the way you did it, another editor is thinking that edit warring, continuous disruptive editing without consensus, and personal harassment can be a good "tactic" to get rid of someone who writes on the article something he doesn't like.[13] Dino nam (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't ignore your post Dino nam, but I should point out that of all the people you pinged, I am the one who can help / advise you the least. My support cannot aid you nor my enmity harm you. Welcome back, in any case. — O Fortuna^semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say here, so I'll address the things I personally find important in your message in a point-by-point manner:

• You seem to respond quite quick to block people

I'd hate it if you really thought this, as I pride myself on not being a quick to block admin. The difference here is that the edit warring was actively disrupting the article, and needed to stop - you both already had a history of this, so I saw no point in asking you both to stop.

• Where were you when I reported about his continuous personal attacks and harassment against me?

Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the report, otherwise I would have reviewed and acted - harassment on Wikipedia is an increasing issue, and the WMF aren't taking it seriously enough. We don't have the tools to effectively deal with it, but in the future if you feel harassed please contact me on my talk page directly. I understand you feel like you did this previously, and ended up getting blocked so you might be unsure about doing so again, but I (and many other administrators) are always here to deal with legitimate reports of harassment or personal attacks. I'm sorry I wasn't around to deal with your first report.

• So was I wrong? Yes. Was he wrong? Yes. But were you admins right? I don't think so.

Maybe one day you'll be an administrator, and if so you'll quickly learn that having these extra buttons is not only not worth the effort of RfA but also means that every action (and non-action) will be wrong to someone. In an emotive situation, such as an edit war, there is no "good" outcome

Hopefully I've addressed some of your concerns -- There'sNoTime ^(to explain) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick response from me, to respond to the "still blaming the other party for the problem" point. I was referring to your "I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day" comment which suggested, firstly, that the other editor's part in the edit war was disruptive and that yours was not (when in truth, both sides in an edit war are disruptive, regardless of who is right over the content), and secondly that once the day was over you might well have gone back to edit warring.

  Now, I have no idea who was right or wrong over the content (though in many edit warring cases there is some merit on both sides, which is why we insist on discussion and consensus), but my comments were solely directed at the edit warring - you were 100% responsible for your part in it and for your block, and Tnguyen4321 was 100% responsible for their part and their block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime:@Boing! said Zebedee:

• Thank you for your response. I think we have all acknowledged that edit warring is bad, so I'm not gonna talk about that. However, in order to get through Zebedee's point that I "was blaming the other party", you should have elaborated on my WP:DE report on WP:AN/I about your perspective on whether Tnguyen4321's action had constituted disruptive editing, an act which you hadn't done. If you clearly stated that unilaterally refactoring a section concerning an ongoing RfC without reaching consensus with other party/parties was not disruptive editing, I would be happy to follow that suggestion.
• Now this is what I'm planning: I'm going to restore this last version of status quo of Battle of Ia Drang before his unilateral blanking.[14] That was basically the status of the section before the RfC. I will also try to restore the info added after that incident but not relevant to the section as well. If it's possible, I also recommend a protection on the article after my semi-revert, and only after the RfC closed or consensus somehow otherwise reached may the protection be lifted. If you have any other suggestion or objection against my idea, please tell me within 24 hours. Otherwise I would deem as we all have reached consensus on this issue. Thank you! Dino nam (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly recommend you do not do that, and do not make any edits whatsoever to the disputed content until the RfC is closed by an independent third party and you can show a clear consensus for the preferred version. If there's any "revert to status quo" to be done, leave it for someone else - but it really doesn't matter if it's left in the "wrong" version for a short period. Honestly, the last thing you should be seen to be doing right now is anything even vaguely like reverting again. As for " your perspective on whether Tnguyen4321's action had constituted disruptive editing, an act which you hadn't done", no, I was very specifically keeping out of the content disagreement and acting/commenting *only* on the edit warring - it's an important distinction that I deliberately made, in that both sides in an edit war are disruptive and I am deliberately not playing any part in suggesting that one might be more disruptive than the other. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: "do not make any edits whatsoever to the disputed content until the RfC is closed by an independent third party and you can show a clear consensus for the preferred version" → if only you could say such thing to Tnguyen4321 as well. Anw, I will find a way to deal with it without involving reverting or material editing. Dino nam (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Dino nam has found his way by use of bogus 'dubious' and 'synthesis in line' tagging [15][16][17][18]. It is quite abusive and disruptive. Can I remove them?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you both need to stop this, and seek discussion for any of your disputed changes and gain consensus. You really should both know this now, so both please follow the standard dispute resolution processes if you cannot agree. And please stop pinging me - I've had enough of this and I really don't want to hear from either of you again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore deleted warning notification

