User talk:Lệ Xuân/Archive 2

Official communications of the Chinese Empire
Hello fellow volunteer contributor (this sounds like the "Hello fellow kids" meme...),

I came across the page "Official communications of the Chinese Empire" (which I would describe as "well-hidden" as I couldn't find it in any navigational templates...) and saw a number of Song Dynasty seals, is it possible that older Chinese "National Seals" were used on these? From what I can tell all large seals were gold seals, but this might be a good direction to find old seals for Chinese historical Infoboxes at. Cheers. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tks for showing me this. This is the first time I've ever seen an official seal from the Song era. I have seen many seals on Huizong paintings, but they are only used for private purposes. Anyway, can you recognize the seal scripts under "付岳飛"? I only recognize the last two: "之寶". The three on the left (太上皇帝之寶 etc.) are redundant as they were added much later. Ha nk iz  20:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhh...


 * If that amazed you, then this this will blow your mind. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * But sadly there's probably no imperial seals from that era left till this day. BTW, I wanna know if you have any sources to prove the authenticity of the Dragon Star Flag. As you can see, we removed the flag from the Nguyen Dynasty article on viwp as we couldn't find a single source to prove it really looked like that. In contrast, the one with the red and yellow stripes is quite clear, as you could find many pictures (illustrations as well as photos) of it on the Internet. Ha nk iz  20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)




 * I don't get any pings on Wikipedia. I have actually raised the Fake Dragon Star Flag issue several times and the only time I've recently re-instated it was after reverting user "Laska666" because of the fact that they were also adding false information while removing the flag but justified their actions by saying that they were "removing false flags", I then asked them to remove the flags but had no response. I have been removing hoaxes from "Flag of South Vietnam" that keeps being the-instated by a Hanoi IP but have to stop because if I continue it would be edit warring. I was going to ask user "KomradeRice" or someone else to remove the fake Dragon Star Flags, but I actually thought of pinging user "Havsjö" on "Talk:Nguyễn dynasty". The reason I won't do it myself is because I prefer to avoid conflict and don't want to end up in an edit war, I was almost community banned for having an emoji in my signature because I managed to piss the right people off before an unblock request and I am sure that if anyone would want to make sure that I'm never allowed on enwiki they will take any opportunity, the thing about making enemies is that they will wait for a community ban request and will vote in favour even if they don't edit the wiki otherwise (like a certain Commonswiki administrator voting to ban me). My experience is that people who add hoaxes to Wikipedia but have otherwise not made any enemies can get away with anything, "crimes against the readers" are permissible, "crimes against the community" aren't. I can't say that I am a fan of letting misinformation continue but at present I don't really have much choice but I will open a new discussion about it.


