User talk:Qiushufang

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

2022

At Economy of South Korea, These are facts that you can be confirmed by going into the documentation. Will you delete all i did again, if i edit? Antwerpant (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit, will you erase everything I've done again? I feel you are attacking me. You keep looking through my records and erasing everything I've done. Antwerpant (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your contributions btw Antwerpant (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseon

I just added reliable source. And changed "tributary state of Qing" to "protectorate of Qing". Bcs the difference between the member of the Chinese tributary system and the tributary state cannot be distinguished. Antwerpant (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted failed source but i didnt change translation Antwerpant (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And added a define of Korean historian from the source Antwerpant (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some details from the source. NP:NPOV Antwerpant (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV** Antwerpant (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Answer

No, I don't want edit war. I'm making an encyclopedia using reliable sources. But you are doing act of vandalism. I think you need to be careful Antwerpant (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not delete it, If i wrote based on reliable source. That is vandalism. Antwerpant (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't make additions based on reliable sources. Your contributions on your IP account show

WP:POVPUSH, lack of sources, and usage of bad sources reverted multiple times by several people. You were reverted at First Sino-Japanese War three times due to grammatical problems, introduction of factual errors, misunderstanding or misrepreseting the source. At Economy of South Korea, you were reverted for providing no sources for your additions and you immediately went back and made the same edits again even after you were given a warning. At Joseon, you were reverted for unexplained removal of sourced content, POVPUSH, unsourced changes, original research, and deletion of citations. At North Korea–Russia border, you were reverted for unsourced changes and immediately went back making the same edits. You were timed out for three days by User:EvergreenFir, after which you made an account to continue your behavior. You also reported me for "vandalism" before you were timed out yourself for disruptive editing. You are still doing the same thing on the same pages. What makes you think those do not constitute "disruptive editing" now? Qiushufang (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The name of Balhae was officially removed in 982???

Please add the specific page of the reference source to the comments, otherwise there is no way to p Rove that the country name was not cancelled until 982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.64.1.6 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enyclopedia of Chinese History, p. 55 - https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Chinese_History/2UAlDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=balhae+korean+mohe&pg=PA55&printsec=frontcover Qiushufang (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the edits of the Kingdom of Tungning

Those were not "disruptive edits", all my edits contain and attach reliable references which could be traced and proved. I did not invent any of those idea from my personal point of view. Every edits I made with clear explanations of why and how I made such revisions. Someone barely proved their own point by accusing my works as "desruptive edits" who should better provided a better references to confirm their points, not me to do their own jobs.123.192.182.76 (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who warned you about "disruptive edits", but you chose to ignore my suggestion anyway on the lead so I do not understand why you are complaining here to me about something else. Qiushufang (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Strategic Policy Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the sources of the Battle of Jupil

There are scarce original information available since most Goryeo history record was lost, and only available source is from the Old Book of Tang, which was compiled based on the edited record of Li Shimin by Li Shimin himself. New Book of Tang is revised/derived of Old Book of Tang, and Samguk Sagi is copy & paste of New Book of Tang (while compilers complained about the honesty of Tang by neglecting available source that was unfavor to Tang, which the source I used for Tang casualty. Kadrun (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disruptive editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mangonel

added a link pointing to Sogdian

Torsion mangonel myth

added a link pointing to Sogdian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zhuang people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nandan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationalist editors

See the timing of: [1] + [2] ([3]) and [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.33.134 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding early history of Vietnam

Dear Friend, Wikipedia User,

Firstly, thank you for your contributions for the expansion of Wikipedia. I see you do not agree with me. You have the rights to your own views and opinions. I am not going into a revert edit war in Wikipedia with you and your friends. Judging by your user name, I am assuming you are of Chinese ethnicity? Therefore, you might interpret Vietnamese’s history differently. You see, it doesn’t matter what ethnicity we think the ancient elites were, which side of the border they were born in, or, if they were more or less sinicized; their aspirations were all the same. They all sought independence, fairness, and justice for their country and people of modern day Vietnam. This made them who they are and who the Vietnamese are today. Nevertheless, whether we are Viet or Chinese, we are all descendants of Thần Nông/神農. This fact is embedded in both of our history and traditions. Furthermore, the border had long been drawn for over a thousand years between the two countries. The cultures, values, customs, speech and grammar have been developed differently on both sides. Because the ancient elites thought of their future generations, we Viet remember their great deeds forever.

Here is something worthwhile to note. During the Song and Lý era, the Song vanquished the Northern Han and the last of remaining ancient royal bloodline. The Emperor of Northern Han, Liu Ji Yuan (劉繼元) died in 992. While in Đại Việt of Lý of Vietnam, the last remaining descendant of ancient royal bloodlines of the Lưu (劉) clan, Lưu Kế Tông (劉繼宗) proclaimed himself as Rajadhi Raja (King of King) of Chiêm Thành/占城 (Champa) sixth dynasty in the year ~986. Lưu was originally a Đại Việt’s military officer during an offensive against Cham's Great King, Indravarman IV. After Indravarman IV was defeated and fled southward, Lưu’s order was to remain in guarded position at the defense line, at the northern tip of Champa, but took the opportunity to claim Champa and it's vassalages for himself. Nevertheless, Lưu poorly ruled Champa independently for several years until he was apprehended, trialed and beheaded by Đại Việt's army for disobeying his military command. Both the Song's and Lý's actions in removing the 劉, which meant ‘kill’ safeguarded the 100 clans of the ancient lines. See if the character 劉 is listed in the 100 family surnames (百家姓). The listed surname 柳/Liǔ written as Liễu in Vietnamese means ‘willow’ and is not a replacement for 劉.

In recent years, there have been many aspirations among Chinese youths to restore the so-called “Han” culture seen throughout the internet. Since Han refers to an ancient imperial dynasty of China governed through feudalistic values (phong kiến/封建), restoring Han culture and values would mean reviving a society based on its feudal systems. In a modern era that inspires human rights and equalities, reverting back to imperialistic ideology would mean one is willing to give up theirs rights and freedom.

The time is not there for us to act rashly anymore. The time we waited for is here, right now, for us to act brightly and create a brighter future, for the generations to come. Let it not be because we do NOT think about our future generations, that they will never forget us.

