User talk:Thehistorianisaac

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Thehistorianisaac! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How do I put barnstars on my user page?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

signed, Rosguill talk 14:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Amigao (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes forget to add it or are too busy to add one Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IISS' The Military Balance 2024 page 261 does not verify what is attributed to it in Special:Diff/1289377367. If you're going to add citations, then you need to make sure the content aligns with the sources; yes, that means removing content if necessary. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, would rather not remove everything right now and temporarily puting citation needed templates instead(WP:PROVEIT specifically says doing so is allowed as an alternative to deleting huge amounts of content, and I mostly use citation needed when the info does not violate other policy's). I will try to find more precise references, but the IISS was more of just an interim measure before I found some more precise sources. At least it backs up the original info with what brigades are in the 79th; additionally, artillery, special operations, air defense, army aviation and chemical defense brigades are always numbered after their group army so those we should be allowed to keep; it's just the combined arms brigades which are slightly harder to find sources on Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
Found some sources on history, the combined arms brigades themselves will have to wait a bit Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Chinese police overseas service stations 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. Amigao (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao
I did not intend to have an edit war, and my previous edits have been entirely compliant to wikipedia guidelines and were wrongfully reverted; there was no legitimate reason for my edit to be reverted. May I ask where to appeal this?
The revert was blatantly not in good faith, so I believe it was completely normal to return to my original revision. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have now reverted you, so it's probably best to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page about any content in question. - Amigao (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple editors" is a lie
Outside of you, only one editor has reverted it, and neither you nor the editor in question have explained why my edit was incorrect. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Amigao. I noticed that you recently removed content from China Marine Surveillance without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Amigao (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly was just removing outdated/non-notable information and changing infobox; I often forget to add an edit summary considering I'm currently really stressed due to exams Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Public security bureau (China) 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. Amigao (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Noncommissioned Officers Academy of PAP logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Noncommissioned Officers Academy of PAP logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 08:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax May I ask why the file was re-uploaded? wasn't my original upload good enough? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-photographs shouldn't be in .jpg, I've reuploaded it as File:Non-commissioned Officer Academy of the People's Armed Police logo.png and removed the white background. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 08:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Delete my original then Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

[edit]
And comment is requested on a privacy whitepaper.
And other courtroom drama.
And how he knows it: all about lawyer letters and editing logs.
Why the language barrier is not the only impediment to navigating sources from another culture.
And QR codes for every page!
When an editor is ready to become staff at a public library (not a brother in a fraternity).
Rest in peace.
The technology behind it, and the other stuff.
Gadzooks!
And more.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Amigao (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yao Yuanjun for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yao Yuanjun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yao Yuanjun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Schwede66 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wang Xiaolong (coast guard) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wang Xiaolong (coast guard) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Xiaolong (coast guard) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Schwede66 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential SWAT (China) article - additional sources

[edit]

Hi Thehistorianisaac, as discussed at Talk:SWAT, an article titled SWAT (China) may potentially be created from a content split WP:CONTENTSPLIT from the article SWAT. If an article was created there is currently only one English language source a 2023 article by Liu and Chen.[1]

It would be beneficial to have additional sources including the following used by Liu and Chen:

  • Li, N., 2011. Reflections on the SWAT team development in a new era. Police Combat Training Research 4, 65–67 ([Journal Info Translated from Chinese]).
  • Shi, J., Wang, W., 2011. Loyalty and fearlessness made the public security soldiers - a chronicle of the development of the SWAT police nationwide. China Emergency Management 11, 2 ([Journal Info Translated from Chinese])
  • Xiao, Y., 2007. Practice and thinking about mormalization of SWAT team police. Public Security Research 6, 82–86 ([Journal Info Translated from Chinese]).
  • Xu, H., 2010. Reflection on how to enhance the SWAT team development. Jiangdong Tribune 3, 55–57 ([Journal Info Translated from Chinese]).

