User talk:Dino nam - Knowledge (XXG)

4306:, 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. 5382:" 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 4314:

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.

5391:* 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. 3751: 2659: 2327: 1472: 1358: 2057: 3532: 1178: 1012: 90: 5521: 338: 282: 226: 2974: 3229: 5278: 4873: 4087: 3870: 3345: 2739: 2407: 1575: 1070: 830: 882: 117: 3114: 3606:

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)

3301: 23: 501: 5538:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 357:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 301:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 245:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 5108:,' 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 583: 5395:

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.

4388:

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.

3600:

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.

4387:

Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the report, otherwise I would have reviewed and acted - harassment on Knowledge (XXG) 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

4192:

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

3123:

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

4539:

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

4448:

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

4234:"? 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). 3406:

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

2573:

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

1805:

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

1125:

5479:

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

5417:

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

4802:

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

4516:

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

4236:

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

3599:

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

5484:

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

4313:

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

3127:

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

4725:

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!

4619:

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

3827:

I've seen some silly edit wars here on Knowledge (XXG), 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

5394:

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

5185:

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

4317:

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

3605:

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,

2874:

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

3993:

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

2157:

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

4958:"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) 3641:@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) 4069:. 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? — 5228:

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

3241:

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.

5247:

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.

5116:

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-

2109:

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

4442:" 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 4482:

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

2926:

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.

728:

The IP 94.254.225.68 has made another disruptive editing 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

52: 1227:. 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. 1744:

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

58: 4517:

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!

4335:

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. —

3510:

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.

3269: 457:. 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 5095:

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

2497:

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,

5424:

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.

3131:

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

65:

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.

2257:. 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. 1909:

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.

5480:

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

4057:

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

3253:. 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 3858:

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 --

1882:

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.

4371:

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.

392: 5100:

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

690:

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.

5427:

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

4544:", 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 3313: 3317: 27: 3955:

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

395:, 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. 3544: 3536: 3180: 1424: 1190: 1182: 1024: 1016: 5038:

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

1954:

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.

3634:@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. 3620:@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) 94: 4573:

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

4540:

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 "

3627:@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) 419: 5042:. 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. 4851:

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.

3500:

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.

3202: 667:

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

2635:

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.

2305:

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.

762:

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 .

5465:

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.

5112:. 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, 4998:

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.

4274:

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.

4062: 4034:

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.

2914:

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.

2565:

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.

1732:

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.

1084:. 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 4351:

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:

1830:. Original research is drawing new conclusions that aren't in the sources; synthesis is combining sources to draw conclusions made by neither source. 5550: 4575:" → 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. 369: 313: 257: 97:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have raised the matter of your editing on the Administrators' noticeboard.

4772:

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

3370: 1696:

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".

1093: 3361:. 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 3320:

which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use

4240:

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.

1968:

I haven't seen any disruptive editing aside from edit warring, although I am now disputing the necessity of the sentence I previously removed.

1660:

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

5450: 4983: 4259: 4019: 3862: 3783: 2899: 2683: 2550: 2351: 1717: 1500: 1386: 5318: 4913: 4496:

you clearly stated that unilaterally refactoring a section concerning an ongoing RfC without reaching consensus with other party/parties was

4404:

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

4127: 3910: 3009: 2779: 2447: 1615: 668: 661: 1425:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Both blocked)

3283: 3161: 3108: 546: 514: 482: 1842:

so you understand. I have removed the sentence. Dino nam, I originally removed the OR tags because you placed them inside reference tags.

5109: 4548:

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.

4427: 1802:

has written, though using RS as references, is totally out of context, thus constituting OR, as I have previously said on your talk page.

5486: 5201:

You were explicitly warned about returning to that article without consensus. Discussion on the talk page is not a license to revert.

2074: 1995:

He has just recently revert your editing without appropriate reasoning. He should wait until reaching consensus with you, shouldn't he?

57: 51: 5129: 4788: 4344: 4077: 1140: 1037: 979: 969: 2136:

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.

3054:

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.