This is all I have to say. 2607:FB91:29E:9F27:3946:50B4:9FE1:7070 (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Re

Probably I misunderstood Zratsky([May be

WP:AGF).Because Zratsky added external links to baike.baidu

and used a lot of abnormally formatted references,like <ref>衣冠南渡 ．在线新华字典[引用日期2013-08-09</ref><ref>唐宋时期的北人南迁 ．内蒙古教育出版社官网．2008-01-15[引用日期2013-08-09]</ref><ref>六朝时期北人南迁及蛮族的流布 ．内蒙古教育出版社官网．2008-01-15[引用日期2013-08-09]</ref><ref>东晋建康的开始—永嘉南渡 ．通南京网．2012-10-10[引用日期2013-08-09]</ref><ref>从衣冠南渡到西部大开发 ．中国期刊网．2011-4-26 [引用日期2013-08-12]</ref><ref>中华书局编辑部．全唐诗．北京：中华书局，1999-01-1 ：761</ref><ref>参阅范文澜蔡美彪等《中国通史》第二编第五章第一节﹑郭沫若《中国史稿》第三册第四章第一节</ref>. So I think he copied and translated the content from baike.baidu.Otherwise, there can't be so many abnormal references.

By the way, the original baike.baidu link has been placed in this link(3 links of baidu.baike in external links). If you've checked that it's not copied from baike.baidu, I won't check it again. Rastinition (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content citing English sources does not appear to be copied from the baike articles, which don't cite any non-Chinese sources and they seem too specific with page numbers to be a translation and insertion of sources. Maybe just deleted the parts citing Chinese sources and uncited content. Qiushufang (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many references are site:books.google.com. Although I haven't confirmed yet, it's possible that he uses site:books.google.com to search for some references from baidu.baike and replaces them with site:books.google.com.

The question is how much of the copied and translated content needs to keep and whether it is necessary to spend a lot of time checking.(Because there is a lot of content)

In short, I respect your current version and will not change it again.Rastinition (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Debt-trap diplomacy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done none of the above. If you would like then you can point out the diffs in which I expressed my own "personal analysis"

WP:POV, or commentary in this article. If you would like, we can take this to incidents. Qiushufang (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Kautilya3. Please do not add your own opinions to Debt-trap diplomacy.BooleanQuackery (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, accounted created less than a week ago with no history editing the article or any similar articles, who just happened to randomly encounter this dispute, please explain in which part I added my opinion? Qiushufang (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has been discussed previously on talk pages and in other locations, so that isn't necessary.BooleanQuackery (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No actually it hasn't been discussed. If you would like, you can show be the diff in which someone has shown that I have put my own personal opinion into the content. Kautilya3 nor you have shown that I have put my personal opinion in the content added and the dispute is based on

WP:UNDUE. Qiushufang (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry both. That was a form message that wasn't worded very well. The issue was that of

WP:DUE, which has been discussed on the article talk page. So there is no need to continue further here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ask

I have some resource that is of research interest to you and would like to show it privately. Do you prefer email pgp done or some other means of communication? This is potentially time-sensitive. Rrnggrrl (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Qiushufang 兄弟

 Thank you very much!

SimeonManier (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Thanks for standing with me Qiushufang 兄弟 in getting rid of the pesky self-centered disruptive vandal JordanKSM.

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

SimeonManier (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golden Horde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding, History of Taiwan

Don't reply here but instead reply me in the link I send you. I have seen your contributions in the History of Taiwan and I have a very good suggestion concerning the History of Taiwan and it's relationship with Chinese. I want you to know what the suggestion is but posting the sources here would fill up quite a lot of blank spaces. If you don't have a reddit account, create one and message me https://old.reddit.com/user/Normal_Echo_8569/ It won't be a waste of your time.82.36.220.78 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I'd suggest reading

WP:OFFWIKI. IT says this "As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon". It's not prohibited however it's usually frowned upon. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So where do I write down (and copy and paste). I require at least over 5,000 words.82.36.220.78 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would ever need 5000+ words for a suggestion for an article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We won't be writing down that many words. I am using a Taiwanese sources which covers the history of Taiwan in Chinese (and in English). I would copy and paste some pages and than highlight the sentences and paragraphs.82.36.220.78 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't copy and paste pages from the damn source! That is literally plagiarism. Just give them the link of the source and tell them what pages to look for. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason why I avoided Wikipedia because of copyright materials. I won't be the one editing, I would just highlight the sentence and paragraphs from the many pages I used as a source. I want to make this easy for everyone and stop wasting time. What if I post the link and he doesn't want to read it because everything is way too long?

Why can't I use a alternative discussion when even your

WP:OFFWIKI says this "However, as a place to get questions answered or have a wide-ranging discussion that may not be specific to a particular encyclopedia article, an external forum can often be useful." 82.36.220.78 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying you can't. I'm just saying it's not recommended. Also copyright is a thing everywhere you go. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, our discussion will be in private.82.36.220.78 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, nothing on the internet is truly private. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the source

You wrote this in your edit summary " the Zheng forces were the ones defeated and the ones who put up a good fight according to the source ". Where does the source say Zheng forces were defeated. The original edit was like this which says " Zheng Jing's navy defeated a combined Qing-Dutch fleet commanded by Han Banner general Ma Degong in 1664 and Ma was killed in the battle."82.36.220.78 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Degong and the Ming-Qing engagement with the Zheng fleet was only mentioned on p. 152 of Hang 2015, the source cited. It said:

On November 19, a total of five hundred Qing junks, together with Bort’s fleet, jointly attacked the Zheng navy in the narrow sea passage between Xiamen and Jinmen. Jing’s four hundred ships put up a strong resistance, and even killed the Qing commander, Ma Degong, the same man who had briefly occupied and ransacked Xiamen in 1650. However, the superiority and deadly accuracy of the Dutch weapons and numerical advantage of the combined navy forced him to abandon his twin bases.

— Hang, Xing (2015), Conflict and Commerce in Maritime East Asia: The Zheng Family and the Shaping of the Modern World, c. 1620-1720

Wong 2017 on p. 149 says the same:

From November 18 to November 20, the Dutch fought sea battles against the Zhengs twice and blocked the retreating enemies at high seas. Shi helped seize Xiamen on November 20 shortly before the subsequent fall of Jinmen. This impressive victory was not without a price to pay. Most notably, the army commander Ma Degong was killed on board his ship during a battle off Jinmen. Nonetheless, this battle was reported as “the Great Victory at Xiamen” (Xiamen dajie 厦门大捷)

— Wong, Young-tsu (2017), China's Conquest of Taiwan in the Seventeenth Century: Victory at Full Moon, Springer

Another source from Andrade 2016 p. 207 says the Dutch ships scattered the Zheng fleet:

The Dutch had allied with the Qing to expel the Zheng family from their bases in China. The Zheng had hundreds of vessels, and the Dutch had just fifteen, but upon seeing the Dutch fleet the Zheng sent a letter to the Dutch begging them not to attack: “Our ships cannot fight against your ships. . . . Please, we ask that you and your ships not support the Qing against us but sail to another place.”60 Thus, the Zheng admitted that the Dutch ships were superior. The Dutch demurred, attacked the Zheng, and managed to scatter their fleet. After the victory the main Qing commander wrote admiringly to thank the Dutch admiral...