@Boing! said Zebedee and Boing! said Zebedee: Am I allowed to restore my two warnings addressed to Dino nam that he had deleted [19] ? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Boing! said Zebedee I am perplex: "No", followed immediately by "I agree". Please clarify: am I allowed, yes or no? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an attempt at humor, as you pinged me twice - so I said no and then agreed with myself. I won't try humor again, as it clearly doesn't work. The answer is No - an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. And, this conflict between the two of you needs to stop, now! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Boing! said Zebedee Interesting. What else can an editor remove or not remove on their talk page? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Tnguyen4321: Almost everything. Except for declined unblock requests, which must remain as they are part of an on-going process at that current time. Please see WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN for further details. Cheers! — O Fortuna^semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: Please take this discussion elsewhere if you wish to continue it - considering the disputes between the two of you, you shouldn't be using Dino nam's talk page for holding conversations with others. If you want any further clarification, you're welcome to ask me on my talk page or ping me from your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. It seems that Fortuna have answered to my question: almost everything.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked3

The incessant edit war at Battle of Ia Drang is over. You know how to request unblock. I have no idea how you will convince an administrator that you will not continue this disruption, so I have no advice. Tiderolls 16:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

"I've never have any idea of breaking the rule again. The recent action has just followed the WP:BRD process. In fact, I've not even make a second attempt of reverting, so it's unreasonable to accuse or suspect me of edit warring. Dino nam (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Removing hold. You have made it clear that you cannot contribute constructively. -- John Reaves 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• • I'd be willing to reduce the block length to 1 week if you promise to never edit Battle of Ia Drang again on condition that you will be reblocked immediately if you do. -- John Reaves 19:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Reaves: Before making any answer to this, I'd like to hear the basis which makes you believe that a single editing turn of me was edit warring instead of bold editing in accordance with WP:BRD. I think it sounds quite unreasonable in the first place when you charge somebody of edit warring and block him just because his face looks like he's gonna do so. Dino nam (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my offer. You clearly don't understand why you are blocked and why you're behavior is problematic. -- John Reaves 17:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Dino nam: Can I just interject? I will say from the start that I cannot see you getting unblocked soon- not only for the reasons given by John Reaves above and TideRolls below, but the sheer frustration you must be causing them! Not just them- on this talk page as it stands now you have had nine different admins, over the course of thirty-four distinct messages, all saying much the same thing, because they were all here in differnt capacities related to yours and the other party's edit-warring. This is the crux of the matter, Dino nam, and why you really must attempt to understand the position you are now in. You see, you keep suggesting that you were blocked for 'one' edit when you shouldn't have been blocked until the second edit, etc., per WP:BRD. This is very much not the case: 'BRD is never a reason for reverting,' as it says. What in fact you have been blocked for is an edit war- slow burning on occasion, and covering multiple pages- that has literally been going on since last year and resulted in three blocks for you both apiece. Which is why you are, unfortunately, very much deemed to understand the policy by now: In your last 110 edits, for example, you have baldly reverted the other editor 21 times, and tag-warred 32 times. So, you see, it's not (just) about that one specific edit that you 'should have been warned for', or the the fact that you thought you were following BRD, or because your 'face looks like' whatever But becasue you have both tied up so many other editors' and admins' time on various articles that this is now deemed the only way to stop continuing, ever-present disruption. Remember the main point though- Indefinite does not mean infinite.' I hope you can take this in the spirit with which it is intended. — fortunavelut luna 18:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have yet to read the policy...after how many blocks? You can edit war without breaching the three revert rule. Really, you must be able to understand policy before you can expect to be unblocked. Tiderolls 16:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I don't mean about the three-revert policy. I mean that a single editing isn't a sufficient basis to "believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". In this case, I think it would be more appropriate to block me only after I've reverted by the 2nd time, otherwise it's only bold editing. In fact, I've never had or informed to be having a 1RR or 0RR sanction. Dino nam (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were explicitly warned about returning to that article without consensus. Discussion on the talk page is not a license to revert. Tiderolls 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I was warned to stay away from that article for a few days; I did it. I was warned not to revert to the original version of the discussed section; I did it. I don't understand what you mean when you say "discussion on the talk page is not a license to revert", but WP:BRD certainly is (in this particular case). Dino nam (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are either willfully misstating the facts or are so invested in your position that you are blind to reality. Either way, you don't have to convince me. I was simply pointing out how your request was deficient. If you are ok with it, so be it. Tiderolls 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