3801: 3362: 2701: 2369: 1518: 1404: 1085: 933: 168: 5079:

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

4218:

No, given your extensive history of edit warring, you are not getting out of this block early. Did you see the comment above by

293: 3279: 3157: 478: 3809: 3378: 3316:. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our 3262: 2709: 2377: 1526: 1412: 1101: 945: 901: 180: 136: 5429:

the horrendous disruption and waste of other people's otherwise productive time that you two are responsible for *will* stop!

5313: 4908: 4181:

As there have already been too much reverts and unreverts, I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day.

4122: 3905: 3305: 3004: 2774: 2442: 2211:

Why don't you stop your disruptive editing on the same issue of ARVN involvement, the discussion of which you have ended? As

1610: 5534:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 5067: 4760: 3813: 3779: 3382: 2679: 2347: 1496: 1382: 1105: 949: 353:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 297:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 241:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 184: 3324:

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.

1025:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

5505: 5436: 5364: 5122: 4808: 4781: 4731: 4697: 4682: 4625: 4553: 4454: 4337: 4290: 4245: 4219: 4070: 4004: 2253:

You cannot close an RfC in which you are involved unless you withdraw the request. You should not have closed the RfC at

1703: 1559:

p/s: By the way I'm still waiting for you to explain why removing OR tag aren't considered as avoidant vandalism. Thanks.

1131: 1028: 960: 5539: 4491:

about your perspective on whether Tnguyen4321's action had constituted disruptive editing, an act which you hadn't done.

1055:. Why is it becoming disruptive editing when you consider yours to be constructive with your abusive OR tagging practice? 358: 302: 246: 5530: 349: 5291: 4886: 4100: 4049:

Dino nam, Dino nam. Just a word to the wise: note that it is not impossible for a 'reviewing' admin who comes along to

3883: 3758: 3394: 2752: 2713: 2666: 2420: 2381: 2334: 1588: 1530: 1479: 1416: 1365: 1113: 955: 862:

A courtesy reminder: no need to use another account or create a new one and come back to vandalize this article again.

835: 469:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

190: 5056:

I'm retracting my offer. You clearly don't understand why you are blocked and why you're behavior is problematic. --

3274: 2863:

The block was not without a warning. You were already blocked two times for the same behavior. That is enough warning.

596: 474: 5421: 5285: 4880: 4094: 3877: 2981: 2746: 2414: 1582: 5290:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

4885:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

4099:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3882:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2751:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2419:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1791:

I think the tag replacement you've recently made regarding the South Vietnamese involvement is OK. I agree with it.

1587:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1255:

I don't understand how can you call removal of tags without any explanations or consensus as "good faith" editing?

4172:

If you need some material proof of my good faith, I will provide: * My last revert of the same issue was at 03:53.

3613:@UserDe: Reverting disruptive editing cannot be considered edit warring. Dino nam (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 2227: 4542:

your perspective on whether Tnguyen4321's action had constituted disruptive editing, an act which you hadn't done

3820: 3354: 1296:

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: "

415: 237: 3775: 3767: 3540: 3479:

instructs thoroughly how to deal with disruptive editing. Multiple reverts are allowed, if not even encouraged.

3399: 3374: 3358: 2675: 2671: 2343: 2339: 1690:"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it 1492: 1488: 1378: 1374: 1186: 1118: 1097: 1081: 1020: 941: 913: 889: 176: 148: 124: 5501: 5474: 5432: 4804: 4741: 4727: 4708: 4693: 4678: 4654: 4650: 4621: 4591: 4566: 4549: 4475: 4450: 4297: 4241: 4184: 3967:

who made disruptive editing before any consensus reached (which theoretically should be reverted, according to

3567: 2139:

I only state the involvement of ARVN II Corps Command at LZ X-Ray and Albany at the operational control level.

1862:

Thanks for your latest editing. A question: So actually synthesis can be considered a variant of OR, isn't it?

1699: 128: 4310: 3250: 2839:. What I did on the article was simply a restoration of the dispute-discussion tag, not any material content. 550: 5490: 5418:

the mirror view that "Dino Nam is also the only person who frequently wages edit wars against Tnguyen4321"?)