— Andrade, Tonio (2016), The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History, Princeton University Press

Qiushufang (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your correct but I don't see a link to your source. I see you making a lot of changes in Taiwanese related articles from their history to genetics, and from their demographics to their identities.

You were adding many things in Kingdom of Tungning since February. Why did it take so long to realize this sentence " Zheng Jing's navy defeated a combined Qing-Dutch fleet commanded by Han Banner general Ma Degong in 1664 and Ma was killed in the battle."was way back in 2019. Are you telling me the article had been wrongly added on all this time? Also please do me a favor and give me a message in my inbox. Just one reply is all I need. I want to point out at a lot of things with your edits and don't worry I would make it short.82.36.220.78 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to link you a source. It is not my duty to provide you access to published sources. I did not edit that part back then because I did not see the error as I have now while editing related content on another article. Please stop trying to get others to contact you off wiki when they clearly have no intention to do so. Qiushufang (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay than but would what do you think about this page discussion in this link since your so good with Chinese history (including Taiwanese). There's also a wikipedian user Hunan201p, who is always editing on Chinese history, Turkic history and Asian history. On the Talk:Ashina_tribe he favors Iranian and Caucasoid, and claiming that any Gokturk only look East Asian because of mixing with Chinese or because they took Chinese mothers and Chinese grannies. Currently a user Ghizz is rejecting his views but is stopped by Hunan201p because he doesn't want any Mongoloid or mixed race. Only allowing sources that claims original Ashina were West eurasian. 82.36.220.78 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my two cents on the Ashina page. I suggest you create an account and stop trying to get others to contact you off wiki. Qiushufang (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. I'm not good with that kind of thing. I think what this guy 'Ghizz' wanted was "Requesting help to build a consensus" so he could start editing again and you gave zero advice. Not even sure if you agreeing or disagreeing. I don't even know why Young2 recommended you when he told me you always lose to Hunan. This was really a waste to both of our time. Next time I will ignore him for sure. Also I suggest you provide the correct links of Zheng Jing being defeated by Qing-Dutch. I can't find those quotes you posted and I sure hope you didn't crafted fake quotes. Zheng Jing ended in 1680's while the battle was in 1664. I will repeat again, you were adding many things in Kingdom of Tungning since February. Why did it take so long to realize this sentence " Zheng Jing's navy defeated a combined Qing-Dutch fleet commanded by Han Banner general Ma Degong in 1664 and Ma was killed in the battle."was way back in 2019. Are you telling me the article had been wrongly added on all this time. Anyway this is the end for both of us. Let's stop wasting time. 82.36.220.78 (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no ability to check sources yourself to verify information then you have no business editing wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't even provide a link to keep me shut?82.36.220.78 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minnan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

French Colonial Empire's map

I saw that you undid my 2 maps because you said that you agreed with an IP, also the IP did some edits that are factually wrong, for example a map of the Mongol Empire, in the map there's all Siberia with Mongolian control, and that never happened. I meant that Guinea-Bissau is included in the actual map of the French Colonial Empire's page, and that's a giant mistake, Guinea-Bissau was always controlled by Portugal, called Slave Coast at the time. Portugal controlled it since 1588 until 1974! Also, the "Additional Texts" were dates and some links that sends the reader to the extended page. Also, you can compare my map (Second French Empire (ColonialBEL).png) and you can see that my map isn't wrong, and Guinea-Bissau is not included. Thank you!

talk) 17:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You are spamming maps without any sources, that I agree with. You replace existing maps with maps of often inferior quality, no sources or adding wiki ones when called out, a different color, and doing across many pages on wikipedia being reverted by numerous users. When practically everyone is reverting your unsourced additions both maps and mainspace prose, across multiple subjects, the likelihood that you are in the right here is slim. Qiushufang (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what the colours is about, still the map of the French Colonial Empire is factually and completely wrong. And i decided to fix it, but at the same time split it in two maps because the readers can find them more useful than one that is mixed in one. Thank you.

talk) 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Balhae Controversies

Hello,

Thank you for bringing to my attention that the references were missing some information.

I have put the information below, if you have no issues with the formatting I will redo the edits with the below references.

Masatoshi, Ishi (2001) "Japanese Bohai Relations History Book" Yoshikawa Kobunkan Publishing, ISBN 4642023631. p 425-426

Masatoshi, Ishi (2001) "Japanese Bohai Relations History Book" Yoshikawa Kobunkan Publishing, ISBN 4642023631. p 416-417

石井正敏 (2001) ,"日本渤海関係史の研究" 吉川弘文館,. ISBN 4642023631. p 425-426

石井正敏 (2001) ,"日本渤海関係史の研究" 吉川弘文館,. ISBN 4642023631. p 416-417

Hino, Kaizaburo, (1984) "Kaizaburo Hino Oriental History Collection", Sanichi Shobo Publishing Co., Ltd. NCID: BN00321010 p 78.

Hino, Kaizaburo, (1984) "Kaizaburo Hino Oriental History Collection", Sanichi Shobo Publishing Co., Ltd. NCID: BN00321010 p 486-487

日野開三郎 (1984) "日野開三郎 東洋史学論集" ,三一書房, p 78

日野開三郎 (1984) "日野開三郎 東洋史学論集" ,三一書房, p 486-487

As for the the following two, they are historical texts from Japan.

Considering that lines aren't really a thing may I ask how you would go about quoting, say the old book of tang?

Shoku Nihongi vol 22

Ruiji Kokushi vol 193

続日本紀 vol 22.

