This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have found these images containing the sheet music as well as Sinh Viên Hành Khúc / Tiếng gọi thanh niên's lyrics in French and Vietnamese. I think these are worth being included in Wikimedia Commons. However, I do not know how to. Please help whenever you'll have the time to. Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Erminwin, I will copy this message there and I'll ping you there so I can explain how to import works using local links. As they say "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". — Donald Trung (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Erminwin: , before uploading anything to the Wikimedia Commons I would advise you to read the page "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam", specifically: "Under 2005 Law, cinematographic works, photographic works, dramatic works, works of applied art and anonymous works where the author remains unknown have a term of protection of 50 years from the date of first publication.[50/2005 Article 27(2a)] Under 2009 Amendment, from January 1st 2010, cinematographic works, photographic works, works of applied art and anonymous works where the author remains unknown have a term of protection of 75 years from the date of first publication.[36/2009 Article 27(2a)] Works which entered public domain prior to January 1st 2010 remained in the public domain even if they now qualified for copyright protection. And those works whose copyright terms have not expired on January 1st 2010 now prolong to 75 years.[36/2009 Article 220]".
the authors are LyricLyric 1: (1941): Lưu Hữu Phước, Mai Văn Bộ, Lyric 2: (1943) Lê Khắc Thiều, Đặng Ngọc Tốt, and Lyric 3: (1945) Hoàng Mai Lưu. As this is a work of applied art it ascended to the public domain in 1995, at least if you are certain that the sheet music you found is an exact reproduction of the original sheet music.
Now we get to uploading, you go to "Special:UploadWizard" 🪄, you then select the files from your cellular phone 🤳, then you'll add the source (where you found the files) and authors. If these files are indeed published before 1 January 1948 you can add "{{PD-Vietnam}}" and "{{PD-1996}}" you do this by selecting "This file is not my own work." and then "Another reason not mentioned above", then you simply name and describe the file and hit "Publish files". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.
To keep an eye 👁️ on while these things develop. Will have to see if it's actually possible for users banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will be able to appeal their bans in either the near or the distant figure. Reminder to myself to continue following these developments to see how they unpack. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Erminwin: , the first link (Meta's Facebook) you sent me notes that the author of the musical score is Lưu Hữu Phước (12 September 1921 in Cần Thơ, Cochinchina – 8 June 1989 in Hồ Chí Minh City, Vietnam), as far as I know those works will enter the public domain in 2060, but as it's a collective work and 2 (two) other authors were attributed this means that the latest date of the death of the last surviving author can be used. So we still have to wait 37 (thirty-seven) years to upload this file, feel free to ping me about that in 37 (thirty-seven) years... just kidding, what is also an option is to upload it now, delete it, and add it to the category "Undelete in 2060" so future Wikipedians can easily find and use it.
You probably busy right now, but I need your help @Donald Trung. I am giving my arguments and asked why my edits is invalid (I have the sources and the information I added were even in other versions of Wikipedia).
But an Extended User are now in my talk page, talking about what I did wrong with an edit back then and are discrediting me. He said that the admins will even ban my account.