3181:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: )

2254: 2183: 2173: 2095: 2063: 2056: 2024: 1979: 1921: 1853: 1772: 608:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1191:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:McGeddon (Result: )

542: 35: 5332: 4927: 4141: 3924: 3451:: Labelling it as reverting "disruptive editing" is not an excuse to edit war. I have issued a warning to 3373:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

3023: 2793: 2461: 1629: 1096:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

3850: 3805: 3545:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino_nam reported by User:UserDe (Result: )

3366: 2705: 2373: 2231: 1537:

You continued to revert at this article after your original edit warring block expired. For instance you

1522: 1408: 1089: 937: 905: 897: 841: 470: 172: 140: 132: 34:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to

31: 5057: 5014: 4970: 4822: 4749: 4716: 4667: 4610: 3730: 3691: 3655: 3574: 2882: 2640: 2310: 2239: 2144: 2119: 1935: 1887: 1684:

You are not blocked for violating the 3RR rule, you are blocked for edit warring. Please have a read of

1453: 1161: 1060: 996: 867: 853: 816: 786: 767: 736: 717: 695: 4773: 3535:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

1181:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

1015:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

5256: 5209: 5165: 4859: 3087: 2959: 2935: 2724: 2608: 2582: 2392: 2265: 2219: 2198: 1546: 1541:. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to wait for consensus before making further edits. 1432: 1277: 1235: 710:

on the page without explanation. Here’s his last editing . Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

651: 206: 3321: 3237: 3219: 2922:

I've altered your unblock request so that other administrators will be able review the request. You

446: 437: 4468: 4424: 4283: 3960: 3859: 3817: 3209: 3187: 3151: 522: 427: 400: 102: 3246: 1552:@EdJohnson: I just tag it, not changing what he writes, and I will be very happy if he removes it 466: 450: 5083:

above and TideRolls below, but the sheer frustration you must be causing them! Not just them- on

5010: 4848: 4510: 3995: 3842: 3832: 3771: 2835: 2829: 2164: 2111: 2086: 2015: 1990: 1970: 1946: 1912: 1844: 1795: 1784: 1763: 1464: 1350: 1220: 1198: 893: 845: 632:

the right (Chinese) side of the river, putting the river with all islands in Russian possession.

5118: 4777: 4711:

I am perplex: "No", followed immediately by "I agree". Please clarify: am I allowed, yes or no?

1879: 1839: 1827: 1556:. I think it's totally appropriate bold editing. It's him who need consensus before remove it. 908:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

638:“The modern method (used for the past 200 years) of demarcating a river boundary “between states 143:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

4379:

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

4002: 3309: 2832:. However, my latest editing was legitimate, as I had renewed the discussion on the talk page 1150: 1077: 1052: 676: 74: 5481: 4488: 4303: 4176: 3956: 3258: 2502:

would also have deserved a similar block, because he has also made repetitive reverting here

1758: 1209: 462: 454: 5459: 5080: 5033: 4992: 4818: 4797: 4767: 4745: 4712: 4663: 4606: 4268: 4028: 3964: 3789: 3726: 3706: 3687: 3666: 3651: 3570: 3552: 3460: 3416: 3329: 2908: 2877: 2689: 2636: 2559: 2499: 2357: 2306: 2235: 2140: 2131: 2115: 1951: 1931: 1900: 1883: 1833: 1799: 1726: 1506: 1449: 1392: 1312: 1157: 1056: 992: 863: 849: 812: 782: 763: 732: 713: 691: 5368: 5230: 5105: 5101: 5039: 4405: 4194: 3476: 3261:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3254: 2187: 2010: 1746: 465:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 458: 5558: 5383: 5249: 5223: 5202: 5180: 5158: 4852: 3750: 3080: 2952: 2928: 2717: 2658: 2626: 2601: 2575: 2536: 2494: 2385: 2326: 2296: 2258: 2212: 2191: 1542: 1471: 1442: 1428: 1357: 1291: 1270: 1250: 1228: 647: 643: 587: 377: 321: 265: 199: 5535: 4484: 3968: 3592:

above and finding how you think about disruptive editing and edit warring. Let me quote:

2158:

Tnguyen4321's. The proper way to "strike out" off-topic or inappropiate comments is with

1823: 1806:

in the RS he cited). I wish you can consider this more and allow me to restore the tags.