類聚国史 vol 193 Vaebn (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I removed the "Japanese researchers believes..." earlier as I checked the citation of that line and found that it was a website that just repeats what was written. (this statement is actually slightly misleading / contrary to what I read) Vaebn (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not use primary sources such as historical texts as the sole source for material. Given the contentious nature of the article, I've avoided using primary and non-English sources in the article unless they already existed. If you can't find any other source besides the historical texts, I wouldn't add those at all. Qiushufang (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

hmm, would that mean references [1] [80] [82] [94] should be removed? this would really empty out the Japanese section, especially since Hino Kaizaburo is one the most prominent researcher from the Japanese perspective.

this would remove a substantial portion referring to gaoli biezhong (高麗別種) which I personally found to be very interesting. (what brought me to edit this part today was in fact this part where I noticed that the Japanese perspective was referenced to nowhere)

I did notice that the history of jin and old/new book of tang was also referenced. Vaebn (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correction: [81] not [80], one of the [80] links to [81] Vaebn (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added Kaizaburo Hino and parts of the content not based on primary sources with the new citations. Again, I've generally left primary sources and non-English sources already in the article as long as they could be corroborated by other non-primary English sources. Please use links instead of pointing to numerals that can change after edits. Qiushufang (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the clarifications!

im going to edit that sentence a bit as in his publication he is referring to the need to write down the gaoli biezhong (高麗別種) in reference to Da Zuorong / Dae Joyeoung specifically rather than all of Mohe as is implied in the current version, plus the name has a letter switched.

As a note, I will probably add the reference to the historical texts once I find an easily accessible translation as those two sources are cited very often (oddly I found it easier to get hard copy rather than find online versions when it comes to Japanese books) Vaebn (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok as another note, please don't put in kanji and other characters for nouns that already link to wiki articles or do so multiple times. Also make sure not to link multiple times, especially in the same section. Qiushufang (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Return : November 2022

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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Kor Ph (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It need to the overheated atmosphere must be cooled. Because Hangeul was a character that did not exist at that time, the logic that Chinese characters should be written first is poor. In that sense, are the Chinese characters written in the documents of the Shang Dynasty the Seal script? In cases where it is not the center of controversy like Balhae, it is correct to use Korean first as it is an ancient country of Korea, but use Chinese characters at the same time.--Kor Ph (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You both erased Hanja as well as privileged modern Hangul as the script which must be placed first even though that was not the case for the historical polity. Your version is blatant distortion of history as it makes out the Hanja to be Chinese, ironically making Korean history more entrenched in "Chinese" history than before. If Chinese characters make it Chinese then were past historical Korean polities Chinese because they used Classical Chinese? Ridiculous. Qiushufang (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't erase the Chinese characters. Chinese characters are also a way of writing that should be respected. However, the reason why you have to give priority to Chinese characters is also because you see the point of view of Chinese nationalism. Except for Balhae, other Korean countries must first write in Korean, but then write in Chinese. This is also better for the conciseness of the template.--Kor Ph (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xinjiang under Qing rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aksu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use plagins to get history diff links

To quickly link to history edits you can use Wikipedia plugins like this: HistoryHelper. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

I added some material to Casey T. Arrowood, specifically that article contained no mention of opposition to his nomination. -- M.boli (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Please see my comments at Talk:Playing card since your original reversion. Zelchenko (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way: Like you, I'm a big supporter of China (I live in Hunan) and I don't like anti-Chinese sentiment. My edits were not to put into question China's claim to having invented the playing card. China of course is the undisputed origin of the playing card, and my edits don't impact that. But given the dominance of the yezi xi/ge theory, and the strength of the counterevidence, it's time that scholars start to dissect this question of 叶子戏跟纸牌到底有什么关系. That's all this is about: it's not sociopolitical except as to further strengthen China's claim to a wonderful invention. Zelchenko (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've spent a lot of words over what is essentially me making sure the reader knows what is going on. Again, I did not remove your addition but moved them after the relevant topic it was referencing. Please don't assume too much into minute coherence editing. Qiushufang (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my information two time saying the same thing "already mentioned above". I will explain what you did is wrong. In the section of Ethnicity and language [edit] it only cites historical evidence from Chinese perspective from The Tang Huiyao (961 CE). From the Kyrgyz perspective, it is Kyrgyz tale that was passed down for generations and should also be included. What I edited is already from the source, I simply added Kyrgyz perspective to make more equal and fair narrative.

The problem is this sentence " It is possible that this was an invented tradition used to claim a blood relationship with the Tang imperial house who claimed descent from Li Ling's grandfather, Li Guang. " But from the Kyrgyz perspective they truely believe the Kyrgyz Khan is descendant of Han dynasty general Li Ling.

Compare it to this?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde#Genetics What does a 2016 genetic study of Golden family (pre-1200) of Genghis Khan from Mongolia have anything to do with Golden Horde (1240-1502) in Europe? The only thing they have in common is the world 'Golden' but it suppose to refer to Kipchak. It says it is not sure if R1b ,D4 is Golden family of Genghis Khan or from his daughter's marriage with other clan. Why talk about if the Golden family is the result of a male genetically carrying a haplogroup west eurasian R1b mixing with east eurasian women D4 in the genetic section of Golden Horde? And that such mixing represent ancestral lineage of Genghis Khan family or that it represents his daughters lineage marriage to other clan, when they are not even sure? Regardless, I'm pretty sure the Golden Horde study from 2018 is about the 2 individual of Mongol male C3 and Caucasian male being slave.

But if that is allowed. I see no reason why you should remove my edit on Kyrgyz perspective 77.103.186.178 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Trial of Haoyang Yu has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not upload it. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

I have deleted the article for copyright problems. Please heed the bolded warning carefully - the longer your tenure, the less leeway you get. MER-C 05:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your contributes. I didnt mean to do that. But im really appreciate that you solved everything. User10281129 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to edit it. I was really didnt want to delete your work but it was confusing texts. So i edited it User10281129 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked your message. I want to discuss with you about Goryeo and Joseon. User10281129 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the extensive talk discussion already in Talk:Joseon as you should have done and are probably already aware of. Qiushufang (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I want to restore it. Because first of all, It could be confusing if Joseon or Goryeo was part of China or not, for those who don't know about the system. And ive seen some problems with Goryeo. During 1356–1392, Didn't Song dynasty already gone? And in case of Joseon, Joseon was not independent during 1882-1895 User10281129 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay User10281129 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt see your message. Im moving out to page Joseon User10281129 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User10281129 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China's tribute system was not even a means of controlling other countries, but an example of a hierarchical diplomatic method that existed in East Asia in the past. Hierarchical relationships were a natural thing in East Asian diplomacy. Im letting you know that i edited it. I wonder if you genuinely disliked redundant. I tried to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system, but you continued to oppose it because the years overlapped. So let's try to make it more concise. Because the tributary relationship and the period of vassalage overlap. Subsequent explanations have been moved to 'a' and 'b'. In personal, i think we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. User10281129 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Making the same rvs for the same reason which they have been reverted elsewhere on a page I have edited since 2018 is not "tailing" nor is it "vandalism" as you threw out there before deleting it. Please don't make stuff up to tack onto others. Qiushufang (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted all my edits in every page since January 2023. It could be seen as an attempt to spark an edit war(