 * Personally I really like the fake Dragon Star Flag but would still want it removed as misinformation, I tried, I really tried to find any information about it but this flag seems to have been created by the Cần Vương movement and was directly inspired by the pro-Imperial faction of the Boshin War. There are literally no records of this flag before the Cần Vương movement and Musée Annam deliberately inserted a false sources that showcase a similar flag as A CHINESEE FLAG and leaves "Cochinchina" blank and calls it "proof". I did have an odd lead thanks to user "Fæ" that I will add below. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My few encounters with the admins is probably one of the main reasons I rarely engaged in editing on enwp. They didn't really care if the information you removed was a hoax added by familiar socks. They just wait for you to go over the revert-limit and then they blocked you, despite the fact that you already started a discussion on the talk page, but the sock didn't even bother to discuss. Anyway, I noticed that Musee Annam often uses TTXVA (thông tấn xã vàng anh), which no longer exists, as the source for his flags. This guy is just a joke, plus severely "đa nhân cách". I found his Facebook account and a bunch of posts of him on several Vietnamese History groups. He always portrays himself as an educated, highly cultured man who has a passion for film, history and culture. Hahaha, but I'm not sure that the people who talked to him could ever imagine that this guy – born in 1987 – is a pervert who stays up until 3 a.m. only to spam penis pictures on Wikipedia talk pages of a girl more than a decade younger than him. I really have nothing better to describe him beside "hèn" =)))) Ha nk iz  22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I honestly had to laugh at how he re-wrote your biography, but not as loud as the whole "Annam Digital Library" project, I sometimes still randomly fall into fits of laughter thinking about someone randomly creating such a category and adding random files into it, I have to hold my laughter in just writing about the "Annam Digital Library" to not wake my children up. I personally find it a great shame that TTXVA (thông tấn xã vàng anh) no longer exists today, the website actually hosted a large amount of historical content about Viet Nam and actually had a lot of accurate information about a lot of historical Vietnamese flags and coats of arms, I think that Musée Annam is the reason that we don't have a "List of flags of Vietnam" article at Viwiki, but I genuinely think that if such a list exists with sources that it could prevent hoaxes from spreading simply by having "more eyes on it", the TTXVA (thông tấn xã vàng anh) Facebook page actually lists a number of photographs of contemporary flags of the State of Vietnam that I haven't seen anywhere else. It's such a shame that the Internet Archives didn't save more of TTXVA (thông tấn xã vàng anh) or that Musée Annam didn't at least try to preserve more of it (as he admitted that he worked with the website in the past, so he has "a major COI" and is "spamlinking" it, using enwiki terminology whenever someone uses a source). There are two (2) main problems with Musée Annam and content, one (1) he basically never sources anything and even removes sources from other people's works, and (2) because he never sources anything people just blanket delete anything he does without first researching his claims. To be fair they are usually too busy reverting his post-deletion insults, but these two things are interconnected and in his decade long time on Wikimedia Commons he still seems incapable of basic sourcing. I notice his socks on Wikimedia Commons directly, but I deliberately don't report them because he uploads a lot of highly valuable historical images in the public domain... But also bullshit and copyrighted images, at this point I wonder if he's unwilling to learn because of stubbornness, or incapable of learning. I didn't contact the TTXVA (thông tấn xã vàng anh) on the Facebook because I don't want people like Musée Annam to be able to find me (if anyone mødding that group is still associated with him), but as your Facebook is very easy to find (I found it within 5 minutes of identifying your older profile) maybe you can try to contact them to see if they still have the old files from the website, this is a potential gold mine waiting to be excavated (not sure if I'm using this metaphor correctly). --Donald Trung (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ja, that's the reason why I have to deactivate my account in the first place. I've learned that sometimes you should never reveal too much sensitive, personal information about yourself to the public as it could get you into trouble. Anyway, during the breakfast I somehow managed to "decipher" the Song dynasty seal on the Imperial Order sent to Yue Fei, which is "御前之寶". I think the Nguyen have something similar that was probably used for the same purpose. I believe the Chinese started using different seals from the Song era onwards as the Heirloom Seal was probably lost to the Khitans a few decades later after the fall of the Tang. I will probably translate the whole text to Wikisource as I (for some reason) love Gaozong's handwriting style (mixing 行書 and 楷書). The Song are militarily weak compared to other dynasties, but their cultural achievements are just astounding. Ha nk iz  06:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is the Ngự tiền chi bảo (Ngự tiền chi bửu)	御前之寶, which was used on proclamations following the reign era and the two Traditional Chinese characters "Khâm thử" (欽此). The seal knob for the Gia Long period one was a Chinese dragon so it was most certainly an imperial seal. The Nguyễn Dynasty had 93 (ninety-three) different gold and jade imperial seals, each with their own individual function, so it would be logical that if the Song Dynasty used a similar system that more seals would be out there "hiding" on documents just waiting to be discovered. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Request
Can you expand the article about Olaf Scholz in viwp? I've been meaning to do this for a while but I'm quite busy this week. Ltn12345 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And I also know almost nothing about German language. Ltn12345 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am currently also planning to write some German Election-related articles in viwp over the weekend. Scholz will probably be the first, cuz he is arguably the favorite among all candidates for chancellor (at least at this moment). I used to favor the CDU, but Laschet has really messed up everything lately. Anyway, if you need any help with the German languages just ask me, I'll try my best to help. Cheers! Ha nk iz  20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Cảm ơn. Tôi biết bạn cố tình ghi vậy để cả khịa nhưng dù sao vẫn thấy không thoải mái khi vô tình lướt qua. Ha nk iz  19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Laska666 historiography
Their "personalised" historiography looks like this:


 * Kingdom of Đại Việt (968–1407; 1428–1802).
 * Fourth Chinese domination period (1407-1428).
 * Kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1885), ignore that most end dates of the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) are 1883, 1884, or 1886.
 * French Indochina (Starting in 1885 despite being created in 1887).
 * They haven't re-written the articles about "Post-1945 Vietnam" yet.

In this version Vietnam is a "Kingdom" under the Nguyễn Dynasty, but the moment the French arrive the Nguyễn completely stops to exists, this actually reminds me of a more general "gap" of Vietnamese historiography. Like this page says: "". It is as if Nguyễn Dynasty mandarins didn't even exist at all after 1885 in the minds of a ridiculous amount of historians as people tend to exclusively look at "the revolutionaries" during this period, hence why they choose to completely skip any Nguyễn Dynasty content after 1885 and start "French Indochina" two (2) years before it's even created. They seem to hate the term "Empire" for Vietnam but for whatever reason allow the Nguyễn Emperors to actually carry the title "Emperor", they also really seem to hate the title "Dynasty", they often write "Nguyen Vietnam (1802–85)" in articles specifically to re-affirm their historiography. These are just a number of trends I've noticed.

To be fair I must say that I very much agree with their stance that "the history of Vietnam" shouldn't just be about "Vietnamese people", it is kind of a crime how often Champa and others are excluded from the term "History of Vietnam", but I simply can't agree with their methodology. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So in short, I think it's safe to say that Laska666 used what he called "academic sources" to create his own historiography. It seems like he was doing a scientific paper, but instead of publishing it in some kind of scientific journal, he published it on Wikipedia → which clearly violate WP:ORIGINAL. Instead of trying to get him to talk, I think you should request for comments (perhaps members of WikiProject History or China who are likely familiar with East Asian historiography could help) as his contributions (exclude some good ones) could have negative influences on the readers in the long run. Ha nk iz  11:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get any pings here on Wikipedia, I haven't for a year or so now. Also I cannot open any request for comment or ask at any WikiProject, I used an emoji in my signature which was supposedly against my unblock terms, I got blocked again and an admin offered conditions which would permanently ban me from all pages except for articles and user pages, later I managed to regain access to "file" and "category" namespaces, but when I asked for access to WikiProjects to ask general questions two (2) years ago the admin said that he wouldn't grant it because I was "disruptive in the Wikipedia space" (as in I had an emoji in my signature when I wrote something that wouldn't have been seen as "disruptive" otherwise and wouldn't have been seen as "disruptive" if written by literally anyone else as no other user in the history of Wikipedia ever got sanctioned against having an emoji in their signature and many admins even have so, in fact a WMF developer literally has a user name that is only an emoji and under my current unblock restrictions I wouldn't even be allowed to ping him, although the unblock saction reads that I am only limited to "Unicode" which includes emoji's, anyhow I am sure that even complaining about it can get me community banned here. I can't request any further unblocks as the blocking admin just ignores any message I leave him and I don't think that friendly admins exist so I just wait for someone like or something to become an admin so I can request some (or preferably all) of these restrictions to be lifted, but this system only exists to exclude people, well, not actually disruptive people like Laska666 who only harms the unimportant readers. At this point I will stop until I actually am unable to even mention this Wiki... You have had experiences with the people here, so I am not able to to ask anyone outside of specific article talk pages and I am allowed to edit AFD, basically nothing else. But honestly, "the community" (those that actually frequent the non-content areas of this website)	are my least favourite part here so I can't say that I am unhappy to not have those people in my life because unlike them my first priority actually is the readers...


 * Anyhow, "" I don't think so at all, I think that this was all a very deliberate (and Sinophobic) attempt at changing how most casual readers of Vietnamese history (people that essentially only read Wikipedia and (almost) nothing else) would see Vietnamese history, specifically as you said that this is about the readers, they simply don't like the way Vietnamese history is organised so they want to completely re-write it in their image. The thing is, user "Laska666" has a lot of good contributions and I think that disallowing them from editing would be a great shame, but it is harmful for the reliability of Wikipedia to let them push their own unique (anti-Chinese) view of history. I suspect that as a Cham they might have an inferiority complex towards the Metropolitans (City people, Kinh), or "Real Vietnamese" and the very Chinese nature of their culture in contrast to the more Indian nature of Champa, so they try to turn Vietnam from "a little China" into "a little India" like Champa, Cambodia, Thailand, Etc. Of course, likely they are not consciously aware of this, but in the few times that they actually did manage to reply it was almost always an anti-Chinese presentation of Vietnamese history or just blanket denunciations of "the Chinese view" of history. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why else specifically crusade against the title of "Emperor"? The monarchs of Champa were all Kings, so why should the Việt have "Emperors"? Likely they also hate the Chinese nature of the Vietnamese language and will deny as much Chinese influence as possible, and only using Chinese words when no native words exist, hence when talking about the Emperor of Viet Nam use the term Vua (which best can be translated as "monarch" rather than "King" or "Emperor") but always translate it as "King". These choices weren't made for a website any other than Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just wait for someone like Alexis Jazz or something to become an admin Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to run for adminship. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyfraud
Apparently our little friend likes to engage in copyfraud when overwriting files, that or they actually believe that authorship for derivative works changes upon overwrite. Again, it's his general incompetence that bothers me more than his insults (and apparently death threats) ever could. I wouldn't even call it frustration, probably something closer to disappointment... --Donald Trung (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only did he engage in copyfraud, but he also really loves to overwrite files. I don't really care about his insults, in fact, sometimes he freaked out because I provoked him beforehand. What really annoys me are not people like the Musée Annam, but the stalkers that I have here. You know, one of them is the guy who was messing around at my and your talk page and making Musée Annam think I was using socks to insult him. I don't mind if other people read my talk page, but this guy is just annoying as hell. Ha nk iz  04:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why people flock to Wikipedia
I think that to understand people like "Laska666" and the Musée Annam Sockfarmer you need to understand the scale of Wikipedia, it is by far the largest educational website (if not educational source) in the world, it is a top 10 (ten) global website and other websites like Google, YouTube, the Facebook, among others get a lot of their data about "facts" from Wikipedia (through Wikidata). Any small changes on Wikipedia can have major effects on how people perceive things, I often see other websites circulate information from Wikipedia without attributing anything, I have seen numerous Vietnamese blogs use Goran ten-en's Vietnamese dragon images and it is also the logo of a YouTube channel about Vietnamese history, several Facebook pages and groups use them. The things we do here have major consequences and if misinformation starts or spreads from here it will be repeated on a large number of websites and who knows how many books.

This is why I consider the correctness of the information and the neutrality of the information here to be paramount, because the moment we allow disinformation or misinformation to go unchallenged Wikipedia loses, and the less academics take this website seriously the less of them will actually come along to correct anything. This isn't isolated to one part of Wikipedia, this is inherent in every part of Wikipedia and for many people Wikipedia has already become "an authoritative source", so if any false narrative catches hold here this narrative receives "an aura of legitimacy".

Of course, we are all volunteers with limited free time and nobody has infinite resources, but every piece of misinformation we don't question is a seed that can quickly grow to become a weed that will be hard to kill later. Musée Annam popularised a lot of fantasy flags that weren't commonly in circulation by putting them on Wikipedia, after that a lot of people started repeating these as "fact". We are all here to educate the readers, but not everyone's motivations are equally altruistic. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, that could be the best explanation for why we have some "abnormal", or even "obsessed" people who spend so much time doing everything (socking etc.) to spread their worldview here on Wikipedia. Sometimes I have the feeling that these people "work" full-time on Wikipedia regarding how much time they spend online. Ha nk iz  04:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Still can't read...
Once I've seen the traditional Chinese character next to the seal character I see the connection, but in isolation... Yeah, I'm like those pub blokes from the Family Guy sketch about Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg. So I came across at the article "Battle of Ngọc Hồi-Đống Đa" while inspecting the our friend user "Trương guy's" fantasy flags there and it has a seal belonging to some Manchu Emperor. As far as I can tell it doesn't read "Qianlong". I don't think that it reads "高宗", right? --Donald Trung (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It reads ”太上皇帝“ → Probably done after Qianlong became retired emperor. Ha nk iz  08:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it doesn't seem important enough to request an SVG of. As I'm looking for the personal seals of ruling Emperors, I actually only found Puyi's as Emperor of Manchukuo. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a personal seal of Qianlong, the one in the center of Qianlong's portrait by Giuseppe Castiglione is probably the most suitable. P/S: The text reads "五福五代堂古稀天子寶". According to some "random" people on Sohu, it seems to be Qianlong's favorite seal. — Ha nk iz  13:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library
A lô a lô, Lệ Xuân đã đăng ký Library chưa? Rất hữu ích luôn vì được free access vào JSTOR, ProQuest, De Gruyter và quan trọng nhất là kho Oxford Scholarship (nội kho này thôi là đã đủ nguồn sách để viết bài rồi). &mdash; Băng Tỏa  13:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ồ. Giờ mình mới biết. Cái này hay đấy vì mình tạm thời đang mất institutional access. -- Ha nk iz 13:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To Saigon, or not to Saigon?
The article "Provisional Central Government of Vietnam" (also at the Viwiki) states that it's capital city was Saigon, but French Cochinchina was a separate entity from it in 1948. I am somewhat less familiar with the modern period of Vietnamese history as I am with the pre-1945 period, what surprises me is that a document I found from this period specifically states that its government composed it in Hanoi and Haiphong, do you by any chance have any books or articles about this subject? --Donald Trung (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I recently came across several documents on Vietnamese history between 1946–1954, but none of them cover the "Provisional Central Government of Vietnam" enough. Most of the documents only speak about the Halong Bay Agreements or that the Xuan' administration is nothing more than a puppet regime. I believe that the Xuan' regime did not have an official constitution and therefore no official capital, maybe because (as the name suggests) it was a "provisional government" I guest. However, Hanoi may have served as its de facto capital. I suggest removing Saigon from the infobox or replacing it with "Hanoi" (de facto)"". Ha nk iz  12:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that the capital was Saigon in 1949 and I believe it was moved there in 1948, I read it somewhere in a source I am going to use in the future "Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina" article, I just don't know what the capital was before it moved, Hanoi was a contested area and the French reconquista of Hanoi happened I believe around this time, to me it would make sense if the capital city was de facto in Hải Phòng or Huế, I just don't have the sources to back this up. Unfortunately I don't have access to the sources you linked, if they actually contain old scans of documents then you can extract those and upload them to the Wikimedia Commons where us plebians can use them too. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Naked butlers
I find it funny that a 40 year old 8X man is leaving sexual pictures on your user pages and constantly insulting 9X people, shows his level of maturity. Honestly, I have to laugh at how stupid most of his vandalism is. If he evades his block to only do good edits I would tolerate him, in fact he did a lot of good things on the Wikimedia Commons, but here he's always a nuisance. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, I doubt that will ever happen when I see how terrible his English writing skills are. His incompetence and stupidity (sorry for using strong words) is already on the highest level. I will ignore him just for now. If he can’t give up his habit, maybe it's time for him to say “farewell” to Wiki cuz I’m gonna request block for the whole IP range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lệ Xuân (talk • contribs)
 * LOL, I've been on Hanoi FPT, you just reset your router a few dozen times and then you're on a new range. I'm somewhat impressed that even after over a decade he hasn't learned basic wiki-skills like citing reliable sources nor does he seem able to have a conversation for someone for five (5) minutes without insulting them. Prof. Kelley even described him as "special" talking about how much Trần Quang Đức hated how his fame gave him fans like this (maybe I'm paraphrasing here, but it seems that people like Trần Quang Đức want nothing to do with him, so he seems like a product of a culture that rejects him, kind of like how Wiki's keep rejecting him). I would almost feel sad for him, almost. But then I just think about all the amazing works of comedy in your Annam Digital Library and realise that he's a comedy and not a tragedy. The only tragedy I feel are for the readers that believe his hoaxes, because that is all what Wikipedia is, a product for the readers.


 * By the way, he doesn't seem to have a long-term abuse page here, maybe if you would create one people would actively patrol his usual outlets. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Lol, did Prof. Kelley really talk about Musée Annam or did I get it wrong? Ha nk iz  20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I casually mentioned Musée Annam to Lê Minh Khải while asking his him for a photograph of Trần Quang Đức, as he's also a huge fan of Quang Đức. I believe that the Trần Quang Đức deserves way more than Musée Annam, he left the article looking as if he isn't notable at all, I had added some minor improvements but I don't have the time to properly expand it yet. If I ever talk to Trần Quang Đức I don't know if I would want to bring up Musée Annam as he might die from embarrassment, well, at least his article wouldn't be a BLP then. :-P --Donald Trung (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to rewrite the article about Trần Quang Đức ? I am looking forward to it. =)) Ha nk iz  22:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not in the near future, but he does deserve more than what Musée Annam is capable of. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, sure. Ha nk iz  22:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Help me to investigate
Hello, can you help me to investigate about a Vietnamese literature work? Several days ago, I've discovered a work about the Vietnam War, which knows as 南方来信 Letter From the South for us. I saw there is an article described that: According above article, this should be named Letter from the Fatherland in Vietnam (in this article, 祖国来信), including a series of letters talk about the war, this was translated in Chinese in January 1964. In China, this was published between May and July of the same year, and later derived as straight play, manga, and even Peking Opera (I added them in Outline of the Vietnam War). So in China this became the most notable Vietnamese work at the times. If you're able to known about more information about this Letter from the Fatherland, I hope you let me know. Thanks. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 南方来信：越南现代文学在中国的译介和传播
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I've been busy lately so I couldn't answer you earlier. The work you are looking for is namely "[Những lá thư] từ tuyến đầu Tổ quốc", which could be translated into English as "[Letters] from the front line of the Fatherland". I couldn't find any full text version online, as it is probably no longer printed. But you can still find many journal articles or books about this literature work on Google Books. Ha nk iz  21:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)