I don't have access to the sources, and they would require translation. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how to find the sources? Certainly will check them out when I have time thoughThehistorianisaac (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article did not have links (URLs) in its reference list or include Chinese language titles of the articles or the journals. A search for an English language journal article or a journal normally returns a result in a search engine like Google. A journal article might be free to download or may have to be purchased. Not all journal articles are available online. I'm not sure where to find Chinese journal articles as I am not fluent in Chinese. Melbguy05 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I will try to find it but it probably will take some time Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Liu and Chen only discuss the Ministry of Public Security SWAT units in their article and not People's Armed Police units. Melbguy05 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, they are very different, PAP uses the term "special operations", and has far more of paramilitary capabilities.
Additionally, I found info on railway SWAT in china, might have their own section(Railway police in general have an article in chinese but no english article yet). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thehistorianisaac, have you found any other reliable sources on SWAT units in China either in Chinese or English language? otherwise a content split from the SWAT article to a SWAT (China) article will create a stub article. Melbguy05 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't able to find the above journals, but found quite some sources, and there could be more info regarding stuff like railway, airport and prison SWAT.
Possibly we could have the SWAT (China) be a draft first, as splitting it now would, as you said, make a stub, and if I added it right now it may be a bit too long considering the future split anyways. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the Talk:SWAT#Requested move 20 May 2025 was not to move SWAT to SWAT (United States). If you could please prepare a draft SWAT (China) for me to work on, I would really appreciate it. Melbguy05 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on fixing the PAP translations(see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Use of the term "Contingent" for People's armed police) but yes, I am planning to start the article within the next week; I will ping you when I create the draft.
Additionally, I unfortunate was not able to find any of the journal sources (yet), even after trying several potential translations.
On a more positive note, I plan to upload a photo I took of a guiyang SWAT van and also a photo of a Chengdu SWAT Armored Vehicle(Irrelevant, but it looks really cool) I took at Chengdu Tianfu Airport; additionally, I know a fellow user called User:廣九直通車 who has even more photos of police in China, including SWAT. In general, the draft will definitely not be lacking in photos. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Melbguy05 the draft is here:
Draft:SWAT (China) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liu, Lu; Chen, Li (June 2023). "Demystifying China's police tactical units". International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 73: 100595. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100595. Retrieved 22 May 2025.

WP:BLUDGEONING

[edit]

Please read the above-linked page and realise why your insistance in responding to every delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions is disruptive. It's also rude, as you are effectively suggesting they haven't read the article or the discussion before !voting. If you reply to another delete !vote, I'll be forced to seek admin intervention. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man - My first ever AfD(and hopefully last), so i thought I was supposed to respond to everyone. Didn't know about this policy at first. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Archiving (plain and simple)

[edit]

If you get tired scrolling on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- I strongly recommend using one of these scripts: Wikipedia:One click archiving to make it easier on yourself. Once you've done that, it's very easy to archive a talk page -- just add {{Archives}} at the top, and then you can go down the page and one-click any section that needs to be archived (I generally do this for any discussion over 12 months old on article talk pages). For my own user talk page, I prefer letting a bot do the archiving, which is a tiny bit more complex to set up but I believe instructions can be found from the link Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave (under the "Templates for Archiving" navbox, I prefer lowercase sigma bot). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Looking at your recent edits to PLA Airborne Corps articles: please add dates and page numbers (especially for PDFs) with references. The ROC MOD sources look like they were published as part of a magazine or journal; also note these in the references with the relevant data. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amigao (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:7th Marine Brigade

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Thehistorianisaac. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:7th Marine Brigade, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell another editor to use the article talk page without you starting a discussion there first. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in China template

[edit]

Please make sure your additions are supported by reliable sources at the target pages. For instance, presently there is no mention of Conservatism at the page Xi Jinping faction or at Xi Jinping as such, the inclusion of either of these pages on the Conservatism in China template is inapprpopriate. WP:RS applies to categories just like all other parts of Wikipedia. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in previous revisions there were mentions on the Xi page, and overall Xi's policies do align traditionally with more right wing policies Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presently there's no mention of conservatism on either of those pages. We should not be basing categories that apply a WP:LABEL on the basis of vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; There has been some claims of conservatism by sources, though I would prefer to focus on more immediate things I need to do Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Honestly part of this is back-wash that I've been involved in an on-again off-again dispute with ProgramT regarding their lack of care to sourcing. I mentioned in RS/N that some of these things even seem intuitively correct but are just unsupported by sources, so if the articles have appropriate sourcing for the category you won't get pushback from me. It's just that I kind of need the sources to be there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223
Conservatism in China has adequate sourcing of Xi being a conservative; Maybe he could possibly be added back?
Also by the way(this is kinda awkward, but I have asked it in the teahouse with no responses, and I see you are far mar experienced than me), may I ask if splitting an article where the destination is a redirect requires any extra steps? (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Articles on Chinese firefighting are awfully inadequate and confusing) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what you're doing I'd suggest drawing up drafts of the proposed new articles and going through the AfC process. That would help navigate issues surrounding redirects. As for the issue with Xi, I'd suggest you want to make sure the destination page has the appropriate sources rather than a third page. But if the sourcing is, in fact, good you could solve that by adding content to the Xi pages using those sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks.
(For the Firefighting split, it is more of seperating two different things who ended up being the same article, as ironically the NFRA article is older than the agency itself, since it was originally about the Firefighting force(China Fire and Rescue) and somehow ended up being about the agency. I likely won't go through the draft or AFC process, as I likely will only need to tweak some of the information since the two are quite similar, as their relation is like the People's Police and MPS. Point is, do I need to go through any extra steps?) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't often do article splits. I'm something of a specialist in sourcing - my comfort area is mainly in identifying new academic sources for existing articles - which is part of why I'm a bit of a stickler for good sourcing lol. But I don't usually come along to an article when it's brand new. 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way(sorry for disturbing you), more on your area of expertise, I'm currently working on Draft:SWAT (China) and came across this book/journal(铁路公安特警执法与训练实务 [Railway SWAT law enforcement and training], 2017, from Wang Xuzhang(王旭章) and Li Yandong(李廷东), ISBN 9787565329685 or ISBN     7565329681) from the People's Public Security University of China, however I don't know how to access it, could you pls tell me how? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could try Wikipedia Library: [1] That's usually my go-to for academic sources. If that doesn't work then the next choice would be to reach out to your local university about accessing it via their collection. I don't know about your situation but in PEI, where I live, my library card gives me access to any journals they're subscribed to or books that they have in the stacks plus access to inter-library loans.
If none of those work then it may be a trip to Amazon. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223
See Xi Jinping#Ideology. Directly mentions he is a conservative. Will add him back to the template. Should I link to the section or to the article? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit anxious about using Bloomberg and Time as sources for this and would hope for more academic sources but other than that minor quibble the revisions look decent and I'd no longer object to the inclusion of that page on the template. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nvm it was already there again Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's because ProgramT is much more willing to edit war than I am. I'd rather leave a bad edit up than revert the same thing repeatedly. But thank you for actually putting in the work regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine; As long as the info in the article is verified I think it can be kept up. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For stopping by my talk talk page. As you might have noticed, I am teaching a course which has many Chinese students - but I myself don't speak Chinese. Students translate articles from and to Chinese Wikipedia, and we can always use more people who can check their work, particularly in Chinese, or offer them feedback on the quality of their translation (language-wise). Feel free to watchlist my page and/or comment on any student article that is of interest to you, Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 01:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I certainly will help out to ensure the quality of translation, and maybe add some extra info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on People's Liberation Army Rocket Force. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the edit summary in this edit: where is the personal attack that you allege took place? —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700
    He falsely claimed The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.
    Additionally, the user already has an ANI discussion regarding his misconduct, which multiple users have also pointed out [2] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case
Why am I the one being banned here? I was reverting the edits of a very blatant disruptive editor(whose misconduct has still not been addressed by admins) making bad edits and targeting info i have added. This is quite unfair and I will be appealing this. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked both of you for 24 hours for a simple reason: you violated 3RR. Your reverts, justified as you believe them to be, do not come under the extremely limited exceptions to that rule.
Also, you and they did not avail yourself of the talk page (it has not been edited since early last month). Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that at least in the case of the Ford Super Duty and Tactical Police Vehicle they can fall under "reverting obvious vandalism" - The edits were subtle vandalism targeted against articles I have edited(Said editor has been doing WP:HOUNDING, and harassed me on another page), where they removed properly sourced info without a proper explanation(All sources was reliable, and their claim was that it was in other languages, which is not an adequete explanation). In regards to the talk page, said user has a relatively long record(for someone with only 300 edits) of edit warring, along with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and I attempted to explain why their edits were reverted but they chose to use the edit summary to direct false accusations towards me. Again, I believe I should not be blocked as the changes were very blatantly either disruptive and in violation of wikipedia policy(Unsourced info), and it seems like said user is edit warring just to edit war(adding false accusations on edit summary, failure to properly explain edits) and has shown harassment towards me in the past.
By the way, I would suggest again, reading the ANI in regards to said user's past misconduct. Multiple editors have expressed concerns in regards to said user's incivility, and I do not understand the rationale of why admins are refusing to take any actions until said user makes disruptive edits which result in an edit war. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for your thoughts

[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at Draft:Shenzhen Satellite TV? I am not seeing problems significant enough to warrant draftitication, but I want to ask for Wikipedia:Third opinion :) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will check it out. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

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. 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 People's Liberation Army Rocket Force.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr
You need to stop trying to avoid the ANI discussion regarding your misconduct. STOP your harassment campaign and go address the issues regarding your conduct Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wang Xiaolong (coast guard)

[edit]

On 23 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wang Xiaolong (coast guard), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2023, Chinese Coast Guardsman Wang Xiaolong was officially declared a Martyr? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wang Xiaolong (coast guard)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
Admins arrested in Belarus.
Pardon our alliteration!
A get-out-of-jail card!
And other new research publications.
Holy men and not-as-holy movies.
Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!
After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.
With some sweet-and-sour sauce!
Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?
Egad!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

Reverting of subtle vandalism(and WP:HOUNDING edits). User I reverted has refused to explain their edits even after multiple attempts to explain so, and is quite openly a WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor. My reverts were purely to enforce policies against an editor who has ignored policies and consensus.

Decline reason:

You violated WP:3RR. It doesn't matter that you only did repeated reverts out of desperation, you still chose to violate a bright-line rule. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • I'm not going to decline your request, but by the same token, I'm not convinced that the other user was editing in bad faith, which means it's not vandalism. Further, you might want to consider some of your own recent conduct before you continue down the path of WP:HOUNDING being a good reason for administrators to sanction an account. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred
I would suggest reading [3].
Even assuming good faith, the user has often ignored policies or consensus and has been involved in multiple prior edit wars. They have also been doing WP:PA against me, and have done borderline harassment [4]. I do believe WP:HOUNDING is involved, since all the articles where said user removed properly sourced info had said info added by me. I again, recommend you and other admins to at least review the ANI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I understand edit warring is a bad idea, though I already tried to explain policies, when they decided to ignore my policies. I only did repeated reverts out of desperation, as they have a history of not willing to discuss and ignoring consensus even after discussion. Their edit summary showed a lack of AGF and also was sort of "I'm edit warring just to edit war", which is why i reverted them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Could you please revert the Ford Super Duty and Commando articles back to their original state, as the edits are controversial, and as for the Ford Super Duty article the reasons for removing content is simply invalid(The info removed was properly sourced from reliable sources).
As for @The Bushranger (Sorry for pinging, I think this is quite important)
I understand the line of 3RR and will not contest this any further. However, I would like to hear your opinion on what I could have done. The user I have reverted the edits of has a history of edit warring, ignoring consensus and policies and lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is. Could I ask if there is anything I could have done differently, as not only did the edit remove sourced info from RS without a proper explanation(meaning the first revert had no problems), the user chose to WP:ICANTHEARYOU and has a history of only discussing after the 3 revert rule is violated. In fact, they have even made controversial changes [5] while a discussion [6] was ongoing, completely ignoring a discussion(where they also harassed me by the way). I would like to hear if there is anything I could have done differently.
Additionally, could you explain It's entirely possible that no admin intervention has been done because no admin has considered intervention necessary.? [7] I would suppose repeated edit warring, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, personal attacks, ignorance of consensus, harassment, and general incivility would require some intervention, as multiple other editors have pointed out [8] [9]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025 ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are now under sanctions

[edit]

Please note that you are now interaction banned with Nghtcmdr and topic banned from chinese military, broadly construed. I advise you to read the banning policy, specifically the exceptions and appealing sections. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster
I won't appeal the Iban, but may I ask if I can appeal the TBAN(or ask for it to be a shorter ban) without also appealing the IBAN? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, how do I report Iban violations? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sanctions need to be appealed at WP:AN as they were placed by community consensus. Violations can reported in a similar way, although nothing more than a simple mention of a violation with a diff is needed. You can also report IBAN violations to me, since I placed the IBAN. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thank you.
Additionally, since I am Ibanned(and Tbanned), if I genuinely find an edit from the user i am Ibanned as disruptive, what I am allowed to do? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Do not comment on the other user unless you are directly called to (like via dispute resolution at AN/ANI, arbcom, or appeals) or they have violated the iban and you are mentioning the violation for the purpose of enforcement. The entire point of an interaction ban is to make you two find entirely new places away from each other to edit. And as for your edits relating to People's Armed Police, I would count them as falling under your topic ban. Like RovingPersonalityConstruct said, it is always better to be safe rather than sorry. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: you should seek clarification concerning whether People's Armed Police topics fall under "chinese military, broadly construed". Better safe than sorry. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will. I edited that article without realizing it. Most foreign sources consider it a "paramilitary" though they are active service members Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster
This edit [10] is an IBAN violationThehistorianisaac (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Nghtcmdr's edit was at 00:37, 17 July 2025. It wasn't until 00:43, 17 July 2025 that Sennecaster informed the editor that they were under sanctions. Melbguy05 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair most of us were aware that we should avoid each other's edits(Even though I made edits to the Jiaolong Commandos page I was unaware of their edit there at the time; the original draft for the article was made by me and published by Buckshot06 later on, so I typically say we both made it together), especially later on in the dispute; another thing is, this involves invalid content removal.(though I've been told not to discuss this aspect too much per WP:BRIE) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasé for Mr. Blasé and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Military History task force International involvement in the Battle of Yangxia

[edit]

Hi .User:Thehistorianisaac

I noticed you are a part of the Chinese Military History task force.

I am doing research on October 9th 1911 in Hankou during the the Battle of Yangxia. Some Chinese rebels were going to bomb the Russian concession there, but were caught and ran away. When they realized they were caught they started the 1911 Revolution. But this first battle was the Battle of Yangxia. The Russians, Americans, Japanese, British, Austro-Hungarians, Italians, French, and Germans all supported each other in defending the concessions. Mainly the rebels seemed to fight the Qing dynasty forces though.

It seems to me almost a mini Boxer Rebellion as far as the allies were concerned.

I want to know about European, Russian, and especially American involvement in the battle. I have a book that in 2 pages briefly goes over the battle and the foreign involvement in it, but not in much details.

I am wondering if you know of any books or articles that go over the international involvement in this battle. Also if you know of any good books on the War Lord period of China I would appreciate that too.

Thanks (:

~~~~ Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not the best with that era, but I will try to find sources to help(I have chinese history books, but most are pre-1911);
Keep in mind I have been Tbanned from "chinese military, broadly speaking"; I don't know if this includes pre-1949 chinese military history, though I will attempt to appeal it/request it to be shortened/request better specifications are reduction of scope in the near future
I will keep in touch if I find any of my books mentioning it though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would refrain from discussing this further. WP:TBAN explicitly gives discussions or suggestions about [TBAN topics] anywhere on Wikipedia as an example of things TBANNED editors are forbidden from doing. - ZLEA T\C 16:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for this edit in which you violated your topic ban from the Chinese military after a previous warning that the People's Armed Police fall into that topic area. Additionally, please note that the edit came very, very close to also being a violation of your IBAN; some other admins might even say it crossed the line. So while the block is only for the TBAN violation, please be more careful on the IBAN front as well. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I was aware of the Tban and the extent, but I was not aware I was banned from mentioning the People's Armed Police or adding links at all. I thought a TBAN usually means being banned from editing articles/sections relating to said topic, not being banned from adding a link to a relevant article on a disambiguation page. Ultimately, I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, as I think simply mentioning it on a disambiguation page doesn't constitute a 72 hour block.

Decline reason:

I don't think 72 hours for a topic ban violation (although an edge case) is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilknightI think I would agree under typical circumstances, but 72 hours for simply mentioning "People's Armed Police" seems to much. I think at the very least, it should be reduced to 48 hours;Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! To clarify, topic bans are usually worded as "broadly construed" (which is the case for yours), meaning that borderline cases are considered to fall under the topic ban. In the future, if you aren't sure about whether an edit falls under it or not, it is better to ask an admin familiar with the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but 72 hours for simply adding a link seems to be very extreme at best Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may arguably have been too severe after months of rigorously following the topic ban, but certainly not among the very first edits after the topic ban was in place. There's no "simply" adding a link; you shouldn't be involved in anything to do with the topic or related topics anywhere on English Wikipedia. WP:TBAN does a lot of work to make it as clear as possible that there is no "but it's just a small thing" exception to a topic ban. I think it would serve you best to spend the time you're using to attempt to argue a short 72-hour block into a short 48-hour block to instead review how topic bans are treated on English Wikipedia. The community is really no-nonsense about pushing on the edges of topic bans. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs
I was planning to appeal the TBAN(or request it's duration have a set date on not be indefinite), would this block affect a potential appeal? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even remotely involved here so know nothing of the underlying dispute, but I would recommend that you do the following:
  • Rigorously avoid editing the topic you're banned from or anything related for several months, instead editing in areas completely unrelated to Chinese military history. Build up a track record of constructive editing.
  • Once enough time has passed and you feel like an appeal has a chance of passing, contact an experienced editor about your chances for an appeal, explaining why you were banned and how you will edit differently in the future. This should likely not be less than about a year in the future.
But honestly you should not even be thinking of appealing the ban right now. You should be building up a track record of constructive, uncontroversial content creation in areas not even remotely related to China. I was topic-banned once and believe me, it was incredibly frustrating every time I saw something I wanted to change and couldn't change it. But believe me, if you are truly ready to appeal the ban, you must know why it was imposed, why it was justified and believe it. Note that excessive question-asking about the limits of your ban will probably be considered gaming the system. hope my advice helps. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks;
My tban mostly came from more of a conduct dispute(IMO it was me enforcing policy way too harshly, but that's just how I see things) and was a side product of the IBAN(The IBAN got near universal approval, even from me and said editor, the TBAN did not recieve as much support); I actually had a rather good record prior to the dispute(excluding early edits;) and have continued to make proper edits since. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The level of support does not affect enforcement of the topic ban, and it would be a giant mistake to treat it lightly because of that belief. Nor would immediately appealing a topic ban be a good idea, and yes, failing to follow the topic ban can make it harder to have the topic ban lifted later, and in many cases, repeated violations of topic bans have lead to indefinite blocks. I hate seeing what starts out as a minor issue for an editor snowball into a more serious one, so while you're topic banned, I urge you to approach Wikipedia as if there wasn't any content about the Chinese military or anything related to it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I already actively tried to avoid editing anything related, but kept bookmarking websites to use for later and kept in mind articles that need improving; I will be going to mainland china on saturday for a while(ironically for a military related summer camp sort of thing) so I will likely not try to appeal it before I come back(as I hate having ongoing discussions while on holiday).
In the meantime though I will continue to not touch any articles, but record down all articles that may need improving in the future(and gathering sources; won't touch anything though) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second block and final warning

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating your IBAN (flagging issues with Nghtcmdr's work) and also your TBAN (the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the military). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered making this block indefinite, because you're not showing any indication of being prepared to comply with your bans. You know that the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the military. You know—or at least really should know—that tagging an article as having issues when your are IBANned from its sole author is interacting with them. You are trying to run right up to the boundaries of your bans and you are misjudging where they are.
What I'm about to say isn't a requirement like the ban, but it's some advice I really hope you take: Stay far away from these things. Act like you're banned from way more than you are. Don't edit about China at all. Don't edit about military topics at all. Don't edit about police topics at all. Don't edit any article Nghtcmdr has ever touched. If you cannot judge the boundaries of your bans, this is the only way to avoid violating them. In time you may get a better sense of what's appropriate and be able to move back into these spaces, carefully.
I decided against indeffing because I wanted to give you this advice and see if you take it. I will be clear, though, if I have to block you again it will likely be indefinite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Tamzin: I have been working with Thehistorianisaac on a draft Chinese civilian police article Draft:SWAT (China) not military related. Does Thehistorianisaac's TBAN now include this? The TBAN imposed by administrator Sennecaster was for "Chinese vehicles and military technology, broadly construed". Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not strictly fall under the TBAN, although any parts of it relating to the Chinese military do fall under it. (Also, the binding wording of the TBAN, as logged at WP:EDR, is Chinese military, broadly construed; Senne reworded her close.) That said, I would reiterate my suggestion above that Isaac stay far away from the bounds of his topic ban, and thus strongly discourage him from working on an article that is only a hair's breadth away from the Chinese military. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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).

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

Request reason:

Not asking for immediate unblock, but asking for possible reduction of date(and also for some help on my user page):
Sorry for the CCG edit, I made it almost split second around 40 min before I went on summer camp and wasn't really thinking clearly. I planned to revert it, though I was already on the high speed rail at the time and couldn't. I sincerely apologize for that edit(though if I wasn't TBANNED the edit would still be acceptable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and consensus that deprecated chinese gov affiliatted sources can still be used for non controversial purposes in regards to stuff about the chinese gov(e.g. ship names which is what I did)). However I will have better self control and avoid touching(I will still record down articles that need help and will edit them when i am allowed to) related articles until I successfully appeal the TBAN.
However, I believe the part about the IBAN violation is unfair. WP:IBAN states edit Foo's user and talk pages; reply to Foo in discussions; mention @Foo by linking to their user page; make reference to or comment on Foo anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly; undo Foo's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; use the thanks extension to respond to Foo's edits." none of which I have violated, as I stumbled across an article(which so happened to be made by said editor; You aren't giving enough plausible deniability considering the fact that me and said editor have extremely similar interests, and that we are likely to end up editing similar articles) with bad sourcing and tagged it as such.

Additionally, may I ask if somebody could remove the wikibreak template from my talk page? I'm back from summer camp and the template is outdatted

Decline reason:

Userpage has been edited per their request. Like PhilKnight, I see no grounds for lessening the block especially considering you were very close to an INDEF. Please use the balance of the block to gain a more full understanding of the issues with your edits so that you can edit more productively down the road. Further misconduct will likely be an INDEF so tread carefully before and after the block expires. Star Mississippi 15:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • I have removed the wikibreak template from your user page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you only have a week left on your block. Not requesting an immediate unblock doesn't make a lot of sense to me. PhilKnight (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, whether or not the edit that violated your topic ban would have been OK if you were not topic-banned isn't really directly relevant here: the fact is that you are topic-banned.
As for the iban, that's definitely commenting/referencing someone else's work. By adding a tag to an article created by Nightcmdr very recently, with the content all or mostly created by Nightcmdr, you were telling the community something about Nightcmdr's work. It's perfectly fair; an IBAN isn't something you're suffering from or something that happened to you, it's the consequence stemming from you and the other editor conducting yourselves poorly. So yes, due to overlapping interests, you may have to stay out of articles and conversations you'd be allowed to edit otherwise, as will Nightcmdr. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs@PhilKnight @Tamzin
Would like some advice on something;
I am planning to appeal both the TBAN and IBAN for reasons I will disclose when I do make the appeal
I would like to have some advice for whether the IBAN(I will definitely try to appeal it first) covers an edit I plan to do in the future;
The user I am IBANNED with has recently created tonnes of redirects(Such as Beijing Fire and Rescue, Shanghai Fire and Rescue) on the National Fire and Rescue Administration page; all of them are self redirects; Now originally they were red links or interlanguage links, and I had previously planned to create those articles in the near future;
May i ask if converting those redirects into proper articles would violate the IBAN? I had previously already planned to create said articles prior to the dispute, but the fact that said editor has turned them into self redirects concerns me on whether turning them into articles would violate the IBAN.
I would also like to ask whether said editor has also violated their IBAN, as many of those redirects made(On both the NFRA and CMSA pages) are from interlanguage links that I added; I would also like to add that the subject of the redirects they made on the NFRA page were formerly part of the China Fire Services or People's Armed Police Forestry Corps prior to 2018(if you don't believe me, just check the NFRA article) who were part of the People's Armed Police and were legally speaking active service military personnel, which means that those could be interpreted as TBAN violations. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you're concerned, anything that Nightcmdr says or does should be treated by you as if it doesn't exist (and vice versa). The only exceptions are obvious vandalism (none of this applies) and the minimum of what is needed for constructive dispute processes. See WP:BANEX. Whatever sanctions they may receive ought not be your concern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to report suspected IBAN violations; And my question is whether the fact they have made a self redirect means I am completely banned from making the proper article on stuff like the beijing fire and rescue etc Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm gonna answer your question with a question, Isaac: If you're monitoring Nghtcmdr closely enough that you know they created all these redirects four days after they created List of FBI employees killed in the line of duty—an unreviewed page with 3 non-template-based backlinks and 0 watchersadmin link—but two days before you made your edit to that article, why should I believe you that you stumbled on that page without having any idea that they created it? Should I not conclude that you are stalking the contributions of an editor you are interaction-banned from? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs@Tamzin
  1. The pages linked to said article are very often visited by me, so I stumbled across them there.
  2. I am literally the person who made the interlanguage links on the NFRA article and the CMSA article, those links suddenly turning blue would definitely be noticed by me
(I'm just gonna add this cause why not)
Why my Iban should be lifted and what I think is the ideal end of the situation
At the end of the day, I have nothing personal against said editor. I believe just like all editors, they will have the capability to make good edits. I think just like how I often cooperate with the editor that, 1 year ago, monitored my edits, I believe I have the capability to collaberate with the editor I am Ibanned with if we are both more civil to each other.
If the IBAN and TBAN is successfully lifted, what I'll do is I will personally apologize for being to harsh and incivil towards said editor and also try to explain why said editor's edits were disruptive(the invalid content removal in particular).
I will also repair/ask editors to repair articles whose content was incorrectly removed, or ask for third opinion on some other articles.
Even so, I still advise that somebody take their time to make sure said editor understands policy. As other editors have pointed out
I'm willing to cooperate and be civil(I will choose to do so unconditionally) to said editor, though I also hope they are willing to acknowledge they have frequently misinterpreted policy(claiming sources need to be "verified" before they are used(basically saying sources are unreliable until proven reliable), making self redirects) and some of their previous edits be fixed. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in your best interests to not push the edges of your topic ban/interaction ban. You've been doing that since the moment they were put in place, already earning two blocks in a week on barely a dozen edits.
As far as you're concerned, Nightcmdr shouldn't even exist. My impression of the situation is that you're much closer to an indefinite block than you are to a successful appeal of either sanction.
I would urge you to think deeply on the question of what you value more: your ability to participate on English Wikipedia or winning a feud you have with another editor. That's a question only you can answer, and it's one that will be answered with actions rather than words. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to state I'm not here to win a feud. I have no problem with said editor, I have problems with their edits going against policy, and the fact they have done so repeatedly. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say this once, and I really hope you listen: WP:BANEX does not include complaining about your co-IBANnee as part of discussing why your IBAN should be lifted, unless your complaint is that they've violated the IBAN, and even then that allegation needs to be made concisely and without editorialization.
If you say anything, and I mean anything, about Nghtmcdr again, by name or not, and it is not part of an IBAN appeal at AN or a violation report at AN/I, I am going to block you indefinitely. And if I were you I'd be really careful on that second exception, because if you're wrong about what you report there's a good chance you'll get blocked for gaming the system.
Go edit about something else. Anything else. Anyone else. As CoffeeCrumbs has been saying, as far as you are concerned, from this moment forward, Nghtcmdr is a person who does not exist. The only degree to which you're aware of them should be knowing that, if you see their name somewhere, you walk the other way. Even in situations where you technically don't have to walk the other way, because you've shown three times over (counting the violations in your most recent messages) that you do not know how to walk the line safely. If that means you cannot edit about articles you want to edit about, then okay. There are 7,034,038 articles. Pick one. You want to edit about military topics without running into Nghtcmdr? Okay. Here's the article on the Burkina Faso Armed Forces. It could be five times the size that it is. Here's the article on the Ministry of Defence and National Service (Tanzania). It only lists the current officeholder (who doesn't have an article) and someone who was in office at an unclear point in the 1970s.
Or you can appeal this ban when this block expires. The block threat above still stands there, for what it's worth: If you file an IBAN appeal and it contains complaints about Nghtcmdr, requests that others monitor their edits, etc., I am just going to block you, and I really doubt anyone's going to object to that. That's the middle-case scenario. The best-case scenario is that the appeal is just declined; there is no scenario where it's granted, none. The worst-case scenario is that the community tires of your antics and sitebans you. And then you turn what could be an easy ban appeal after six months of good edits into something much harder to come back from.
I've given this speech to a lot of people over the years. Almost no one listens. Then they're shocked when they get indeffed or sitebanned after doing the thing I said would get them indeffed or sitebanned. I'd love if you could be in the minority who don't go down that path. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; For the part regarding my concerns I probably will do that in my apology/explanation.
Though thanks for reminding be about the burkina faso armed forces, reminded me that tonnes of african articles still need improving just as much as chinese articles(though since I know chinese and there are tonnes of chinese resources online it's far easier.).
May I also ask if I should do the TBAN and IBAN appeals separately, or should I do one first(personally I have much more faith in the TBAN getting lifted over the IBAN)? May I also see some examples of prior successful appeals? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only advice I can give you on appealing is not to do it. Not at least for 6 months after the expiry of this block. Whether you appeal nonetheless is only a decision you can make. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I realize my edits were in violation of the tban and Iban, and will actively avoid editing said topics and also check article history to make sure there is no IBAN violation until both are appealed(which per advice I likely will not do within the next month). I will mostly focus on editing my current drafts or participating in constructive conversation on noticeboards and discussion areas.

Decline reason:

This is not a reason for shortening the block, which was already lenient. You're being disruptive. Please stop or you'll likely lose access to edit your talk page for the duration of the block. Star Mississippi 12:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT article

[edit]

@Melbguy05

Currently for the Chinese SWAT draft, photos outside of SWAT vehicles(which are very easy to find anyways) are kinda lacking(To be honest when I came back from summer camp I saw a Guangzhou Railway public security office SWAT outpost at guangzhou south station but did not photograph it since I was too busy);

Now nearly every single Chinese news agency and government agency copyrights their photos outside of the China News Service youtube channel which sometimes has a Creative Commons Attribution license.(There have already been people uploading screenshots of said videos onto wikimedia commons)

Now, I found this video from the CNS which includes some training footage of the Beijing Railway Public Security Office SWAT division("Iron Eagle Commando Unit") though I could not see any license; May I ask if this means it is copyrighted?(Also beware, not all their videos are free from copyright, this one of a Shaanxi SWAT competition explicitly says(in chinese) at the end that it is copyrighted)


The only real video I could find with a attribution license is this one of 24 members of the Garze SWAT being found alive after the 2022 Luding earthquake, though I think that would be more useful on the earthquake article itself than on the SWAT article.


Keep in mind, the 2022 Luding earthquake article claims "24 people are missing"(aka the SWAT members) which is outdated; On September 10 all 24 SWAT members were found alive and evacuated via 2 helicopters.

(Sources: [11](China news service) [12] (Hunan Daily))

Apparently they were part of a group of 240 SWAT officers deployed to perform disaster relief after the earthquake, and those 24 SWAT officers were deployed to Hailuogou(where the only road was heavily damaged), though on September 8 their connections failed, leading to people believing they went missing.

(Source: [13](PRC central government), and the same CNS source from above)

I'm blocked so I can't update the article myself, but may I ask if you could help update said article, and maybe also add it to the list of events on the Chinese SWAT draft? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thehistoricanisaac, as you're currently blocked, you should not be discussing or suggesting edits. Your talk page is only open for the limited purpose of discussing issues related to your block or other Wikipedia processes. It could result in your talk page access being removed for the duration of your block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thehistorianisaac, once you are unblocked you can edit Draft:SWAT (China) yourself. WP:BLOCKEVASION states if I edited the article with information provided by you it would be considered "proxy editing". By you giving suggestions to another editor that they edit an article on your behalf might be considered an attempt to evade a block. WP:USERTALKBLOG states that "Users who are site-blocked or site-banned should rarely use their talk pages for anything other than unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request." Melbguy05 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Will edit the earthquake article myself.
How about the copyright of the videos? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]