1754: 1750: 1685: 354: 298: 242: 3566:

Instead of heeding to warning of vandalism, you falsely accused me of personal attacks

3452: 3403: 3205: 3183: 3147: 1122: 518: 423: 396: 98: 4969:

Removing hold. You have made it clear that you cannot contribute constructively. --

49:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

5396: 5296: 5234: 5187: 5157:

Really, you must be able to understand policy before you can expect to be unblocked.

5074: 5043: 4891: 4596:

Dino nam has found his way by use of bogus 'dubious' and 'synthesis in line' tagging

4576: 4518: 4321: 4198: 4105: 3972: 3888: 3712: 3672: 3512: 3495: 3480: 3448: 3434: 3058: 2987: 2840: 2757: 2509: 2425: 2279: 1996: 1955: 1863: 1807: 1664: 1593: 1560: 1330: 1256: 1194: 798: 747: 562: 4396:

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

4186:* The history clearly shows that I did keep the promise: that was the my last revert 3121: 4063:

User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/Archive 6#Disruptive editing by user:Tnguyen4321

3999: 2159: 1302: 672: 106: 70: 4659:

Am I allowed to restore my two warnings addressed to Dino nam that he had deleted

3228: 5009:

I'd be willing to reduce the block length to 1 week if you promise to never edit

3971:), not I did. As I already have good faith, such a block is unnecessary anymore. 3411:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2600:

I hope that is plain. If you do not understand this, please ask before editing.

2596:

I've unblocked your account as I see you had made an attempt at self reversion.

1130:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3686:

Clever use of sneaky vandalism. Double separate deletions! No problema, though.

3548: 3505: 3471: 3456: 3428: 3412: 3369:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

3325: 3079:

The block is failing to achieve article stability and is therefore unnecessary.

1092:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

3344: 2226:

have suggested to you, if there is still a problem you should seek help at the

1069: 829: 642:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

5554: 4744:

Interesting. What else can an editor remove or not remove on their talk page?

4189:; there were another editing of mine later but on a totally different section. 2532: 373: 317: 261: 4817:

Roger. It seems that Fortuna have answered to my question: almost everything.

4449:

block, and Tnguyen4321 was 100% responsible for their part and their block.

2084:

respond on my talk page as a logged-out IP; respond here on your talk page.

1803: 5153:

You have yet to read the policy...after how many blocks? You can edit war

3778:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 3711:

Quite curious when you've not explained your concept of "double standard".

2678:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2346:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 1495:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 1381:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 4416:. In an emotive situation, such as an edit war, there is no "good" outcome 4319: 1324:

in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content.

781:

Interesting to follow your editing war with Mztourist at 324th Division...

4505:

Now this is what I'm planning: I'm going to restore this last version of

1445:

As soon as the blocking period elapsed, Dino nam resumes his editing war

936:

to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents

171:

to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents

5013:

again on condition that you will be reblocked immediately if you do. --

3998:. I'm therefore not willing to reduce this already very generous block. 3300: 3265:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3107: 22: 5121:.' I hope you can take this in the spirit with which it is intended. — 1554:

only after being able to prove his point and reaching consensus with me

921:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made

746:

So what? That IP had never explained anything; it's totally different.

500: 453:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

156:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made

5562: 5509: 5500:

If you want to re-sign this as Dino nam, you should log in and do it.

5494: 5440: 5404: 5389: 5387: 5263: 5242: 5216: 5195: 5172: 5138: 5060: 5051: 5017: 4973: 4866: 4826: 4812: 4790: 4753: 4735: 4720: 4701: 4686: 4671: 4629: 4614: 4584: 4557: 4526: 4458: 4346: 4329: 4249: 4206: 4179:

that there have been too much reverts and clearly assert to stop it: "

4079: 4009: 3980: 3734: 3720: 3695: 3680: 3659: 3578: 3556: 3520: 3488: 3464: 3442: 3420: 3333: 3287: 3213: 3191: 3165: 3094: 3066: 2966: 2942: 2888: 2731: 2644: 2615: 2589: 2540: 2517: 2399: 2314: 2287: 2272: 2243: 2205: 2177: 2148: 2123: 2099: 2070: 2028: 2004: 1983: 1963: 1939: 1925: 1891: 1871: 1857: 1815: 1776: 1707: 1672: 1568: 1457: 1436: 1338: 1284: 1264: 1242: 1202: 1165: 1144: 1064: 1041: 1000: 973: 871: 857: 820: 806: 790: 771: 755: 740: 721: 699: 680: 655: 570: 554: 526: 486: 431: 404: 381: 325: 269: 213: 197:

Please stop reverting and attempt to obtain consensus for your edit(s)

78: 5186:

fact, I've never had or informed to be having a 1RR or 0RR sanction.

