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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Dino nam, please considering to report Battle of Lang Son (1979) to Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
The Asian Month Barnstar | |
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
Are you Nam in Warwick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.255.195.27 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting to follow your editing war with Mztourist at 324th Division...Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
@Imperatrix Mundi Please be advised that Dino nam is ignoring your warning [1].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
((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)
@EdJohnston As soon as the blocking period elapsed, Dino nam resumes his editing war [3]. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
((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)
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)
Decline reason:
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
((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)
Dino nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
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.
((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)
Dino nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Declined.
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)
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.
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)
Accept reason:
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)
I have filed an SPI against you here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Instead of heeding to warning of vandalism, you falsely accused me of personal attacks [8].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
@Tnguyen4321: I don't see any here. Dino nam (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
((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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Decline reason:
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)
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)
You seem to respond quite quick to block people
Where were you when I reported about his continuous personal attacks and harassment against me?
So was I wrong? Yes. Was he wrong? Yes. But were you admins right? I don't think so.
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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.
@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)
Dino nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
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)
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)
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)