User talk:JacquesNguyen

Improper moves

You've made several improper moves by copying and pasting contents to new articles and redirecting their old names to the new names. This is discouraged since it loses the page's history. To make a proper move, use the "move" tab at the beginning of the article. If you're unable to move an article this way, ask an administrator for help. DHN 09:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Hán tự

Please refrain from removing Hán tự from articles in which these characters are relevant, as you did in this edit. Thank you. Badagnani 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace the Hán tự (your doing in the first place, without consensus) and the problem will be quickly solved, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Highly intelligent and well educated Vietnamese can indeed read Hán tự, putting them in touch with over 1,000 years of their own history and literature, which was written using these characters. Further, knowing those Hán tự allows one to understand the etymology of words, names, and place names. Without knowing this background, one is only partly educated about one's language. When dealing with historical personages in ancient dynasties, the Hán tự are of great value to our readers for this reason. Best, Badagnani (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nguyễn Dynasty

You have been involved in a revert war at the Nguyễn Dynasty page. I have protected the page so that you may discuss the issue at Talk:Nguyễn Dynasty. Thanks in advance. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attack

You have earned yourself a 3 hour block to cool off. There is no excuse to ever speak like that to anyone on Wikipedia. If you keep it up, you may be blocked permanently. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Người Rừng

Người Rừng: page has been created. Searching for Nguoi Rung will take you to it. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just go to the page you want to redirect to another page and type #REDIRECT [[Page]]. For example, if you wanted to redirect your user page to your talk page, you would go to User:JacquesNguyen and type #REDIRECT User talk:JacquesNguyen. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Ngô Dynasty. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for not removing is that that writing system, though originating in China, was in fact used by the Vietnamese people (along with Chữ Nôm, a special script developed by Vietnamese people to write Vietnamese literature) for well over one thousand years to record their own history and official documents, as well as to name their kings, places, and important books. I would think you would have already learned that in your history classes. It also allows one to easily find the meaning behind a person's or place name. They are used judiciously for this purpose in articles relating to the history of Vietnam. Wikipedia is a place where subjects should be treated thoroughly, and leaving out clarifying characters where they are appropriate (as has been explaned to you no fewer than three previous times), solely because of anti-Chinese POV, does not help our readers in their pursuit of a complete treatment of these subjects. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but your continued blanking is not helpful. Badagnani (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Trà Vinh Province, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Highly educated Vietnamese people do study and know these characters, as they are essential to a complete understanding of Vietnamese history. It is unfortunate that you did not learn about them in school or university, but this does not prevent you from seeking out such materials independently. The English-language Wikipedia is not solely for Vietnamese people to use; in fact, it is for everyone in the world to have access to the most thorough and best-documented collection of the world's knowledge. We don't want to have 70%, or 80% of Vietnamese history and culture, we want to have 100%. This includes, where appropriate, the Sino-Vietnamese characters formerly used, for over 1,000 years, by Vietnamese ancestors, to write their own language (including place names and the names of emperors and other prominent individuals). Badagnani (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Trung Sisters, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Moves

I'm looking into it; since the moves are technically impossible for me to make, as I'm not an administrator, I'm putting them up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers and thanks for bringing these to my attention, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, an administrator has moved Khuc family. The other two should follow shortly. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean history template

Hi, JacquesNguyen!

I noticed that you have re-inserted the French campaign thing in the Korean history template. I think that's a relatively minor issue that is better covered by the Timeline of Korean history article. The other events in the template are major ones that covered the entire territory and changed the political status of Korea. The French campaign is important, but if we include everything else as important as that, the template would be almost as long as the timeline! Chuniac (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Gia Long. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Mạc Dynasty. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Mạc Dynasty, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Hàm Nghi. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Hàm Nghi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Lê Thánh Tông, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Hội An, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Hội An, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Hội An, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

I didn't ask your nationality; please don't ask mine, thanks. I am a citizen of the world and respect all cultures equally (and wish them all to be thoroughly documented at Wikipedia, without any selective omissions or blanking). Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. —Travis^talk 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating WP:3RR on Hội An, edit warring and move warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Nishkid64 (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a consensus was established that the pages on Wikipedia should not be titled with Vietnamese diacritics. Please re-seek consensus if you wish to contest this matter; do not blindly move pages as you have been doing in the past. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Nguyễn Dynasty. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese expansion

The article is predominantly to explain what's informally (though quite often) known as the "Japanese Blitzkrieg", the rapid attack on Southeast Asia which opened the Pacific War. If you want to include French Indochina, by all means, feel free to add it to the background section of the article. Oberiko (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I actually kind of just put that article together as a place-holder for the moment, right now the World War II article is taking most of my time. Any fixes are, of course, welcome. Oberiko (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates

Please stop adding fringe theory information on that page, as you did a few times already (and I think probably once as an IP too). There is a definite difference between Egypt and China on the one hand and your entry on the other. There are a lot of primary and secondary sources asserting statehood building in those areas at such an early time and enough primary and secondary sources creating a link between those early states and the present-day countries. Your source is a geocities site. That is simply not trustworthy enough, as anyone can put one up.

I will be the first to acknowledge that some entries on that page smack of jingoistic re-interpretation of history. I have commented on the talk page already about this and no, I was not even the one who put the POV flag there. But the fact that we do not seem to be able to get rid of that POV should not be a pretext to add further POV, which makes the article even more unreliable. I would suggest that you are infringing WP:POINT. If you do not agree with what was consensus on the country you are editing, try to find reputable sources which support a better version - as there seems to be a consensus against your version on that page (evidenced by the fact, that quite a number of completely unrelated users have by now reverted you) the burden of proof is on you. And please do not use blogs or other webpages that anyone may have written as a source. All the best.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)