4228:

with TNT's own opinion (that he may have been "way too lenient") and

4053:

with TNT's own opinion (that he may have been "way too lenient") and

600: 3841:

If, and only if, you're still convinced something needs changing on

4197:, so even the action of reverting had a legitimate nature at first. 3725:

I am busy dealing with your "sneaky vandalism" acts for the moment.

629:

See {{ru icon}} D. S. Ryabushkin, ''Мифы Даманского''. Мoscow: АСТ,

5431:

In fact, it *has* stopped and will not be allowed to start again.

5110:

baldly reverted the other editor 21 times, and tag-warred 32 times

3786:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 3057:

Therefore my action is acceptable and the block is inappropriate.

2686:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 2354:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 1503:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 1389:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 275:

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

43: 4440:

I've reverted his disruptive editing for the last time in the day

3128:

the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

4224:

it is not impossible for a 'reviewing' admin who comes along to

3828:

hours. Here is what I expect to happen when your block expires:

3433:

Reverting disruptive editing cannot be considered edit warring.

2598:

Please do not edit the article again until consensus is reached.

1794:

What I disagree with you is about the removal of OR tags at the

985: 561:

No I'm not. Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.

3402:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 3268:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2574:

continue this same behavior you will face an indefinite block.

2186:. Please do not repeat this action without proper reason (see 1121:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 393:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Second Battle of Lang Son

4302:

I guess may be you'll just ignore it, just like my reports on

3539:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

1822:

I just looked at the sentence in question in detail; it isn't

1185:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

1019:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

932:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

167:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

4363:

I'd hate it if you really thought this, as I pride myself on

3304:

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of

5519: 5276: 4871: 4318:

someone who writes on the article something he doesn't like.

4085: 3868: 3749: 3343: 3112: 2972: 2737: 2657: 2405: 2325: 2077:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2055: 1573: 1470: 1356: 1068: 880: 336: 280: 224: 115: 3963:'s request above even before this block takes place; it is 948:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary 183:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary 5516:

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

3808:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2708:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2376:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 1796:

Battle of Ia Drang#Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley

1525:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 1411:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 331:

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

5447:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

4980:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

4256:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

4016:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2896:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2547:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1714:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

811:

Sure. Just interested in learning more about your tricks.

5467:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

5000:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

4605:. It is quite abusive and disruptive. Can I remove them? 4276:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

4036:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3537:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2916:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2828:

As far as I guess, it's because of my latest editing on

2567:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1930:

Please see my response @talk page of Battle of Ia Drang.

1734:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1329:

If you think I quote it wrong, please state your point.

1183:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

1017:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

5392: 5346: 5342: 5336: 5327: 5323: 5309: 5305: 5301: 4941: 4937: 4931: 4922: 4918: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4660: 4603: 4601: 4599: 4597: 4514: 4446:

was over you might well have gone back to edit warring.

4190: 4187: 4173: 4155: 4151: 4145: 4136: 4132: 4118: 4114: 4110: 3938: 3934: 3928: 3919: 3915: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3393:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

3249:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3137: 3055: 3037: 3033: 3027: 3018: 3014: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2948: 2871: 2807: 2803: 2797: 2788: 2784: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2632: 2506: 2503: 2475: 2471: 2465: 2456: 2452: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2302: 1643: 1639: 1633: 1624: 1620: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1538: 1446: 1224: 1154: 1112:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

989: 609: 605: 592: 3124:

November, and would like to invite you join us again.

2182:

I've undone your alteration of Tnguyen4321's posts at

368:

will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

312:

will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

256:

will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

3812:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 2712:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 2380:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 1529:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 1415:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 940:

among editors. You can post a request for help at an

175:

among editors. You can post a request for help at an

95:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

5284: