User talk:Nguyentrongphu

Self-dialogue (archive purpose only)

I feel like we have started off on the wrong foot due to my initial insensitive statement and misunderstanding. Hitler was recently promoted to FA status in Vi Wikipedia by one of my good friends. She is a Vietnamese German working mainly in Vi Wikipedia. The Vi version is mainly a translation from En plus additional work to bring it to FA status (so yea, part of your work is translated). I was one the reviewers of the article in Vi. I strongly believed in my position to be correct, but I did relent when consensus was not supporting me.

I'm mainly concerned about the current lack of emphasis on the army role in Hitler's decision to purge the SA. In my opinion and understanding, it was the biggest reason. You're probably right that my wording is an over-simplification of the situation. Anyway, maybe you can take a look and change the wording to emphasize more about the army's role in your own words of what you think is best? If not, it's cool. I won't (and can't) be participating in Hitler's article for quite some time and most likely won't edit it anymore in the future because it's a very difficult article to edit and very easy to get into an edit war. I know that now. If I edit a less popular article that nobody cares, I would most likely get my edits across unopposed. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is in direct violation of your promise to stop, here. You are working very, very hard to justify a sitewide block, Nguyentrongphu. --Yamla (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have stopped. No more argue to unblock, no more argue about my point of view of Hitler anywhere, and no more trying to prove I was right. It's a simple polite request and an explanation for my sudden interest in the Hitler article. It's a fact that Hitler was recently promoted to FA in Vi. She can ignore this request if she wishes. I meant no harm and only came here with good intention to clear up the misunderstanding. Just because I was blocked in Hitler talk page, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to communicate to other editors in a polite manner. I'm working hard to improve the article even if I can't do it myself. I want to bury the misunderstanding instead of continuing it. You're working very hard to endorse a site-wide block when there is no ground for it. Why the hatred? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

After realizing my misinformation in my first proposal, I went ahead and fixed it (long-standing misinformation that no one else notices) in 2 articles: 1934 German referendum and Marburg speech. It shows my good will and willing to correct my own mistake if someone explains it to me well with good rational points. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Posting comments requesting people to edit on your behalf while you are blocked is not allowed. Posting the same sort of thing for which your were blocked on one page on a different page is not allowed either – it's considered a form of block evasion. For that reason as well as other reasons, I am not interested in continuing the discussion with you on this page or any other page.— Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not blocked on Hitler page. And, It's not the same sort of thing since this is the first time I sent a personal request about making change in Hitler (I was pushing 3 theories before, and they failed). You probably misread my intention due to my rudeness initially in the Hitler talk page. It was a sincere request. I can't change your perception about me, but hopefully, there is no hard feelings. In any case, fair enough, I won't bother you anymore or anyone else for that matter. Thanks! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect - posting here on this topic is block evasion. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no block evasion. There is no topic ban of Hitler on me. Per admin that blocked me on Hitler talk page, "I have left the main page, Adolf Hitler, open for you, since you have not disrupted, or indeed, as far as I can see, edited it. I urge you to be very cautious if you decide to do so, though, and avoid moving any of the talkpage disruption there." You guys won. There is no need to keep making me look bad. I have no wish to argue any further. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Human mission to Mars article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Yamla (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yamla I actually wrote it in my own words. The only part I copied is from Wikipedia itself + a reliable source. If you already don't know the policy, I'll spell it out for ya: contents in Wikipedia are not copyrighted. Please provide evidences of specific sentences to back up your claim of copyrighted text. Please leave my contribution alone, or I'll report you to ANI or Arbcom for Wikipedia:WIKIHOUND (I got evidence for this), Wikipedia:aspersion (false accusation of copyright violation when I wrote it in my own words) and continuous threat of site-wide block with no justification (I got multiple diffs of this; I'll provide them when it's necessary or when someone asks for it). Please stop before it's too late; your actions are not helping your case. I've moved on from Hitler topic and am editing a different topic. You should move on too, no holding grudges. Your hatred for me is perplexing me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying from Wikipedia itself (without attribution) is indeed a copyright violation. WP:COPYRIGHT goes into more detail. This is admittedly a bit subtle; if you have specific questions, feel free to ask. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yamla Most people wouldn't care. But, okay fine. I'll do it your way. Easy piecy, no big deal. Took me 5 more seconds to write the attribution. One thing is clear that attribution is lacking. However, I wouldn't go as far as accusing another editor of copyright violation (and reverting all of the edits including most of them that were paraphrased on their own) especially when a simple reminder to attribute would be sufficed. I've been doing this for 13 years in Vi Wikipedia, and nobody cares to make a big deal out of it. Granted, En Wikipedia standard may be higher. In reality, many people are still doing this in En Wikipedia without making attribution (maybe they don't know they have to), and nobody is making a fuss about it. Thanks for the (harsh) reminder anyway! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted your reversion in COVID-19 pandemic in India

Hello, I reverted your reversion of my edit (#1020693117) in the article COVID-19 pandemic in India due to an edit conflict. Most of the text in the causes paragraph was already present in that section, under multiple paragraphs. My original edit collected them together, merged the sentences about vaccine shortage into a single paragraph, and arranged the progress of the second wave in chronological order. I have now also added additional sources for some points I had not cited earlier. Hope that clears it up. - Jose Mathew (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Refactored from ACN

Nguyentrongphu, RE: your user page. While calling yourself beloved is, well, kinda funny — also calling yourself a Holocaust enthusiast is not. Probably a language gap (hopefully!). Anyway, now you know. El_C 06:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C I'm confused. What's your point? It just means I'm interested in reading a lot about the Holocaust. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu, that's Holocaust studies. Sorry, should have probably brought this up on your talk page. El_C 06:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C There is no language gap. It's more likely a misunderstanding, which is cool to me. A Holocaust enthusiast is someone who is interested in Holocaust studies but not at expert level, not someone who would like to participate in the Holocaust. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu, there's definitely a language gap. Because semantically, Holocaust enthusiast may easily be read as someone who is enthusiastic about The Holocaust itself rather than about studying it. Thus, if you were to search for the term "Holocaust enthusiast" (in quotes = ~700 results only; without = 10 million), you'd be able to see what I mean. El_C 07:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C Just because you misunderstood it doesn't mean that everyone else does. Enthusiast is "a person who is very interested in a particular activity or subject." Holocaust is a well-known historical event, not an activity. I did what you said and found this, "Are you a holocaust enthusiast? If so you need to get your hands on the book Night by Elie Wiesel. This book is a tempestuous and intense read." I've read the book before, and the search proves that your misunderstanding is nowhere universal. I've also found some other comments in goodreads that use the same expression as me with the same meaning (given that there were some that misunderstood it just like you did). Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)