WP:EDITWAR) in Wikipedia. If these things happen habitually in the future, it can be misunderstood that the reason why these things happened is because of your personal feelings toward me. User10281129 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

When I edit on the page, you appear and delete my edits right away. This happened habitually on all the pages. User10281129 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete all your edits in "every pages" since January and your edit history proves it. Every revision was on a page I have followed. I have given my reasons for reversion each time whereas you have ignored them or did not understand. You have not provided any evidence for the reasons given for your changes such as "propaganda" and continued to make the same changes elsewhere. I do not agree with the changes and clearly you do not have consensus so to blame anyone who disagrees with you as edit warring is disingenuous. Considering your recent history I would be careful of making accusations in the future. Qiushufang (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor Hunan201p seems to be doing this quite awhile. There is not a single edit in his Asia-related topics that doesn't promote western eurasian racist theories. Ignoring what he has been doing is the same thing as person as unable to do anything about it even when you know is wrong.

Red hair on Odegei Khan.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&diff=prev&oldid=1099032131, his beard clearly looks brow.

The source clearly says light colored beard but Hunan201p still edit red beard Hovering caption of Ogedei Khan portrait reads: "A portrait of a man with a light-colored beard and mustache and a turquoise cap." and is not even sure that represents his image because the other image of him all black hair, dark brown eyes. In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_hair, Hunan201p guy now commits original uses secondary language blog as evidence, instead of using a first independent source.

Muqan Qaghan, he edited red hair, blue eyes for this guy when sources (original real source from Chinese text) clearly says colored eyes like glazes and red complexion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&diff=prev&oldid=949605918

Golden_Horde#Genetic_study He did same in this genetic study.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Horde&diff=1123339118&oldid=1121111925 The 2016 study proposed a R1b hypothesis Golden family from Mongolia in 1180-1210 that has nothing to do with Batu Khan's Golden Horde/Kipchak Khanate formed in 1240's or 1250's but he tricks everyone by try to make a coloration and the way he edited it doesn't even try to dismiss that R1b is only a hyphothesis of lineage of Genghis Khan's male lineage. It is even disputed if Batu Khan was paternally related to Genghis Khan anyway

NOTE: 1) Thing he doesn't include: All member of the Golden family belong to the Mongoloid physical type 2) That R1b is related paternally with other clans with Genghis Khan daughter rather than male lineage of Genghis Khan

This is from the same genetic study Hunan201p uses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

" All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

"Additionally, Tavan Tolgoi bodies may have been the product of marriages between the lineage of Genghis Khan's Borjigin clan and the lineage of either the Ongud or Hongirad clans, indicating that these individuals were members of Genghis Khan's immediate family or his close relatives."

" it seems most likely that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are members of Genghis Khan’s Golden family, including the lineage of bekis, Genghis Khan’s female lineage, and their female successors who controlled Eastern Mongolia in the early Mongolian era 'instead of guregens of the Ongud clan, or' the lineage of khans, Genghis Khan’s male lineage, who married females of the Hongirad clan"

It should be edited that it as likely the Golden family is related only to the female lineage Genghis Khan not male lineage.Gemmaso (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qiushufang, I've used the above file in Siege of Bukhara, which is now at FAC; personally, I think it's excellent, but it's being criticised for its readability. Is there any way you could improve that aspect? I would be very obliged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. I'm banned on commons and the source file is a mess with no layers. I can't make any base changes and I don't know what changes to make to make it more readable either. My editing skills are very basic. The source is Yuri Bregel 2003 p. 37 if you're interested in taking a shot at it. I used combined topographic maps from commons. Qiushufang (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah damn. Thanks for putting it up in the first place! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content recently got removed for original research on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. 126.77.236.24 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

If you have any objection to my editing, please read my opinion on the talk page carefully, write your own opinion. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE JOIN DISCUSSION たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qiushufang. It seems that there have been revisions against consensus in some articles explaining two battles of the Japanese invasion of Korea(1592~1598), so I have opened talk pages discussing about the revisions in articles of

I made a comment about this at AN3 where you reported the other editor, but I wanted to comment here as well so that it wasn't overlooked. Please be aware that your edits on

]

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tibet under Qing rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kokonor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Recently I had a new editor with an inappropriate name (you can probably guess which one) post on my talk page complaining about being reverted at

A SPI was what alerted me to the sock behavior which seems overwhelmingly likely considering their specific restoration of

WP:CANVAS behavior alerting multiple users indicative of familiarity unlikely for a new user. Qiushufang (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An open SPI, until its closed as confirmed or suspected you can't go around calling people possible socks. The only place you get to do that is on the SPI page itself. FobTown is a good guess as to a possible, not sure they're used offensive names before though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy indicating this? I did not see it on

WP:PERSONALATTACK, which only mentions "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." There is evidence and the page does not mention sockpuppetry. Fresh off the boat is sometimes considered a pejorative. Qiushufang (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fresh Off the Boat is also a hit sitcom on ABC. There is no evidence at all in your edit summary. If there had been a link to the SPI *and* an explanation for the removal on policy or guideline grounds (which accusation of being a sockpuppet is not) we wouldn't be having this conversation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

I just saw you editing Shennong. Are you familiar with the idea of the Shennong clan, I think also called the KuiKui clan which was founded by Shennong and the last Yan emperor was a descendant of? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Your comments around the ethnic origins of other users (using the term "Arabic" in theorizing about a user and username) is completely inappropriate. Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Sumaiyahle (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sumaiyahle (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi i see you have edit wrong information in the List of monarchs of Vietnam and i want to correct you that not only the accuracy of the site is base on our country historical account but also from archaeology discovery in our country of Vietnam and your country of China so yeah stop disrupting edit or you will be blocked Kimhanh1554 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i beg you please stop disrupting edit it's annoying if you don't stop I'm gonna blocked you Kimhanh1554 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, L'objet récemment supprimé sur la page "Hand Cannon" est justifié : l'objet ne daterait pas du XVe siècle, cette pièce d'artillerie est aujourd'hui considéré comme un faux fabriqué au XIXe siècle. MarineMuséeArmée (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand and will trust your judgement, however please communicate in English as this is the English Wikipedia, thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Taiwan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

Hi, I am Vietnamese and I want to say that the source you use from "Ngô Vui" is not a book, never publish and don't have in Vi-Wiki. And about "Châu Ái" all Vietnamese know that it's Thanh Hóa province, not Nghệ An province. You can translate from Vi-wiki. Thank you. Chris Vineyard (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your changes in the history archives of Genghis Khan and you were the one who suggested edited ruddy complexion but the sentence need to be re-edited so that viewers understand this wasn't just about Genghis Khan talking about Kublai Khan had ruddy skin complexion (not red hair) but also members of his families ( Genghis sons) also didn't have red air should also be stated in the edit however Airshipjungleman29 edited trimmed sentence in a way that doesn't explain any of that. All it says is this this "Jami al-tawarikh, which states that Genghis Khan and his Borjigin ancestors had blue-green eyes and either red hair or a ruddy complexion. The way that sentence is edited make it seem that only Kublai Khan having was the only person who had either red hair or ruddy complexion ( it should also be "skin color" complexion)

so many important things were removed on purpose, all for the sake of Airshipjungleman29 trimming. It trimmed so much to the point that only the Genghis Khan caption and any important historical information to his appearance is trimmed. The reason to trim so much In the Cultural depictions section when it's not even half of the size of other section. Data on 2.5 years of edit gone because of Airshipjungleman29 trimmings-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1148906384#Cultural_depictions

RED HAIR

Sources about red hair: "However, according to John Andrew Boyle, Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy. He translated the text as “It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan's eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared”.[188]"

1278 PORTRAIT

Also the portrait of Genghis Khan from 1278, "According to sinologist Herbert Allen Giles, a Mongol painter known as Ho-li-hosun (also known as Khorisun or Qooriqosun) was commissioned by Kublai Khan in 1278 to paint the National Palace Museum portrait." [180] The story goes that Kublai Khan ordered Khorisun, along with the other entrusted remaining followers of Genghis Khan, to ensure the portrait reflected the Genghis Khan's true image.[181] From historical archives-https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00gileuoft/page/162/mode/2up?q=ho-li-ho-sun

AND NO HISTORICAL DATES EDITED IN THE CURRENT PARAGRAPH

"The two earliest statements come from the Persian chronicler Juzjani, who relied on Khorasani eyewitnesses, and the contemporary Song diplomat Zhao Hong—both record that he was tall and strong with a powerful stature.. A much later description is found in the Jami al-tawarikh:"

There is no date on Persian chronicler Juzjani and Song diplomat Zhao Hong (which was suppose to be from 1220 and 1221). There's also no date on the Jami al-tawarikh (which was suppose to be from 14th century). Any reader or viewer who have no previous knowledge would confuse those records for happening in the same century. It all seems very strange how the section is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Qiushufang can you add 14th century for Jami al-tawarikh

2) Can you remove the red hair/blue eyes as being non-mongolic origin because red hair is found in Afghan, Arab, Iranian, East Indians, Mongolian, Turkic, Miao, and Hmong descent

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Asia_(all_regions)

3) Can you add this source " portrait of Genghis Khan from 1278, "According to sinologist Herbert Allen Giles, a Mongol painter known as Ho-li-hosun (also known as Khorisun or Qooriqosun) was commissioned by Kublai Khan in 1278 to paint the National Palace Museum portrait-https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00gileuoft/page/162/mode/2up?q=ho-li-ho-sun

4) However, according to [[John Andrew Boyle]], Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy.https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up

14th century Arabic historian [[Shihab al-Umari]] also disputed Rashid al-Din's translation and claimed the origin of Borjigin clan and [[Alan Gua]] were falsified.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127 Historians Denise Aigle and [[Igor de Rachewiltz]] claimed Rashid al-Din mythicized the origin of Genghis Khan ancestors (the Borjigin clan) from animals to humans through his own interpretations of ''The Secret History of the Mongols'' which claim their early ancestors descended from animals; blue eye wolf (Borte Chino) and the fallow doe (Qo'ai Maral) that was described in the early legends.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127 Sengoku-lord (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

Hello , I called on you many times in good faith to participate in the debate of the talk page of the Song Economy because since you reverted me then disappeared; a lot of suspects accounts ( probably Socks are emerging) ; if this continues and there is no positive interaction; I will notify the notice board for action on sock puppet accounts. It seems from this page you have an history with vandalism and other issues. High Regards SeriousHist (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the issue concluded when I did not revert your last change. Seeing the recent reverts, I can see the reasoning behind your suspicion. I have never used a sock but good luck with your reports. Qiushufang (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you as a sign of good faith ; I m asking you to stop trying to impose your point of view by putting prosperity instead of wealthy ( it is the same in the end most prosperous or most wealthy it was neither but one of the most prosperous or most wealthy ) ; and let the community interact in the talk page. The history of this page is making me suspicious but I want to trust you so please refrain until a consensus emerge on the talk page. Believe me it is better in an encyclopedia not to be totally affirmative with incomplete facts ( one of the most prosperous is much more plausible, logical and acceptable) High Regards SeriousHist (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) You reversed me and another author; you removed a major source; you are refusing to wait for a majority to decide on the talk page; I m reporting you .SeriousHist (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) You caused all of this with your bad faith and refusing to compromise; and insisting on imposing your point of view ; you are even refusing to letting the community decide. No wonder all these people complain about your behavior in your talk page.[reply]

Please do not accuse others of bad faith when you yourself warned me of something I was not a part of after I had already left the conversation and then returned to notice that you had added

WP:BURDEN. Qiushufang (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a warning ⛔️ about edit warring plus possible creation of sock puppets or disruptive accounts; Esthertheprofessor was created the same period I began to change the article after your first reversal Special:Contributions/Esthertheprofessor; what a coincidence you disappeared ; Esther appeared ; you returned they disappeared; anyway I took several steps in acting in good faith; removing my earlier contributions; opening a talk page ; involving the community saying I was ready to submit to the majority; I talked to you many times in a positive way finally today I put a very important reliable source much more plausible than your individual source ( a major source about world history used in many universities) yet you removed it with a great disrespect without even talking about it in the talk page; your behaviour is not unusual as it seems in this talk page where you have many incidents with a lot of people. I m giving you a few days to think it over ; I made you a new proposition on the talk page of the article. There is a new major source plausibly more reliable than the one used and you don’t have certainly to determine alone the issue as if you owned the article.

That’s the most important warning ⚠️ about ownership of article. Still I m inviting you in good faith to go to the article page talk to discuss a solution.

High Regards. SeriousHist (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I see below others are complaining of your behavior of reverting them, I m warning ⛔️ you about WP:OWN" ; you are removing everything I put : 1) when I describe you are using one source for your claims which is the truth 2) When I describe European achievements in comparaison to China they are a facts plus you don’t decide on reliability of Palmer 3) The description of Byzantine annual fiscal revenues is simply to compare them to the song revenues inside the song economy article. Thank you SeriousHist (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Volley fire have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you understand what constitutes vandalism before warning others falsely. Qiushufang (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do; sorry, I only meant to revert the edit changing the word "meager" to "scanty," since that seemed kind of subjective (on second thought, I probably should've sent a warning for a problem with npov, so sorry for sending the vandalism one; earlier, I did not think that that one edit was overly constructive, so I thought that the vandalism one would work). I was using RedWarn (it hasn't done this before; I think I might've accidentally clicked the button that restores a previous version of a page while looking at the differences between edits). I take full responsibility for my actions, and will make sure that I pay more attention while reverting edits to ensure that this does not happen again. Also, why do you think that changing "meager" to "scanty" is necessary? Just wondering. Anyways, thanks for reverting my reversion (the rest of your edits were definitely helpful) and replying so that I'd be notified. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I originally used the word meager so that it wouldn't be as close to the original text, but on second consideration, scanty is the word directly used in the source which would be easier to search for users to check. It's not a big deal and either is fine. Qiushufang (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Tsien book Science and Civilization in China 5.I is available to borrow from the Internet Archive here. I found it cleared up one major misunderstanding. You may find it useful? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was embarrassed because there was an editing conflict while revising the items for the Imjin War.. If there is a problem with the Hamgyeong-do campaign and the Joseon Army item, I will correct it. Win8050 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mongol invasions of Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsushima.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either we are incapable or he is too intelligent for us to deal with. He is just editing everything the way he wants. I was hoping based on your historical experience with him you can do more but I feel like you too are struggling to keep up with his reasons to remove your edits, don't worry though. I'm try my best to convince him.

Here again.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Character_and_achievements

Why did AirshipJungleman29 removing the date o 1220 and 1221 by Juz and Song that recorded Genghis Khan before he died in 1227? It's as if he doesn't want people to people actually recorded during Genghis Khan life time existent. Also why he removed the info to 1278 PORTRAIT " Also the portrait of Genghis Khan from 1278, "According to sinologist Herbert Allen Giles, a Mongol painter known as Ho-li-hosun (also known as Khorisun or Qooriqosun) was commissioned by Kublai Khan From historical archives-An introduction to the history of Chinese pictorial art : Giles, Herbert Allen, 1845-1935 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive"

Anyway this guy focus so much about Mongols and Genghis Khan and removes and interpret it the way he wants even the caption he removed, he doesn't do this do any other page which has 5 to 9 lines caption but only to the Genghis Khan page. Sengoku-lord (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"동여진" == Eastern Jurchens

"20여" == over 20 Dallcomm (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jurchen people

added links pointing to Mohe and Aguda

Wanyan

added links pointing to Mohe and Aguda

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

It is in alphabetical order. And if you do not like the part, do not revert all and try discussing it. Dubukimchi (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide a reason for your rv nor is it supposed to be in alphabetical order. Qiushufang (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted it first. Please read section #October 2023. Dubukimchi (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And? What does that have to do with the order of combatants which lists the primary participants first? Qiushufang (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. (— by JML1148, #October 2023)

Check out what you reverted. You didn't look closely at what other people edited. You just reverted all edits. So, could you tell me why "Tamna" had to be removed?

And I will report you if you continue to make trouble like this. Dubukimchi (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubukimchi Then why did you talk about alphabetical order and revert the order which the one who changed it clearly explained the reason for changing was? You are accusing me of something you did already. Qiushufang (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding right now. I have never reverted your editing. Therefore, I do not have to explain to you before I edit it. But you did not like some of my edits, so you reverted all the edits of several people, including me. And even though many people have already warned you, you still have not tried to discuss it before reverting it again. Please do not revert it any more, discuss it on the talk page first. Dubukimchi (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to discuss. But we have already discussed it. As mentioned, ordering of combatants is not based on alphabetical order. Tamna is also not mentioned anywhere in the article. So why did you revert it again when the discussion has not justified those changes? Qiushufang (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have not started the discusstion yet. I just reverted it because your edits were not appropriate. Please try discussing it in the talk page, not here. And if you try reverting again without any consensus, I will report you. Dubukimchi (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need "consensus" to implement basic Wikipedia policies such as

WP:BURDEN is on you to justify additions with reliable sources, not others. Qiushufang (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Jurchen people

added a link pointing to Aguda

Mongol invasions of Korea

added a link pointing to Haizhou

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you think I'm a troll, just wanted to drop this here in case I end up blocked or banned... User:Guizotthehistorian. I think you might recognize them[6]. You're welcome and I hope we can get along better in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making things up when I said there were users who actually messaged me telling me not to interact with you because they thought you were a troll. I wouldn't go as far but you certainly are extremely abrasive. Qiushufang (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't for a second think you were making it up, that sort of thing is why I no longer open my linked email. Abrasive seems to be the tone set by the early users who are now WP:unblockables, its all too easy to fall into if you spend a long time interacting with them. I definitely need to be more mindful of that. Small actions make big changes and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Appreciate your help on adding content to Military history of Taiwan. However, I noticed you seem to be moving whole sections from other articles, if not whole articles, to the point that this article now contains way more words than optimal. I think there is a balance to keep here, where we could keep a summary of events but reference other articles appropriately. Let me know if you agree. Butterdiplomat (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Personally I think the word count and overlap is fine. As this is a military history of Taiwan, it shouldn't require too much trimming than a more general article. Qiushufang (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I think most of it is probably good to keep, but some specifics may be more suited in main articles and summarized instead. Thanks again. Butterdiplomat (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Please stop the destruction or any effort to make the article better ; you are destroying team effort plus you are making the article worse by claiming it’s ownership WP:OWN you were already refuted many times ; your talk page show your conflicts with many users . This is a warning ⛔️ against WP:OWN and meatpuppets SeriousHist (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believed your accusations had any merit you would have reported me by now. Qiushufang (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did report it during the board discussion; also on the Talk page of the article and its history but I have the feeling they want us to cooperate; perhaps it is why they are not interfering; also I m ready to accept their judgement if they support you , I m ready to move on. SeriousHist (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should really take a look a this user who I think is anti-Chinese ( even though you can't accuse him of being anti-Chinese his edits shows his agenda and motives). He is a wikipedia user with Indian written name.The same person who created this page-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shajing_culture&action=history&offset=20231104215044%7C1183529796

When you read every edit his made related with Chinese it's like everything he is doing so far trying you make Chinese people less than what they and less proud of being ethnic Chinese. If you look at all the wiki page he created and what he edited so far. Behind his agenda is to do everything to undermine Chinese people's creativity, intelligence and a disguise in protoming indo-european supremacy.

