User talk:Tnguyen4321

• The official names for the units of 1st ACD during the Pleiku campaign are: 1st Air Cavalry Division Forward CP : Brigadier General Richard Knowles; 1st Air Cavalry Brigade: Colonel Harlow Clark (1/8 Battalion, 2/8 Battalion, 2/12 Battalion); 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade: Lieutenant Colonel Ray Lynch (1/5 Battalion, 2/5 Battalion); 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade: Colonel Thomas W. Brown (1/7 Battalion, 2/7 Battalion). I also added the name of the NVA 33rd Regiment: Vũ Sắc. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I delete "According to ARVN" because the citation is of MG Kinnard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• The main intelligence sourced used on the US and ARVN sides during the Pleime campaign were radio intercept of PAVN communication. For the sake of classification, they were oftentimes attributed to "special agents", "captured documents", "prisoners' and ralliers' interrogation reports" by Kinnard, McChristian, Vinh Loc.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Inconclusive" becomes irrelevant with the inputs of PAVN casualty figures in section "result". Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, on November 17, intelligence source intercepted PAVN communication mentioning "that nearly 2/3 of their strength had been wiped off through the engagements in Phases I and II", meaning 2 out of 3 regiments. This figure took into account casualties caused by the 3 day Arc Light action (Nov 15-17), that PAVN and US sides did not. == Your submission at Articles for creation: Ia Drang Battle in its Pleime Campaign Context (April 24) == Oops, I forgot to logging before to sign this post.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ia Drang Battle in its Pleime Campaign Context and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

To lessen the time wasted for unnecessary arguments, let's see some definition in WP:CHALLENGED:

“ All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. ”

So it's clear now. You don't need to put a source onto the article, but you must point out one. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No more necessary: I have rephrased the sentence here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

However, just for the record, the point in contention here is related to self-evident fact that does not need citation see, "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:BLUE Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your statements is certainly not something like "the sky is blue". And by the way I don't say you need to cite, you just need to provide a source. 222.252.55.135 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand English well.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Dino nam. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

I have already said multiple times: I gave up dialoguing with you, because of your persistent bad faith attitude.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Apply the advice to yourself first.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't conduct vandalism so I don't have to. Dino nam (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What are these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc?

The admins are kind of slow in catching up with you. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's fixing disruptive editing. Dino nam (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

I have created an article about the Pleiku Campaign. So now you don't have to worry about its omission anymore. 123.24.194.104 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2015

I note that you are recently making a host of alterations to The Battle of Ia Drang without any reference to the article Talk page. You have recently re-reverted my edit regarding the outcome of the battle, which was a consensus edit of long standing. The fact that the North Vets immediately re-occupied the site of the battle after the US withdrawal underlines this original decision.

Don't you think it would be preferable to engage with other editors on the article Talk page and to produce your own User page, so that editors of long standing can, at least, know something about you? David J Johnson (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not been only "making a host of alterations", but also multiple contributions. The reason I did not make any reference to the article Talk page is because I am new in the editing process and did not know how to use that Talk page yet. The consensus edit was long standing because it was unchallenged until now, with my appearance (!). It was believed to be "inconclusive" because both sides (VC and US) claimed victories, not because the fact "that the North Vets immediately re-occupied the site of the battle after the US withdrawal. If it was, then the original decision is wrong. The North Vietnamese troops that remained at the site after the US withdrawal were killed by Arc Light strikes aiming LZ X-Ray itself. The Americans were not interested in keeping it. LZ X-Ray was used as a bait to regroup the PAVN troops into targets that B-52 could efficiently destroy. Similarly, should it be said that the battle of Khe Sanh was "inconclusive"?

Following your advice, I have created my User page. One question, if I make a comment in my User page do I need to repeat it at the article Talk page, or vice-versa?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Plei Me