Daeva Trạc, I read the top of the discussion. I agree with the other user honestly but I can help you identify better sources if you'd ask me. Please don't add fictional flags to the actual Infoboxes of those articles and if you want to source maps to blogs it would either have to be (1) an expert blog run by an actual historian on the subject or (2) contain a photograph from a museum or a historian's work. I'm traveling now. — Donald Trung (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the metro now but maps and flags you add need to be properly sourced, most blogs you cite tend to show these flags in festivals or in historical paintings, these aren't indications of them being either national flags (something Vietnam didn't have until 1886~8) or imperial standards. Vexilogical sources also clearly indicate that no tradition of national flags exists and unlike pre-modern Korea Historians haven't really unraveled many flags for pre-modern Vietnam meaning that many people created fantasies. Wikipedia used to be full of these fantasies and I think that it's good that you put them in a separate list of fantasy flags, however, I don't think that they should be placed anywhere else unless there's information about how they were used and when if they're real. A painting made hundreds of years after the fact isn't a reliable source, I don't think that the pre-Nam Việt used Chinese-style flags. I'm in the Rotterdam Metro to Madurodam now, so I won't be able to reply until maybe tonight or tomorrow. But I agree with that user and if you're willing I could mentor you in discovering and finding reliable sources. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, when uploading fake flags to the Wikimedia Commons please only add them to the category for fake flags so they don't pollute the other categories, as people might mistake them for real flags. — Donald Trung (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The arguments aren’t about the flags though. He just uses that (which I agree Im wrong) to discredit my edits. When you aren’t busy, please help me. I don’t even make anything up, I sources my maps, what I have gathered, I have the names from both Wikipedia and nonWiki sources and he still claims my edits were invalid. Most of the maps in Baiyue aren’t even sources and he only targeted me? I hope you have a great vacation, but help me if you can.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, the flag have been removed long ago and I haven’t re-edited them, or anything ever since (Im not sure if they have all been removed though). But the arguments aren’t even about that. In the Baiyue article, he deleted the information I took from other versions of Wikipedia, and then deleted the map that I made based on the information I have gathered (I even have sources why there are at least 2 maps in the article don’t. in the Hồng Bàng one, I again, based on a website that have an online version of Lĩnh am chích quái to draw my maps and he again deleted them (like if the sources in maps aren’t valid, what made the article as a whole?)— Daeva Trạc (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Other Wikipedia's aren't exactly a good source, you should always inspect which sources they use. I often find blatantly wrong information at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, I am surprised how often that occurs, even if they cite otherwise reliable sources these sources can often still be blatantly wrong. Only copy from other Wikipedia's if it is reliably sourced. — Donald Trung (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but if Chinese/Japanese wiki and other nonWiki sources (usually in Chinese or Vietnamese) said the same things, I think they would be more reliable. You can see in the Files I put in.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I only used Wikipedia as summaries though. Other sources from nonWiki sites and books from different languages have been provided.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Ah, I think that I understand it. You see, the 100 Việt tribes of Southern China didn't have clear boundaries, your map uses very clear boundaries but the maps which are kept use vague boundaries. That is because we can't know where the Sơn Việt (山越) ended and the Hồ Việt (虎越) began. Your map makes it seem like there were clear territorial distinctions, but this wasn't really the case almost anywhere in the world until the latter half of the 19th (nineteenth) century. All we know are approximations, so it would probably be better overwrite the map without the clear and distinct colours, as the names are correct but the boundaries are too distinctive. Your map of Xich Quy is almost identical to the map used here. I do want to see a source on both honestly. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I see, it’s true that my maps are too detailed for a blurry situation like these, but I still have the feeling of unfairness. I only question how my sourced files were being removed while the unsourced ones are still being kept. It’s just weird and make me confused about Wiki policies. The map of Xich Quy was drawn based on descriptions which the sources I have already put in there.
For the cờ PQ, I think I have put them as fictional as I only did those for fun (surfing the internet sometimes give you interesting ideas). But this is bot the main story.
The original arguments with the admin was about the credibility of files and namings in Baiyue and Hồng Bàng in which I have provided sources. When being told those were not reliable, I raised questions about how unsourced files are still being kept in which he simply replied bad sources are worst than no sources. I have sources from various websites and also included 3 books in both Vietnamese, Chinese, and English (Linh Nam chich quai and Dai Viet Su ky toan thu). If the information (in Baiyue case: the namings, and in Hong Bang case: the maps) were proved to be existed, why he keeps trying to delete them (names and pictures).
And now look, I am going to get banned because of something I’ve done long ago and have been solved (you can see in my Wikipedia Talkpage).
In conclusion, for the Baiyue, then you probably right, the map is too detailed, but the names I added should still being kept (I have compared with Chinese versions and after doing some results, the names of Yue tribes I added are not fake). Other unsourced files should also be removed or at least, some editors should put the sources in. For the Hong Bang article, I still want to keep the maps as I don’t think there are anything wrong with that.
Daeva Trạc, I don't think that you are going to get banned over this, you are willing to learn and willing to stand corrected, you did not engage in edit warring, and you are now discussing it with people. Ah, I just saw the ANI thread, not much engagement besides the person who originally listed it. I would advise against using "copying from another Wikipedia" as a defense as I noted before that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Also, thank you for making the "Kingdom of Luang Prabang (Japanese puppet state)" article, it's clearly a notable subject and I don't see why they feel the need to attack it. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, And yes, those books you used as sources are reliable, you are correct about there being a double standard but they will usually cite "Other stuff exists" as an invalid argument, most Wikipedia discussions have double Standards, you just have to make sure that your content is properly sourced. I'm not saying that these double standards are justified, I'm just saying that bringing them up isn't seen as "a valid defense" in WikiCourt. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Donald Trung, Im also pretty confused because they use the first edit version during the making process of the article to attack to me. For me, this user arguments seem very different from any other extended users I met (normally, they would provide more reliable sources to tell me why they removes something, or even help improve the files more), he seems to stay off the subjects too much. Anyway, I hope things will be settled. It’s weird to see Wikipedia keep the unsourced files or deleted anything even though they have been sourced (and even existed in other versions of Wikipedia).
Daeva Trạc, Also, where did you source the Cờ Phú Quốc from? If it has no historical evidence it is best to only categorise it as either fictional or proposed. — Donald Trung (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I just realised that most of this concerns the Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia per se as it all concerns files there. As it's easier to link to files there and policies there I'll continue this discussion at the Wikimedia Commons. Please message me there. — Donald Trung (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Daeva Trạc: , Also, that user is not an admin. They just brought it up at the administrators' noticeboard but I think that you're a clear case of a user who's willing to learn and has improved his sourcing over the time that you've been contributing here. I think that it's highly unlikely that you'll be banned 🚫, otherwise there would be really unjust with the WikiJustice system. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a flag before that. It was full yellow and was claimed to be the Trung sisters’ flag. I at the time changed it into a more close-to-the-truth flag. You can delete it if you want to.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, After writing the above I saw that, the issue with a lot of it is that people tend to want to add flags for the sake of adding flags to Infoboxes, even if there wasn't a flag at the time. I think that an annotation explaining what the flag is would be better, for example "flag attributed to the Trung sisters in a Dong Ho painting" or something. Wikipedia has for years suffered from what I'd like to describe as "a fake flag epidemic" when it comes to Vietnamese history (all history really, but Vietnamese in particular) and while most of these originate elsewhere, even academic papers, they should be both scrutinised and contextualised whenever possible. The people who came before just always deleted and kept deleting them, which actually made them harder to debunk as I then didn't know what was removed and when and where the deleted flags were sourced to. This is why listing fantasy flags is important, as if would make the readers aware that these flags are utter bullshit. Perhaps you could one day write a Vietnamese-language Wikipedia article to debunk these, as the issue of fake symbols on Wikipedia seems to be widely discussed on the Vietnamese-language internet 🛜. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Also, you're lucky that the double standards they ascribe to you is just with a few images. I am not allowed to edit any page beyond articles, categories, and images purely because I used emoji's in my signature. This is because an unblocking admin demanded that I'm not allowed to use any emoji's stating that I could "only use Unicode" (note that emoji's actually are Unicode, but if I'd say that to any Wikipedia admin they'd accuse me of WikiLawyering), such an unblock request is completely unprecedented and purely comes from a number of admins' personal hatred towards emoji's. I'll admit that I overused emoji's a bit, but that was because at the time I barely (if ever used) emoji's elsewhere and when I started editing here my digital keyboard had a new feature of "emoji suggestion" that I'll admit I overused when it was new to me. But rather than letting me naturally evolve to use it less and only in relevant contexts (as has happened at the Wikimedia Commons), the admin WHOSE PERSONAL OPINION was anti-emoji decided to make it an indefinitely blockeable offense to use them for me. The block reason he then gave was "Disruptive editing" (which is a non-reason admins use when a user hasn't done anything wrong, but they just personally hate that user). Note that user "Koavf" uses emoji's in his signature and isn't indefinitely blocked for "Disruptive editing" anywhere, in fact, even when he was indefinitely blocked, see here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AKoavf : Open main menu Wikipedia Search 99+ User menu Block log View the list of active blocks or calculate a rangeblock. See also the global IP block log and the log of local enabling/disabling of global blocks. This is a log of user-block/unblock actions. Auto-blocked IP addresses are not listed here, but can be found at Special:AutoblockList. See Special:BlockList for the full list of currently operational blocks. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy for further details. You may enter the name of the blocking/unblocking administrator and/or the user or IP who was blocked/unblocked. Performer is the name of the admin, without any prefix Target is the name of the user, IP or IP range, written with the prefix "User:" User logs Block log Performer: Target (title or User:username for user): User:Koavf From date (and earlier): Tag filter: Type of block: All
15:46, 10 September 2022 Joe Roe talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (Special:PermanentLink/1109513877#Unblock_request)
09:28, 2 December 2020 Joe Roe talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Edit warring again, after multiple commitments to stop.) Tag: Twinkle
17:33, 23 August 2020 Newyorkbrad talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (reducing to time served per detailed explanation on user talk)
16:16, 14 August 2020 El C talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: yet again; not even a month has passed since the last 3RR violation!)
13:45, 23 July 2020 Ivanvector talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (Per talk page discussion; user commits to various methods of dispute resolution instead of revert warring)
12:20, 16 July 2020 El C talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: sitewide this time, since the last 3RR violation was mere weeks ago!)
23:26, 22 June 2020 El C talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs from the page Talk:Wanted For Life with an expiration time of 1 week (Violation of the three-revert rule)
08:21, 25 September 2019 Joe Roe talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (Agreed to stop edit warring. See Special:PermanentLink/917747010#September 2019.)
07:39, 25 September 2019 Joe Roe talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring at The Midnight Snack and Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat after warnings)
21:49, 29 April 2010 LessHeard vanU talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: Previous issues relating to acting against consensus, reverting to preferred version)
21:38, 27 September 2008 JzG talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
13:06, 15 May 2008 Stifle talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Arbitration enforcement: 1RR violation at pan-Arab colors)
06:34, 14 April 2008 John Vandenberg talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 6 hours (account creation blocked) (Arbitration enforcement: unclear revert on Qur'an; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf)
13:42, 20 September 2007 Nishkid64 talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of 1RR parole implemented by ArbCom ruling; violation on Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.)
19:07, 8 July 2007 Vassyana talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (WP:AGF, Allow user to help correct problem/make show of good fatih)
18:53, 7 July 2007 Vassyana talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (disruption: mass page moves without consensus)
21:44, 27 June 2007 BrendelSignature talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Violate parole... again)
04:14, 13 June 2007 Sean William talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Revert parole violation at List of unrecognized countries)
14:39, 5 June 2007 Newyorkbrad talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year)
08:30, 10 November 2006 Dominic talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (Extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience.)
08:30, 10 November 2006 Dominic talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (unblock to change duration)
19:23, 9 November 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (3rr on Greater Morocco)
22:35, 30 October 2006 Pilotguy talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 3 hours (Again, please slow down with AWB or you will be revoked of it.)
01:11, 25 October 2006 Pilotguy talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 15 minutes (Please slow down with AWB. Get a bot if you want to edit that fast. Consider this a warning block.)
09:26, 17 October 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 week (Western Sahara)
18:28, 14 October 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (3rr yet again)
18:28, 14 October 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (tweaking block)
18:27, 14 October 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
23:29, 3 October 2006 DragonflySixtyseven talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 3 hours, 22 minutes and 47 seconds (reducing block length)
14:50, 3 October 2006 Xaosflux talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (WP:3RR of Template:R.E.M.)
14:19, 28 September 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (3rr again)
15:55, 22 September 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (3rr on Template: R.E.M.)
02:14, 23 August 2006 Kungfuadam talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (sorry, I apologize, I see what you are doing now)
02:12, 23 August 2006 Kungfuadam talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (page move vandalism- please explain what you are doing!)
06:41, 11 August 2006 AmiDaniel talk contribs unblocked Koavf talk contribs (Per email discussion, user has agreed to persue other avenues, such as AfD, to bring attention to his concerns, and he has made clear he did not intend to disrupt Wikipedia.)
04:53, 11 August 2006 AmiDaniel talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (WP:POINT violation, mass adding of db-bio tags to articles on pornographic actors)
21:37, 15 February 2006 FrancisTyers talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 hour (violation of 3rr)
21:43, 20 October 2005 Dominic talk contribs blocked Koavf talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (3RR on Western Sahara)
Wikipedia Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop . Just look at HOW FUCKING OFTEN this user was blocked and they've NEVER been excluded FICKING SNY FICKING WKKIPROJECT TO FICKING DOSCISS ANY FUCKING CONTENT. They have fucking never been fucking asked to remove their emojis from their signature, nor have they been excluded from any discussion on anything unrelated to their many blocks. I've never had a single fucking warning, just immediately an indefinite ban and then people asking for a community ban going for a global ban. When my account was globally locked literally not a single Steward ever talked to me and they consistently removed any request for unblock until "a trusted user" put it there, so they couldn't cite "lock evasion", the moment I asked anyone in the IRC they immediately banned me for dating to ask for clarification or how to get unlocked, everyone in the OTRS was always hostile and the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOUR (which during my 2nd (second) block was just having emoji's in my signature, nothing else, the first block I insulted another user, but here I just had that, something which user "Koavf" still has to this fucking day) they Ban me from every space and day that I deserve a global ban. Most admins aren't there to contribute to Wikipedia. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/DoRD/all The CheckUser who got me globally banned, in total he only created 3 pages in the article space, all redirects. I don't even know why people like this are promoted to admin, let alone CU. They basically contribute nothing but create a culture that excludes those that actually contribute. Average edit size* -3,316.1 bytes Let that sink in. They are a net negative, the average Wikipedia article is ⅙th that, so THEIR AVERAGE EDIT SIZE is equivalent to deleting 6 average articles. There is clear evidence that the users who get promoted to positions of power have absolutely no idea how actually editing Wikipedia to improve its content works. Imagine being on Wikipedia for years without ever having written a single article and having blocked hundreds if not thousands of users. This all happens in plain sight and nobody ever brings it up. If an IP address would edit like any admin we'd call it "vandalism", but here the vandals run the system. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Alessandra Korap is an indigenous leader and Brazilian environmental activist from the Munduruku ethnic group. Her main work is defending the demarcation of indigenous territory and denouncing the illegal exploitation and activities of the mining and logging industries. Alessandra is internationally recognized for her work.
(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)
Keeping it shorter now, if you're lucky you'd encounter reasonable and rational people. You're willing to become a better contributor and having seen your article about World War II (Laos) I don't think that you're incompetent at all. You edit in good faith which is more than I can say than for a lot of editors.
Also, please remove the fictional flags from non-fiction categories, there are people actively hunting them to delete them, regardless of the context. As I noted before it becomes difficult to contextualise and debunk fictional content if there isn't any fictional content to centextualise and debunk, the readers will then simply think "Wikimedia websites don't know about this flag yet" rather than finding us debunking the claims. Anyhow, remember to find good sources and not cite Wikipedia, that is my main concern. I don't know much about ancient history as it's very much undocumented and I prefer to investigate modern history due to the abundance of sources.
Wikipedia is never a good source to use for sourcing other content. Wikipedia can best be described as "a list of sources you can consult" but even then, if you've never seen the source by your own eyes you can't say that you've consulted the source by copying a Wikipedia article's referencing. A good example of a user deliberately manipulating sources and misinterpreting them would be the contributions of user "Laska666" who deliberately misattributed a number of sources they found to create false representations of Vietnamese history, purely because they hate the historical Chinese influence and the similarities of Chinese historiography and Vietnamese historiography.
I just put Wikipedia as a somewhat summary, though. Main source are still the books, other websites are just prove that they existed (they have different arguments about that such as how Han or Vietnamese they are)— Daeva Trạc (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, that makes sense. But I am somewhat skeptical of these old books, mainly because history isn't just primary sources, it's also archeology. Note that this culture produced bronze drums which were different from other bronze drums made in the region. My guess is that in order to attribute their new state with the historical Bạch (100) Việt mentioned in Chinese history books 📚 they invented a cultural myth that tried to tie the (then-modern) Đại Việt with the old Việt. Vietnamese nationalist historiography has existed for well over a Millenium, it wasn't invented in the modern day. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that we should probably only map out the area in which the Heger Type I bronze drums were found and then add a map of these to the Wikipedia article. The mythological Hồng Bàng Dynasty is rarely taken seriously by any historian outside of Vietnam purely because it works with too many anachronistic assumptions and isn't backed up by any archeological findings. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Vietnam National Museum of History in Hanoi actually has several maps (Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) of where these bronze drums were found. This all points out to the Red River Delta area and hardly points out to anywhere nearly as large as the map of Xich Quy (a fully Chinese name, I might add). Again, Prehistory (as no actual records exist) isn't my strong point. When actual documents lack I prefer to go for any other evidence and the only evidence we have are these bronze drums. I am against including a map of such a large territory in the Infobox as it could be highly misleading to the readers without the proper context (namely that it's the territory ascribed to it by later sources as removed from it as we are removed from those sources). -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Pardon me, @Donald Trung, can you explain to me about a puppet user named “C”. I know he/she is a puppet, but I don’t really know who that is. Now, there are some people claiming that I was him. They upset about the fictional flag (which is understandable), but then they accused me for insulting a user named Lệ Xuân. — Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Musée Annam (commonly known as "C" at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia or "Unserefahne" at the English-language Wikipedia) is an older man from Nam Định who has made it his life work to spread false flags of Vietnamese history online and everywhere he can. He is not a nice person (for example he sexually harassed another user and commonly told me to commit suicide and fuck my own mother), but he's quite fanatic in wanting to upload images related to Vietnamese history to the Wikimedia Commons. Among his images are maps and flags not unlike your uploads, in fact one of his most comment modus operandi is to upload the flags you uploaded, add them to Infoboxes, leave a few insults and sexual comments, then disappear 🫥. According to many people Musée Annam invented these flags himself, I don't think so, I've been watching his sockpuppets for years and I can smell him a mile away, he looks through lots of historical sources (of varying degrees of reliability) and he'll take basically anything at face value. Furthermore, he rarely adds sources at all, his most common source is "Just trust me, bro" and if you question him he'll insult you. When you first came on my radar I immediately assumed that you were Musée Annam, but after checking your MO I realised that you are a different person with similar interests. For one, you actually try to debunk the flags he claims are legitimate. That aside, for years he has terrorised Vietnamese history on Wikipedia's with mountains of false information and he relentlessly keeps uploading false flags, people keep deleting them, but many people who don't know that these flags are fake also upload them and think that "Wikipedia is just missing them", the myths surrounding those flags is so common and widespread in the online flag enthusiast community that I think that we should have them at the Wikimedia Commons and debunk their legitimacy where we can to fight these widespread falsehoods. Years of censoring these flags through deletion hasn't worked so I created the "Fantasy flags" list at Wikipedia (on an article originally made by Musée Annam to spread bullshit). Your additions help fight the misinformation he has been perpetrating for years, yet they see that you uploaded those flags and conclude that you must be him. 