He invest a lot of time in editing Saka/Indo-European connections with China. For example this is the map he created-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka#/media/File:Map_of_the_Saka_realm.png

The Saka page-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka

SOME CONTROVERSIAL CLAIMS HE ADDED. All of these are hypothesis not proven but he edits it like it's neutral-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture#Possible_links_to_other_cultures

Numerous scholars have suggested that the Afanasievo culture may be responsible for the introduction of metallurgy to China.[56][57][58] In particular, contacts between the Afanasievo culture and the Majiayao culture and the Qijia culture are considered for the transmission of bronze technology.[59][60]

Similar paragraph again that's edited in Afanasievo culture also in the majiayao culture page he edited-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture#Bronze-

And as for this-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shajing_culture#Final_period

the final centuries, the Shajing culture was bordered to the south by the first Great Wall built by King Zhao of Qin in 271 BCE, and by the Xirong Majiayuan culture which had been incorporated within it.[20][21]

No matter how you look at it there's a clear agenda of trying to link some Chinese achievements with indo-european influence, introduction. I hope someone rebukes all of this because it's clear to me that all the things he edited only make Chinese people look bad ( is a disguise to make achievements of Chinese look non-Chinese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are one, sad etnonationalist, Sengoku-lord ChenDaoIsHere (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economy of South Korea. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. This link showed that you made three reverts on 10 February 2024.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only a ban will solve this behavior - all his edits on his talk page show edit wars every few lines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtaw (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trippink reverted the deletion of the sections on "Macro-economic trend" and "GDP composition".[7]. His/her edit summary explained what he/she was doing.

• So why did Qiushufang revert Trippink? Qiushufang's edit summaries leave no clue to this.
• And why did Truthtaw and Sword of china restore Trippink's edit? Their edit summaries merely attacked Qiushufang.

So we need you both to use the article talk page to explain.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trippink, Hankook12, and Bunsik are all socks. I don't believe Truthtaw is related to them, they're just a stalking sock from User:SeriousHist, who was banned in an edit war with me. Qiushufang (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although Japan won the Sino-Japanese War and interfered in Korea's internal affairs, it was not until after the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 that Korea was officially classified as a dependent country of Japan. Before that, it was advertised that it made Joseon independent. On the other hand, the Qing Dynasty claimed that it had a similar dependency relationship with the Western world based on its traditional relationship with Joseon. However, this is only the Qing Dynasty's claim, and there is no agreement from Joseon, no treaty, or any documented data to prove it.

It must be clearly stated that this is the Qing Dynasty's claim. Win8050 (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Win8050 The sources do not dispute the change in the political relationship between Jose on and Qing in this period. If the name was changed to subordinate state or non independent state would that be more appropriate？It does not matter what the name is as the change in de facto status in practice is what is being described. Per the sources the Qing was directly involved in governing Joseon and its army at this point. Qiushufang (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not classified as a client state simply because it interferes in internal affairs and has military involvement. So what did Japan do when it occupied the Joseon palace, took the king hostage, and then made it clear in the treaty that Joseon was an independent country? Win8050 (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Win8050 This is not about Japan. I have changed the description from client state as you have taken issue with it to better describe its status in practice. Qiushufang (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an individual's subjective judgment. Since the materials published by the Korea-Japan History Group and the Korean government were used as sources, it is necessary to match them as much as possible.

Therefore, only the historical fact that the Qing Dynasty claimed dependency should be stated. Win8050 (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources and to a lesser extent primary and tertiary sources. There is no policy where government or Korean sources need take precedence. The sources also do not dispute the political reality of Qing control over Korea at the time nor do any other sources listed. The "client state" term has already been removed and replaced. Qiushufang (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it again: It is a historical fact that Joseon was interfered with in its internal affairs and that the Qing Dynasty tried to have its vassal relationship recognized by the international community. However, the claim that Joseon was in client state status is not official and is controversial. Since there is a risk of confusion, it is best to state that it is the Qing Dynasty's claim for the sake of neutrality.

Although Joseon's internal affairs were interfered with at the time, it still functions as a sovereign nation. On the other hand, Japan took steps to illegally take away this authority.

Joseon and the Qing Dynasty do not have the same relationship as Austria-Hungary. Win8050 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot as the status no longer describes "client state" but merely that it was under Qing political and military control, which is what the sources describe. This is not a claim. Qiushufang (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is interpreted as a personal assertion. Even if it's not me, I think someone else will edit it. It is best to simply state that it is the Qing Dynasty's claim. Win8050 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself and the sources you provided support the description. The Joseon army was organized by Qing leaders, the foreign affairs were overseen by the Qing, and officials were appointed by the Qing. Per In October 1882, the two countries signed the China–Korea Treaty of 1882, and Korea was reduced to a semi-colonial tributary state of China with King Gojong unable to appoint diplomats without Chinese approval which is part of the article body. What you are describing as "personal assertion" is

WP:OR on your part and against Wikipedia policy. Again, this is not a claim as you have said many times. None of the sources dispute the reality of Chinese political interference, aka control, over politics of Korea in this period. Qiushufang (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This is an issue that is also on the subject of discussion in history. I clearly said this was best. Even if it weren't for me, editing like this wouldn't last long. It's explained in the text anyway, so is there any need to write it at length? :( Win8050 (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what you are trying to say. This is a historical subject and using sources related to the historical subject is appropriate. The sources make it clear that this aspect of the subject is not disputed. Trying to make this about terminological nitpicking is ridiculous. Qiushufang (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what did you undo my addition? BulgarChanyu (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based primarily on reliable secondary sources and then primary and tertiary sources to a lesser extent. Your addition is based on an old primary source that is not backed up by a secondary source. Qiushufang (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so what you are saying is, if I add a secondary source, it will be accepted? BulgarChanyu (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be sourced to a reliable and verifiable secondary source. Qiushufang (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

it can be redundant for you but for others is important Vishgor (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The starting date is listed twice, why would you list them twice in the same infobox?

Thank you to edit the article. I think their fault from my side Vishgor (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian