User:Donald Trung/Old user page

I am Donald Trung (chữ Hán: 徵國單, Korean: Ch'i Kuk-Sŏn, Japanese: Chō Kokutan) and I created this account solely to create the article Ryukyuan mon but as you can see below I have added a few others to that list 😅. I contribute using a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL device 🤙🏻📱, and usually draft any new article I’m writing or major expansion to existing articles in Microsoft Outlook 📧. In general I tend to venture numismatic articles from the Far-East, while only reading other articles, but I make minor edits elsewhere as well though I’m not always signed in while doing so.

By the way, my name is pronounced like “Chüüng”, not “Trŏng”, I have to explain that every time I meet a person who has read my name before hearing it, and to my great annoyance my children go around introducing themselves as “Trŏng” even though I warned them that they’re throwing away their Chinese heritage when they do that, but like many overseas Orientals born abroad they refuse to learn the correct pronunciation of their names. 😒 Usually they retort me by saying “we live in Australia, not Vietnam”, or “that’s easier for English-speaking people to pronounce”.

Tenpō Tsūhō


I also made this article. 💴📝

Yuan dynasty coinage


I am very well interested in East-Asian & Vietnamese currencies, and I've greatly enjoying reading the well-detailed and well-sourced works on Ancient Chinese coinage here on Wikipedia, but for some reason this wonderful detail stops at the Song Dynasty, skips the Yuan Dynasty, and goes straight to the Ming Dynasty, and the skips the Qing Dynasty. Personally I couldn't let this stand so I had to fill the Song-Ming gap in monetary history. Up until I created that page Wikipedia had detailed information about coinage from every period in Chinese history... "unless you're the Mongols" (Crash Course history fans will get it.) 💴📝

Ancient Chinese coinage 🌉 Yuan dynasty coinage



 * Liao dynasty coinage
 * Southern Song dynasty coinage
 * Western Xia coinage
 * Jin dynasty coinage (1115-1234)
 * Da Qi coinage

Nagasaki trade coins 🗾➡🌏


Well, did the best with the limited information I could find. I hope 🤞🏻 that by the time you're reading this that others have greatly expanded it. 😓

My favourite coins




My favourite coins are actually Ruan dynasty-era 10 文 coins made by Emperor 保大, well, actually second favourite after the 2 Sapèque (二文).

And I'd like to thank Sema for his awesome website, Art-Hanoi, I discovered the website through Wikipedia, and I've visited it almost daily ever since, whenever I browse eBay I go there, note that this is not a promotion of their work, more of an acknowledgment of the usefulness of the information they provided. 🌐

Later Jin dynasty coinage (1616-1636) & Qing dynasty coinage


💴 Now this article was on the bottom of my to-do list, "why?" One might ask, well it's simply too much work, 😅 but I made the Qing's coinage article nonetheless, it was hard work 🏢 and I'll be improving it, but if any readers learn more about numismatics, and Chinese history from it it'll be worth it. 😉

Me on Wikipedia
I see that you've made it this far reading my page. 😱

I've actually been an editor for around 10 years, I've made my first account around that time to edit West Frisian Wikipedia (Frysk), though I only made 1 article back then and mostly edit sparse content here, and there. Over time I made another account, I was happy editing as an IP user, but as everyone kept commenting more about how my IP address kept changing and accusing me of sock-puppeteering I made another account, at first I only made templates and articles about software but then I got addicted to Wikipedia and I wrote thousands of pages (THAT'S NOT EVEN AN EXAGGERATION), I've had dozens of accounts and wrote in the fields of history, historical countries, information technology, computers, economy, businesses, consumer products, etc. So writing about coins is quite new for me as I prefer reading about them. 🤓 Over the years I've had dozens of accounts (that never edited in the same fields as I feel that would seem like a conflict of interest) and I've lost access to them by forgetting my password way too often 😵, sometimes because I changed cell.-phones, other times because I cleared my browser cache without realising that I didn't note my password anywhere. 🔏 I prefer not to name any of my earlier accounts or acknowledge them at the top of my page because those accounts have no relation with the edits I do in the fields of numismatics. Also I've made so many accounts over the years that I was forced to make one with my real name because I ran out of ideas 💡, and I'm a very creative person. 😅 I hope that you're enjoying Wikipedia, have fun. 😉

I see that you've made it to the bottom of my talk page and now you're reading my (not so) secret message, if you're a fun 🎉 person type "I've read your user page, and now I'm a Don-expert." on my talk page, I won't reply or anything, it's more of a social experiment. 😋

Me on non-English Wikipedia's

 * nl:Gebruiker:Donald Trung
 * af:Gebruiker:Donald Trung
 * de:Benutzer:Donald Trung

Coming to terms with the punitive side of blocking.
Seeing this post.

“"Wales seems to think that the vast majority of users are just doing the first two (vandalizing or contributing small fixes) while the core group of Wikipedians writes the actual bulk of the article. But that’s not at all what I found. Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account." "When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content." - Aaron Swartz”

“I've often talked about my view of this, and this affords me an opportunity to expound my thoughts a bit more. This is going to be a very personal (and unpopular) opinion with which I expect most of the regular AN crowd to disagree. Kumioko/Reguyla, to my eyes, falls in the same general category as Eric Corbett, Niemti, Technical 13, Alakzi, Δ (and others I'm forgetting about, no offense): editors who are productive/constructive when it comes to encyclopedic content (or technical development of the project as a whole, including MediaWiki, Templates or tools), but otherwise can prove ill-natured, unpleasant, stubborn, intransigeant, prone to ranting/complaining or POINTy behaviour, prone to displays of anger or who sometimes lash out in frustration, and whose behaviour is often not conducive to a positive, collaborative community atmosphere. This class of editors... oooh, the community loves to hate them and bash them and wring them like dishcloths on any administrative noticeboard they can, waving the banners of civility and putting the well-being of the community before the health of the encyclopedia -- whereas I see encyclopedia content as paramount and the community behind it as secondary and optional. Working with good people is fun and preferable whenever possible, but I'd rather have to deal with jerks and assholes who write desirable and good encyclopedic content then hang out with nice, pleasant people who slowly circlejerk their e-peens around the so-called "dramaboards". The end result that serves readers should reign supreme and I wish the community would grant considerably more leeway for misbehaviour in interhuman relationships when the content contributions are worth taking a bit of verbal abuse. I guess I'm being utopic... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @Salvidrim: Just to be clear, you are saying Kumioko's actions amounted to "a bit of verbal abuse"? I think it was more than that and you are doing a disservice to the other editors you mention. --NeilN talk to me 03:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC) No. I did not say that, no matter how hard you try to make it look like way. Words are not a thing I want you to force into my mouth. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Shrug. Your opinion makes little sense to me as no community = no encyclopedia. Nice edit summary, BTW. --NeilN talk to me 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC) And that notion of the community being so intertwined with the encyclopedia so as to equal its importance is something we must resolve to disagree on... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody is above the policies of civility. It comes down to the fact that this one person is alienating numerous other editors. One person, no matter how productive, gets to make other people so uncomfortable that they leave. That is not good for the encyclopedia either. In fact, I posit that it is worse since the one person can cause multiple other editors to leave eliminating a bunch of content creators. Nobody is irreplaceable. Nobody should have the right to cause others that much angst simply because they are a content producer. There are other content producers. People bring up what is a "net positive" for the project. Eliminating one problem content producer in order to keep many other content producers is a net positive for the project. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

When you are building the encyclopedia collaboratively, the community is neither secondary nor optional. Indeed, it's actually an integral part of the process and there is a reason that civility is in the Five Pillars. Being able to work with others and respecting the community is as important as the content it produces; for without either there would be neither. Your scenario is not Utopia but Dystopia and I highly doubt that you'd be contributing to this project if it was rife with the unpleasant attitudes you describe. You'd be somewhere else, we all would. Let's not pretend otherwise. Keegan (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC) +1. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. The well-being of the community is essential to the health of the encyclopedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Also +1. No "brilliant jerks" here please. The Land (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)”

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.

So my IP’s were “sockpuppets”? Bad faith in action.
Unexpanded concept draft, stuff I had planned on writing while globally locked but chose to set aside to translate articles like Japanse mon (munteenheid).

Disruptive editing? Hypocrites!
“Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.”

“Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.”

And WP:POINT applies more to
 * Riukiuaanse mon (Dutch Wikipedia).

This is a concept draft that I have little interest in expanding, but will paste here to not keep it in my mail-inbox 📩.

Sub-pages

 * User:Donald Trung/Sockpuppetry templates
 * User:Donald Trung/Sources to use
 * User:Donald Trung/Stringing of cash coins
 * User:Donald Trung/Song Dynasty cash coins
 * User:Donald Trung/Guanzi (currency)
 * User:Donald Trung/Explaining my signature
 * User:Donald Trung/Criticism of the Standard Offer (written in August 2017)