User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 325

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nyhetsbrev nr. 22 fra Wikimedia Norge

Wikimedia Norge
Wikimedia Norge

Hello, here are the latest news from Wikimedia Norge!

Arctic Knot – a big success
The final thing we did before the summer holidays was to hold the Arctic Knot Conference. We spent most of 2021 preparing the conference, and the conference lasted for two days with a lot of participation. Most of the videos from the conference are available in this playlist on YouTube.
13–17 August
Wikimania
Wikimania starts tomorrow, and the deadline for registering is midnight UTC tonight. Wikimania lasts for 5 days, and the program is adapted to multiple timezones, so it will take place at various parts of the day. There are plenty of interesting submissions!
Wikimedia Norge is participating with a workshop. The workshop's goal is to further develop the idea of a Wikimedia hub for underrepresented language communities. Everyone is welcome to participate!
Next wiki meet-up
25 August
The first meet-up of the fall will be about Abstract Wikipedia. We will watch Denny Vrandečić's presentation from Arctic Knot together, and discuss afterwards. The meet-up will take place on Google Meet, and start at 17.00 CEST. Simply explained, Abstract Wikipedia is about writing articles as functions in order to make them language-independent.
International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples
9 August marks the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, and we wrote a blog post based on some of the presentations from the Arctic Knot Conference.
Wikipedia 20 years
Due to Wikipedia's 20 year anniversary, we have received video greetings from government ministers and the President of the Sámi Parliament. You can watch the videos here. The greetings are for everyone who has contributed to Wikipedia during its 20 years of existence – thank you very much for your efforts!
Wikipedia in Norwegian turns 20 in November. This will be celebrated at the November meet-up; further information will come later.

Have you already paid your membership fees for 2021? If not, you can always do so by re-registering on this page.

This newsletter is posted by a bot. Leave feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe

Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) 13:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2021



Headlines
  • Albania report: Collaboration with the New Vision Organization in Tirana; Summer of Wikivoyage Campaign 2021
  • Australia report: Representation and erasure: opportunities and risks that Wikipedia presents for First Nations knowledges
  • Brazil report: A wikicontest to celebrate and make visible the state of Bahia
  • India report: Rabimas proofread contest ends on Bengali Wikisource
  • New Zealand report: New Zealand holds its second Wikimedia conference, and a performing arts Wikiproject gathers steam
  • Serbia report: New chances for GLAM success
  • Sweden report: Photos of Childrens theatre
  • UK report: A Thousand Images of Islam, British Library Updates
  • USA report: Smithsonian Wiki Focus: Black Women in Food History; San Diego 73; Black Lunch Table Black artists
  • WMF GLAM report: A conversation about depicts and Structured Data on Commons
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

@Donald Trung: Can you take a look at Âu Lạc? I am thinking of nominating it for GA, but I feel there is still room for improvement. You probably saw me before (according to this). I also want to say that I am the user who wrote Chiến tranh Việt–Chiêm (1367–1396). I have been quite busy lately so I dont have time to take a look at this discussion, but I want to note that it would be not 100% correct to say this article was "translated into the Vietnamese language". You can compare the 2 articles yourself and see they are significantly different. The size of the Vietnamese version is almost double that of English version! While I admitted the English version was incredibly useful (especially the Bibliography), I would say the article about Chế Bồng Nga in Vietnamese Wikipedia (a "good" article) had more influence. In fact, I re-used the name for sections from Chế Bồng Nga (before and after Trungda changed the name for neutrality). Chế Bồng Nga is a "good" article so I thought it might be a good idea to "recycle" its sections' name (it was a bad decision because...they are about 2 different topics, one about a person and one about a war). About Laska666, I have encountered this account quite a lot in Wikipedia (just look at this, in fact Laska666 reverted some of my first edits in Wikipedia (actually it was the 60th edit or something, I don't remember). I frequently saw this name on my watchlist, and sometimes clicked to see his contributions (I don't bear any grudge against Laska666, though). Based on my interaction with Laska666, Laska666 seems to pay special attention to Cham topics and does not like anything related to China. And maybe Laska666 preferred Western publications? (Laska666 once reverted me when I added a Vietnamese book here) That's all I can say about this account. As for the article "Kingdom of Vietnam", I do agree that it is problematic. The solution can be either merge or re-titling (and also making some changes, of course). But in my opinion, we can do both. We can "recycle" the article, and greatly expand the Nguyễn dynasty. At the same time, it is still possible to keep Kingdom of Vietnam, but rename it. I have not come up with any name, but I think it can be like History of Poland (1795–1918). In other words, it can be History of ..... (....–...). 

And, no offense (I totally respect you...I mean, according to this, when you got admitted to university (around 18 years old?), I am still a toddler and don't know how to talk), but I don't really like the way you copy comments from others like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Vietnam. May be it is just me, but I don't really like that. Firstly, the original user may not agree. If one want to comment on a topic, they can do that themselves. While Wikipedia is open-source and every can read a user's talk page, I consider talk page to be private. Not everyone is an talk page stalker. So, generally, only those involved (and maybe a small number of people) can read those messages, like this (I found this by chance when finding an example, I'm not a stalker). Secondly, it is not suitable and can be confusing. You can summarize what they said, but copying like that doesn't look normal to me. It is out of context, so newcomers might not understand what is going on. For example, one might think someone deleted comments when seeing "Sorry for not being able to answer you yesterday. Since I don't have the time to check out the" (by Lệ Xuân) out of nowhere. --Ltn12345 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ltn12345: , regarding the Âu Lạc article, from what I can tell it looks well-researched and well-written. It acknowledges what is from the records, what is from folklore, what is from archeological finds and presents that in an easy to digest way and presents its sources in a good way, so yeah, go nominate it. Regarding the "Chiến tranh Việt–Chiêm (1367–1396)" article, well I mostly referred to the issues named on the good article nomination at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia and the issues regarding to inventing terms by the user "Laska666" mentioned there. In general I am very happy with the fact that user "Laska666" is adding so much information to the English-language Wikipedia but I have some issue with this user re-inventing what is written in the sources that they use because of the fact that they don't like "Chinese"-style historiography in Vietnamese history. I got admitted at 18 (eighteen) yeah, my mother enrolled me at preschool a year before others as my parents were teachers and because I grew up in Điện Biên Phủ I got into a special programme and didn't have to pay as much as someone with a family registry in a large city, no idea if the government still does that. Regarding copying user "Lệ Xuân's" comments it is because it is directly relevant to the topic discussed. While I am very glad with user "Laska666's" additions in principle, I noticed how they radically changed the phrasing and terminologies used in articles because of their "misosinia" or "sinophobia", not sure how to call it. Perhaps "Pure Land Historiography", I was actually really happy when I saw them expand Đại Việt but when I actually started looking how they expanded it and it ran to the contrary of how Vietnamese history is discussed retroactively adding modern terminologies and concepts into the articles which wouldn't be such a bad thing until I saw how they tried to completely re-invent Vietnamese historiography, honestly I was just planning on "sitting it out" and then fix all their re-interpretations after they were done but then another user found out about their re-inventions and thought it was a hoax, I will go in more details and will save what I wrote now. I will reply in time. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ltn12345: , I realised how the copied comments by user "Lệ Xuân" looks so I added a note there that I copied them and that she is in Estonia. Regarding the whole "Kingdom of Vietnam" thing, unlike "Đại Việt" which was a common name of the country for many centuries, the Nguyễn Dynasty changed its status as a "Kingdom" and "Empire" all the time and changed its name from "Đại Việt" to "Việt Nam" to "Đại Nam" in two (2) reigns. The problem with the "Kingdom of Vietnam" isn't that it's meant to be the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, it is that it tries to completely replace the Nguyễn Dynasty article because user "Laska666" doesn't like "the Chinese concept of dynasties", for context see these edits designed to save their work about the Nguyễn imperial family from the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article. The "Kingdom of Vietnam" article even talks about the Nguyễn Dynasty's imperial family into the present day and it talks about 1885 as the year that the state was abolished, but the Empire of Đại-Nam wasn't abolished in 1885, he uses this date because it was the date that the Sino-French War ended as their invented historiography such hoaxes usually get most editors banned for life so I deliberately didn't mention it to anyone because I wanted them to continue adding more content, but at that point they were simply misrepresenting their sources, now they are adding hoaxes because of their anti-Chinese sentiment and I don't like using the word "hoax" for something that is almost gray, but the French protectorates of Annam and Tonkin were established in either 1883 or 1884 depending on if you recognise the first (1st) protectorate treaty or not, but they push the date to 1885 and then list "French Indochina" as a successor in 1885, a country created in 1887. These aren't minor mistakes, these are deliberately structured to fit the historiography that "Imperial Vietnam ended in 1885 and French Indochina replaced it" which is anachronistic. I want to see an article about the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, but the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article really shouldn't be it, by merging all the content can be kept and the fake information corrected. Deletion would be stupid but keeping it would be equally stupid.
Regarding a name for the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period in English that is tricky, it could be "Independent Nguyễn dynasty period" (a somewhat good translation) or "Early Nguyễn dynasty" (but this term has been used by historians in English to refer to multiple periods such as only thr Gia Long period or the Gia Long + (plus) Minh Mạng periods, anyhow, the article clearly isn't really about the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, it just uses this period "as a vehicle to push their new historiography". And they also use the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article to push fictional end dates to Nguyễn Dynasty government institutions including its military, in their article "Military of Nguyen Vietnam" (SIC) the end date is 1885 (or 1884) and they literally include a photograph of Nguyễn Dynasty soldiers from the 1910's, this makes no sense, are they deliberately trying to confuse the readers? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
A good example of an actual invention by them is the article "Royal Vietnamese army" which lists all Vietnamese militaries before 1802 as the same military, so the Nguyễn Lords had the same military as the Revival Lê Dynasty and the Tây Sơn Dynasty, this user "solves" this "problem" by calling the wars "civil wars" (implying some sort of unity, but these were military wars by different Vietnamese countries that fought each other, it would be like calling North Vietnam and South Vietnam "the same country", now try doing this with Korea and China/Taiwan, it really wouldn't work). They came on "my watchlist" following this edit and my only thought is that they saw historical Vietnamese scripts used for many centuries by the Vietnamese as being "too Chinese" while a French map was "neutral" and the image clearly kept the dragon that was used before and just added the text "History of Vietnam" in the scripts used in Vietnam over its history. This user just hates anything remotely Chinese, they added French as a "common language" in independent pre-colonial Vietnam, if Wikipedia keeps such hoaxes we risk alienating people that would want to donate their time and knowledge to it.
The problem with the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article is that it is used for other "Nguyen Vietnam" articles to use a much earlier end date like the fact that the cabinet of the Nguyễn Dynasty was abolished in 1936 but they list it as 1885 (through implying it, at best through lying by omission). The problems are numerous and the later they will be addressed the more information can be spread through Wikipedia, I don't think that this would be desirable by anyone. Of course, this is not as bad as the "Royal Vietnamese army" article, the article could work if it was called "Military of dynastic Vietnam" or "Military of imperial Vietnam" and end the date at 1945, but the 1802 end date is completely arbitrary in any objective view of the article other than their newly invented historiography. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And while I know you specialize in Nguyễn dynasty, I hope you can improve Chiến tranh Việt–Chiêm (1367–1396), if you have time.--Ltn12345 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ltn12345: , I really wish that I had more time or could copy myself like Toth in the film "Gods of Egypt" (not sure if you get the reference), but I have too much projects I'm working on and I'm already procrastinating too much and finding too many distractions. Plus I don't have enough books about military history (obviously, I can pirate them). If I ever find the time I will contact you and we could collaborate, but I really don't have the time to take on more projects than what I'm already busy with. I have a backlog of thousands of unuploaded photographs and other images as well as dozens of articles. 😣 --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