😑😑😑 — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, despite the fact that I've literally never had an interaction with Musée Annam that didn't include him telling me that I'm "a low IQ moron who should commit suicide" I don't really dislike his presence here, usually I just silently watch one of his socks until he inevitably does something disruptive, notify the admins, and nominate his bad uploads for deletion while attempting to keep his good ones. He's actually quite talented in finding rare images related to Vietnamese history that others can't find. If people want I can make a list of behaviour reasons why I think that you're not Musée Annam (for one, you actually speak in a normal contemporary way, while he uses a lot of 1930's mannerisms, his stupid sourcing model, his inability to ever attribute sources, Etc.), Though honestly I don't want to invest the time in picking his recent socks and comparing all, plus I can't even remember the usernames of his most recent socks... Judging 🧐 by the content you work with you'll eventually run into him, you'll disagree with something he does, and you'll be as much a victim of him as the rest of us. 😅😅😅 Welcome to Vietnamese history on Wikimedia websites. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Welp, hope I can explain to them about my work. This C/Mussee seems to be really good at upsetting people that other users now won’t hesitate to use his own method against him (and those who they think is him).— Daeva Trạc (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Musée Annam cost Wikimedia websites a good number of prominent contributors, he made this hobby stop being fun for many, so now they lash out because they think "they finally got him". If you use FPT Telecom as your internet provider and if you're in Hanoi or Haiphong they might see you as him though, so you're not out the water 🌊. Simply being in the same IP range is enough to get banned. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, that’s very bad. Wikipedia (vi) had a sad and full of conflict history. The flags are fake, but they are famous, that’s why I added them (but to be honest, I also used to added them into infoboxes, not all of them but only to replace the weird fictional flags someone had already added before|I just think if people accepted the fiction, then they should have the famous ones, which is also dumb). But now, I too somehow became a victim of insults. I don’t angry that people think Im a puppet, but false accusations like these really make me sad. This isn’t really a conflict between those who want to fight for a better Wiki and conspiracist. But their angry about this guy have now transferred into me.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, yeah, I read the comments, at the English-language Wikipedia such insults would have been a bannable offense. Wikipedia is a learning experience and competence is acquired. People should be patient with newcomers and try to teach y'all the ropes. You came to Wikipedia seeing these bullshit flags everywhere, you saw a list explaining that they were bullshit, and you wanted to contribute to it. People mistakenly saw you for the bullshitter who originally added them to Wikipedia without even wanting to hear your perspective. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Donald Trung, but I don’t use FPT Telecom. It’s hard to explain things to someone that is angry, and now I have to deal with lots of people who all think I am this guy. So now I have to convince them. They even deleted my map in Hồng Bàng (vi version). I will try to convince them again, like I have tried with Qiushufang.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, I have mixed feelings about the map, on the one (1) hand it is mentioned in historical sources, on the other hand the entire concept of the Húng Kings is bullshit and serious academic historians regard it as a myth. Best thing to do with angry 😡 people is to remain calm and explain that you're not Musée Annam. Since you don't use FPT Telecom you can simply ask them to run a CheckUser to prove your innocence (but I think that that would get declined, I don't know, I haven't read the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's CheckUser guidelines), you can read more about Musée Annam here. Either way, having dealt with the man for years I think that it's quite obvious from your personality that you're not him, that or he must've changed radically and drastically in a short amount of time. 😅😅😅 -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I know @Donald Trung, that’s why when editing the map, I also put “myth” or in this case “truyền thuyết”, in the article to let people know that I only did this based on books, written when Vietnamese were very nationalist.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
_-_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_Nam_(Nguy%E1%BB%85n)_war_map.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}