User talk:Qiushufang

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

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! Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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 Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Return : November 2022

Your recent editing history at Silla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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)

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)