One more question, I just know that 2020 US Census data is released today, but I can not find it. Can you find it and update Vietnamese people based on the newly released data about the number of Vietnamese people in the USA?--Ltn12345 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I kept searching but I can't find the direct data, only by race. Also note that the American definition of "Vietnamese people" isn't the same as "Người Kinh" in Vietnam, so I would be cautious with using such data to make them represent the same concepts. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Clarification, just to be clear, I have no issue with a "History of Vietnam (1802-188X)" article, but nobody seems to be able to agree when this period should end, user "Laska666" chose 1885, this date is exclusively used by them. I have seen historians use 1883, 1884, and 1886 depending on different events. As the end date is controversial such a title would be highly undesirable.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40860771
A better solution might be to use the Vietnamese term like the English-language Wikipedia also uses the term "Bakumatsu" for the final decades of the Tokugawa Shogunate (Edo Bakufu). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ltn12345: Also note that this user calls good faith edits "vandalism", please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nguy%E1%BB%85n_dynasty&diff=next&oldid=1038514087 This can't be seen as very collegial of them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you call this (Mobile 📱) reversing "vandalism"? Am I taking crazy-pills? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I don't know much about Nguyễn Phúc family tree and can't confirm whether those images from Ly dynasty are authentic, but it seems to me that this user is labeling "non-vandalism" as vandalism. I'm the kind of people that are always trying to lay low, and stay out of conflict, so I usually don't revert others' edits unless I'm sure that is purely vandalism or promotional content. Considering Laska666's past, it will be not really fun and incredibly problematic. What I usually do is after a week, or may be even 2 weeks, expand the article and make some changes (there is always something to edit..I have to say that), at the same time revert edits. That way the original editors may not see the "revert" tag.--Ltn12345 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ltn12345: , same here, I tend to avoid conflict at all costs unless it specifically has been brought to me or there is no way around it. My experience with Wikimedia websites is that it's easy to make enemies and most users are just passerbies that want to improve the educational content so if someone with "a reputation" sets their gaze on you they can make your WikiLife a living hell. In general I avoided directly engaging with user "Laska666" and just asked why they made the choices they did, in general I was quite happy seeing someone finally cover so many parts of Vietnamese history that haven't been covered by the English-language Wikipedia but are already on the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia. Then I realised that they were actively inventing concepts like the "Royal Vietnamese army" and the "Kingdom of Vietnam" and just left talk page messages on those respective articles' talk pages. They do a lot of military history which for pre-1945 Vietnam is quite rarely covered, well pre-1900 Vietnam to be more precise. But I wasn't opposed to those articles existing but simply couldn't understand their scopes as the "Royal Vietnamese army" just reduces a dozen different Vietnamese state military forces to a single entity with the only criteria that it's "not the Nguyễn Dynasty's Army" which just comes of as odd to me, no Vietnamese historian ever talks about the historical Vietnamese military as such and the same goes for the Kingdom of Vietnam, DHN just didn't engage in conversation and directly nominated the "Kingdom of Vietnam" for deletion. At first I avoided using the term "hoax" because invented historiography isn't too uncommon and perhaps I missed something, but then user "Lệ Xuân" told me about how they seemingly misinterpret sources with their invented Terminology. If you search "Lê Dynasty" in English most Anglophone literature describe the state, but user "Laska666" really doesn't like that because that's "too Chinese" so they make it about the Imperial family. I find it such a shame that a well-read intelligent person like user "Laska666" decides to invest so much time in re-inventing the terms used in the sources they have because they feel irritated anyone uses a term like "Nhà Nguyễn" or "Nhà Lý". They did you respond to criticism half-heartedly, but it still presents the different periods of Nguyễn Dynasty history as two (2) distinct states and ignores the French protectorate of Tonkin. I am waiting for the AfD to conclude before actually improving because the mere existence of that "Kingdom of Vietnam" article allows them to misrepresent the information in other articles as such. Notice how they ignore large parts of history for their own revided history, just compare the current "Quân đội nhà Nguyễn" with the current "Military of Nguyen Vietnam". While the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia uses the wrong dates in the infobox too the article covers the Nguyễn military in two (2) phases while the English-language Wikipedia's version just pretends that phase doesn't exist while including a photograph of it. I genuinely wonder why they want to pretend that French Indo-China 100% (one-hundred percent) uprooted all of Vietnamese society in a single day. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library collections and design update (August 2021)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says log in today!

The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the addition of new collections, alongside a new interface design. New collections include:

Additionally, De Gruyter and Nomos have been centralised from their previous on-wiki signup location on the German Wikipedia. Many other collections are freely available by simply logging in to The Wikipedia Library with your Wikimedia login!

We are also excited to announce that the first version of a new design for My Library was deployed this week. We will be iterating on this design with more features over the coming weeks. Read more on the project page on Meta.

Lastly, an Echo notification will begin rolling out soon to notify eligible editors about the library (T132084). If you can translate the notification please do so at TranslateWiki!

--The Wikipedia Library Team 13:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

韋那威箕 files

Index.
Files.
Revised files.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC) .

Search for files that are already here

Signature (siggy) to prevent automated archiving. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC) .

Files to import to Wikimedia Commons.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)v .

自韋那威箕（VI NA UY KI）・委班復生漢喃越南

"Source" field.
"Author(s)" field.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC) .

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) .

Chinese document with an attached photograph issued to Dr. Siegmund Sobel

"Source" field.
Source links. LINK 🔗.
** ✓ Uploaded (it / them) to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC) .

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC) .

Check to see if such simple statistical graphs are copyrightable

Research.

Signature (Siggy) to prevent automated archiving. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Imperial guards of the Nguyễn Dynasty

"Source" field.
Source links. LINK 🔗.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC) .

Femme Tonkinoise

Emperor and Empress.


--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC) .

WWW.CALENDARTHANHTHUY.COM.

An old postcard from the website "WWW.CALENDARTHANHTHUY.COM" published in French Indo-China before the 1940's depicting daily life, hence is in the public domain.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC) .

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donald_Trung/Archive_325&oldid=582650912"