• User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has inaccurately describe the WP:BRD: it doesn't say "BRD is not an excuse to revert"; it says "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." Thus, "once" is a totally different story. Unless there is a 0RR sanction imposed on me by the ArbCom, a single editing cannot be regarded as edit warring. * Referring to "reverted the other editor 21 times, and tag-warred 32 times" as a proof that I'm conducting edit warring is also inappropriate. This editing of mine is a totally different editing, on a totally different content, and has nothing to do with the dozens of other reverting in the past. Accusing a person of edit warring based on his edit history is no different than seeing a person who used to go to jail for theft holding money in his hand and immediately accusing him of stealing. It's also noteworthy that among the blocks against me in the past, at least two were inappropriate that had to be lifted a few days later by user:Tide rolls.[20][21] * I've also felt unsatisfactory when FIM claimed that I conduct edit warring on "various articles". In fact, it should be noted I've contributed on many articles, but virtually only on this article am I entangled into such a ridiculous situation, and Tnguyen4321 is also the only person who frequently wage edit wars against me. As you can see, this editor tends to revert everything of others that doesn't follow his ideas; he even once dared to refactor a closed RfC when the consensus goes against him.[22] All I want is editing the article in a stable, peaceful environment in which disputes are settled purely through consensus, and I've suggested once that protection must be sealed on this article in order to prevent this situation, but no one listen to the idea. I say this not as an excuse for my wrongdoing in the past, but as an analysis on the problem that you should take into account for the sake of the article's stability, whether or not you decide to lift this block. On my part, I've already acknowledged that edit warring is bad, that the 5 reverts last time is a regretable mistake, and I've never conducted edit warring, since then. Dino nam (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All I'm really seeing here is your continuing inability or refusal to get the picture, continued insistence that you have been wronged, an apparent belief that *you* are the only one entitled to be "editing the article in a stable, peaceful environment", that it's all Tnguyen4321's fault (How about the mirror view that "Dino Nam is also the only person who frequently wages edit wars against Tnguyen4321"?)

I recommend the WP:Standard Offer as the best you're going to get, and that you come back no sooner than six months from today and explain how you have considered your disruptive behaviour and how you finally understand how to behave here.

If you make another unblock request that continues in the same vein as this one and most of your previous ones, I will remove your ability to edit this talk page. The bottom line is that the horrendous disruption and waste of other people's otherwise productive time that you two are responsible for *will* stop! In fact, it *has* stopped and will not be allowed to start again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Boing! said Zebedee: And all I can see is the refusal to explain something that you keep forcing an editor to understand, the blaming of the parties as the sole source of the problem instead of acknowledging the iresponsibilty and subjectiveness of admins as a part of the problem, and the judgment of other people based on subjective stereotype instead of objective regulations. "How about the mirror view that "Dino Nam is also the only person who frequently wages edit wars against Tnguyen4321"? Deal with my reports on WP:AN/I responsibly, and you'll get the answer. Two last things I wanna say to you: first, I don't need to be unblocked at any cost, and second, you should know that when an editor tries to obey the rules, it's because he respect the rules themselves, not necause the admins are kings and all other editors are your bowing slaves. Sincerely. 103.12.160.94 (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to re-sign this as Dino nam, you should log in and do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vietnamese artillery 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vietnamese artillery 1979.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Chinese POW 1979.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chinese POW 1979.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]