You deleted a lot of material without explanation about the aftermath of the Siege of Plei Me which I have restored. This material is relevant and is a bridge to the article about the Battle of Ia Drang. Please consult other editors before taking such action. Smallchief (talk 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection regarding your restoration. I have made a correction on the date and added a detail.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:The Pleime Campaign has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Pleime Campaign. Thanks! Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be advised that they are to two different although related topics: "Plei Me Campaign" and "Battle of Ia Drang". In "Plei Me Campaign" the subject is dealt in itself as a whole; in "Battle of Ia Drang", the subject is dealt as a background of the Ia Drang Battle. If a reader or researcher is looking for the Plei Me Campaign, he/she would not find it by searching Plei Me Campaign in Wiki and might not be lead to Battle of Ia Drang. Therefore there should be a separate text on the Pleime Campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Pleime Campaign (June 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joseph2302 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Pleime Campaign and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be advised that they are to two different although related topics: "Plei Me Campaign" and "Battle of Ia Drang". In "Plei Me Campaign" the subject is dealt in itself as a whole; in "Battle of Ia Drang", the subject is dealt as a background of the Ia Drang Battle. If a reader or researcher is looking for the Plei Me Campaign, he/she would not find it by searching Plei Me Campaign in Wiki and might not be lead to Battle of Ia Drang. Therefore there should be a separate text on the Pleime Campaign

Hello! Tnguyen4321, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Pleime Campaign concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Pleime Campaign, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Pleime Campaign

Hello, Tnguyen4321. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Pleime Campaign".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Battle of Ia Drang. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching this page)

Please avoid the excessive use of quotations from non-free works

Please don't add quotations from your sources inside your footnotes. It's unnecessary, and it's a violation of our WP:non-free content policy. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa I thought by doing so, it makes them handy for the readers who wish to verify their authenticity without having to go to look for them in printed copies that might not be readily available.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do it any more. It's not the way we do things here. We aim to be freely reusable by anyone, and excessive quotations from non-free content gets in the way of that mission. — Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me the Wikipedia way.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Blanking

Hi, while patrolling recentchanges I noticed you blanked Pleiku Campaign. There's generally no need to blank pages just because they didn't go through the review process. While new editors are often recommended to go through review processes such as AfC for instance, it is by no means a requirement. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit after all! In some cases it is problematic when users create new articles at redirects as they often escape the notice of New Page Patrollers at Special:NewPages, but in this case the article was clearly a well-formatted and correct article by someone who seemed to have some idea of what they were doing. Plus even if that were the case, there's no need to delete good content just because it doesn't follow the rules to the letter. Cheers, Intelligentsium 21:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks.

Should I have known this way, I would have been able to successfully poste my article Pleime Campaign, instead of having it struck down and redirected to Battle of Ia Drang. Oh well, thanks again anyway.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like User:Majora has reverted the change. I'll see if they want to comment with a different perspective. Intelligentsium 21:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I am intrigued. Let me know that different perspective. Please keep me posted.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I am an expert on this, since I have written 50+ articles about the subject (see http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime-2.htm) and since I am mainly responsible for expanding the page Battle of Ia Drang - as instructed when I submitted the article Pleime Campaign and had it struck down and redirected to Battle of Ia Drang. It is about to almost becoming the Pleime Campaign which comprises three battles Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang. The Battle of Iadrang is actually the Battle of Chupong (LZ X-Ray is located at the eastern foot of the Chu Pong Massif, not in the Ia Drang Valley as generally thought). My suggestion is to rename Battle of Ia Drang,Pleime Campaign and have Battle of Ia Drang redirected to Pleime Campaign. I also suggest to redirect Pleiku Campaign to Pleime Campaign, since the same campaign is named Pleime Campaign by Vĩnh Lộc and Pleiku Campaign by Kinnard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on the Battle of Ia Drang and other related articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow! My first barnstar since becoming an editor at Wikipedia. Quite a pleasant surprise. It's about time, isn't it? Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You deserve it. Keep up the good work! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pleiku Campaign page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tnguyen4321. You have new messages at Intelligentsium's talk page.
Message added 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Intelligentsium 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Battle of Ia Drang

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

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

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Tnguyen4321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am the "victimized party". I edit in good faith (per User:Tiderolls) [8]. I have just been bold in trying to prevent Dino nam from being persistent in abusive bogus OR tagging. I have gone through the entire sequential resolution procedure without positive outcomes; my request for article's protection had been turned down. I received a barnstar for ma contributions of Battle of Ia Drang [9]. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring is still not acceptable even if you are right - everyone thinks they're right, don't they? If you cannot resolve a content disagreement at the article talk page, you should follow the dispute resolution steps outline at WP:DR, or if you think another editor's behaviour is problematic, you can ask at WP:ANI for an admin to take a look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Other party now blocked again

The editor you complained about is now blocked for further warring at Battle of Ia Drang. To avoid problems yourself, I recommend you not make any more reverts on articles about the Vietnam war, until consensus has been found. You could ask for assistance from WT:MILHIST for example, or you could open an WP:RFC. See WP:DR for ideas. There may be active editors who have worked on other Vietnam war articles. -- EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I have gone through all the routes you are suggesting, and got no where. I have reached the last resort of asking for article's protection [10]. Meanwhile, can you please take off the OR tags that Dino nam had reintroduced? He is indeed a tough cookie. Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk of leaving the OR tags there. Dino nam's trick is to have the pretext to delete the dated OR tagged sections when the deadline is reached, like say after a month.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning

I'm giving you the same opportunity to avoid a block as I have given Dino nam. You need to self revert your edits at Battle of Ia Drang to avoid a block for edit warring. Tiderolls 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All of my recent edits? or which ones? they are of different types, like add reference (Wesmoreland's history notes) links to G3/IFFV document. Please clarify further. I have explained my edits on the talk page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Should I revert back to [11], at which point Dino nam closed his RfC? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert to Dino nam's last edit on the article. Tiderolls 16:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Disregard. Dino nam has made such a mess of the revision history that any revert would be meaningless. I implore you not to editwithout first establishing consensus for your edit(s) on the article talk page. Tiderolls 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad that you noticed what a mess of the revision history Dino nam had done. Actually that's not the only mess. He has turned upside down the article with his editing aimed solely at my editing. I started making intense contributions starting 18:00, 14 April 2015‎ here. It was not until 10:41, 28 March 2016‎ here that he started disrupting my editing with a sock puppet IP 117.6.88.137. He subsequently carried on his disruptive editing against me with various IPs 113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116 until he was forced to identify himself as Dino nam because the article was put under semi-protection at 14:52, 16 May 2016‎ here and he resumed at 15:59, 16 May 2016‎ here his disruptive editing until now. No other editors besides Dino nam have problem with my editing and when there was any, it was rapidly resolved with an explanation and discussion in the talk page. Editing war only exists between Dino nam and me. I have gone through with him Talk Page, Third party's opinion, RfC, Noticeboard, Request for semi-protection, Request for full protection. And yet Dino nam is still holding the article in hostage. Have you the time to take up this case and make the madness created by Dino nam stop, please, please, please? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed. What you do you mean exactly "in the article mainspace"? Do you mean in the infobox? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Something fishy going on here. Did you make this change, from "edit in the article mainspace without" to "editwithout" [12]? The history makes it appears as I did it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss to explain the difference in the revisions you have pointed out. You need to understand that admins do not referee content. I will check into the other matter this weekend. Tiderolls 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't you, then the culprit has to be Dino nam. He is a very clever and tricky editor who knows how to find his way through loopholes. You ought to get to the bottom of this. It was a mistake that you unblocked him thinking he made a good faith attempt in self reverting. But, as I pointed out, he hid other illegal edits (removals of reference and urls) while doing it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

In case you cannot figure out how Dino nam did his trick, if you want, I will show you how he did it. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls:Are you still working on this sneaky vandalism case [13]? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I took it to be a technical glitch. Tiderolls 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A technical glitch unintentionally done by you? I doubt it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How about the other matter that you promised to check into last weekend?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Your addition to Pleiku Campaign has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. I am the author of Venturing into Lion’s Den in Ia Drang Valley http://www.generalhieu.com/thanphong7_hangcop-2.htm and the webmaster of www.generalhieu.com. How do I fix this addition that you have removed as it appears to you to infringe on copyrights. Do I have to rewrite using my 'other' own word? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder and wish to donate the material to Wikipedia under license, please follow the instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have sent the permission email: I hereby affirm that I, Nguyen Van Tin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.generalhieu.com/thanphong7_hangcop-2.htm . I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Nguyen Van Tin, June 26, 2016. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the Wikipedia way. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: You have removed the material that was not copied from http://www.generalhieu.com/thanphong7_hangcop-2.htm [14]. Please kindly restore.

For the other material that you have removed, are you going to revert when the permission email is reviewed and approved?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have checked my work, and none of the content I removed was not copied from the source webpage. Once your permission email has been assessed and an OTRS ticket is in place on the talk page, the content can be restored. — Diannaa (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right: I looked at the wrong material (that I have added after the removal of the content from the source webpage. Sorry for the inconvenience.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you editing Battle of Ia Drang before consensus has been determined? Do you want to be blocked? Tiderolls 05:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I possibly get consensus if no one is interested in the topic, like my request for opinions re: local vs theater commanders fell into dead ears[15]. You had also experienced the same indifference attitude even from the the Military history WikiProject people when you solicited their advice [16]. If you look at my Battle of Ia Drang contribution history, the majority of my editing have been well accepted by the editor community, except Dino nam (alias: 113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116) as I have told you: "Glad that you noticed what a mess of the revision history Dino nam had done. Actually that's not the only mess. He has turned upside down the article with his editing aimed solely at my editing. I started making intense contributions starting 18:00, 14 April 2015‎ here. It was not until 10:41, 28 March 2016‎ here that he started disrupting my editing with a sock puppet IP 117.6.88.137. He subsequently carried on his disruptive editing against me with various IPs 113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116 until he was forced to identify himself as Dino nam because the article was put under semi-protection at 14:52, 16 May 2016‎ here and he resumed at 15:59, 16 May 2016‎ here his disruptive editing until now. No other editors besides Dino nam have problem with my editing and when there was any, it was rapidly resolved with an explanation and discussion in the talk page. Editing war only exists between Dino nam and me. I have gone through with him Talk Page, Third party's opinion, RfC, Noticeboard, Request for semi-protection, Request for full protection. And yet Dino nam is still holding the article in hostage. Have you the time to take up this case and make the madness created by Dino nam stop, please, please, please? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)". Let's wait and see; I bet there will be no reaction to my recent editing from the editor community. Besides, don't you see that my editing brings a valuable contribution to the article? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the article from my watchlist. Tiderolls 15:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing at Battle of Ia Drang

The consensus is against you over there. So I suggest you drop the stick and move on. You want to challenge a close, bring it to WP:AN instead of reverting. And stop edit warring on the article. Your behaviour is disruptive and I suggest you stop it. If you don't, I reserve the right to bring you to ANI for a review of your actions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You call consensus 2 out of 5? 3 editors sais there were no ARVN units at the battle.

I am doing what I am allowed to do by Wikipedia editing regulations.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I made a lot of positive editing to the article (see hist). It is Dino nam that does the disruptive editing and edit warring.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus and that too 5 out of 5 that South Vietnam played a supporting role in this particular battle. The matter is closed. If you fe this is incorrect, you are welcome to start an RFC again. Till that time, we follow the current consensus. And I just saw that you refactored by comments on the talk page. Never ever do that again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you have made positive contributions and I am grateful to you for that. But in this particular issue ("supported by" in Infobox) consensus is against you. Multiple un-involved editors have commented - I came here via the RFC and then read up on the battle. It best if you accept the consensus and continue contributing positively. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Block

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks There'sNoTime for your intervention. I totally agree with you that this edit warring comes close to the top of the list of silliness. I have no choice since it's seems to be the only way to stop Dino nam to delete all the source data relevant to the topic that I have contributed since I resumed editing the article on April 9 after walking away in August 2016 at which time I gave up dialoguing with Dino nam. Quite a long leave of absence: 8 months. Since resuming editing I enjoy a period of peaceful editing, unchallenged by any editor, because Dino nam charged back in with a massive negative editing (-12,381)‎in one stroke on 08:24, 30 May 2017 (less than 2 months). I took me quite sometime to manually restore the damage.

You are quite fair in dealing with this silly edit warring. Thanks again.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - edit warring is never the way to deal with a dispute on Wikipedia, as it almost always results in everyone getting blocked. You did have a choice - in the future, use our dispute resolution procedures to work a problem out. If you're really stuck, and need some advice on what to do ask the folks at the dispute resolution noticeboard for advice, and they will guide you. I've said this to Dino nam and I'll say it to you as well, if this continues when your blocks expire you'll both be blocked for a long time (months) or even indefinitely. I don't want that to happen, so spend some time reading these tips on keeping calm when the editing gets a bit out of control -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice acknowledged. I am chagrin to say, though, that I had tried that route to no avail in the previous dispute with Dino nam. As I said, I had to walk away for 8 long months. I think I have given my fair share in improving the quality of Battle of Ia Drang. I consider my job relatively done and would walk away for good, with the hope that other editors would improved and protected it for the good of everybody.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Important

Unless you have the editor's explicit ok you should undo this edit immediately. Tiderolls 13:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: tbf they were obeying a direct instruction from an admin to 'take this discussion to your talk page.' Which they have taken, perhaps, literally. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I can imagine many ways to execute an action on a misunderstanding. My point is change it back now...discuss later. Tiderolls 13:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Am I not "the editor" of this post? If not, then whose explicit ok should I ask? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You moved a discussion from a user talk not your own. Not only is this contraindicated by guideline, it's simply inconsiderate. Tiderolls 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I initiated the discussion and posted it there. Then moved it to this location as instructed by Boing! who by the way considers it's inconsiderate to discuss it there. Do you care to answer to my question: which editor' permission, the other two editors being Boing! and Fortuna and also enlighten me with the guideline as I am a novice in editing? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit of confusion here. When I said "take this discussion somewhere else" (or whatever I actually said), the expression really just means "continue it somewhere else" and not "move what has already been said somewhere else" - so I'm sorry if I was not clear with someone whose first language is not English. I think it can be left where it is now and left alone, as it has clearly run its course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee:Aren't you a little bit condescending here: "I was not clear with someone whose first language is not English"? It is clear to Fortuna, though.

Well, I did suggest that you had perhaps taken B!sZ's comment a trifle too literally. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't being condescending at all - I used an expression whose literal meaning is not quite the same as its idiomatic meaning, and I should not do that when Wikipedia has an international community. (If I'm mistaken about your native language, then I happily apologise for that.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is your second 'mea culpa' (quite good choice of words for someone whose English is a second language, huh!) addressed to me. Both apologies accepted.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls:What say you, Tide rolls? I undid as per your instruction and Boing! just reverted it [17]. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Tiderolls 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the guideline, although it is not much of help. So, should I revert Boing' editing and I put the section in question back to Dino nam' as per your order or are you ok with him in leaving it here? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I immediately re-reverted, which you can see quite clearly, so there is nothing more you need to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

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

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

Tnguyen4321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the block is no more necessary because I will not edit war again as a way to resolve a dispute and will resume being a productive contributor with 25 percent positive contributions to the content of the article and 13 out of 15 of the references used.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is your third block this month for edit-warring. What you've shown is you have no intention of stopping edit-warring. As soon as your previous blocks expired, you resumed your previous behaviour. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible for you to convince us to lift the block, but I am saying this unblock request is entirely insufficient. You need to convince us. What's changed? Why did it take three blocks for you to decide to stop edit-warring? What guarantee do we have, if we lift your block, that you'll never again engage in this behaviour? Yamla (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

Tnguyen4321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, contrary to your statement, this is my second block this month; my first block was one year old, in May 2016. Secondly, please notice that after that block, I walked away to let things cool down for a year and only resume editing the article starting April 2017. My editing went smoothly for awhile when Dino nam reappeared in May. The edit war between me and Dino nam won't happen again, since he is forbidden to edit the article anymore. Besides, I have pretty much nothing more to add in my positive contribution to the betterment of the article. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I would only agree to an unblock if you agree to stop editing Battle of Ia Drang completely, otherwise you should try for the WP:Standard Offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Tnguyen4321 is correct that this was the second block this month, not the third as I claimed in my unblock decline. I will leave the unblock request to another admin to review, though; I find it problematic. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Dino nam: has not been forbidden to edit the article. They've been offered the opportunity to voluntarily restrict themselves from editing the article. I do not think it would be fair to accept their condition for unblock without a likewise commitment from yourself. Tiderolls 14:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls:I have no objection to my commitment of not to engage into a edit war in the future. Clarification re: Dino nam: "I'd be willing to reduce the block length to 1 week if you promise to never edit Battle of Ia Drang again on condition that you will be reblocked immediately if you do. -- John Reaves 19:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)" Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

But you would consider it fair that you be allowed to edit the article while the other party be barred? Tiderolls 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Tnguyen4321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I agree to stop editing Battle of Ia Drang completely. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Accept with the understanding that future edits to Battle of Ia Drang will lead to a restored indefinite block. Note also that other incidents of edit warring at any article could result in an indefinite block as well. only (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Tnguyen4321 has agreed not to edit the article as you suggested in your previous unblock decline; are you comfortable with an unblock now? only (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with that - on the understanding that another edit on Battle of Ia Drang will lead to the block being reinstated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tnguyen4321. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tnguyen4321. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)