User talk:MarkH21/Archive 9

Tibetan Political Review
Hi. Just noticed 20DEC deletion of Tibetan Political Review as a source on another page Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950 and of the edits using the source. It's a well researched and knowledgeable piece. Can you provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS? See also edits at Talk:Nyingchi Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See my response at Talk:Nyingchi. A journal with no academic publisher, no evidence of peer-review (different from the existence of an editorial board), and no evidence of citations or reviews by established reliable sources is not considered an RS by WP:SOURCE or WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Reliability & due weight are also not presumed until disproven as you seem to suggest with provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS. The onus is on the editor wishing to add a new source to gain consensus about its reliability and due weight per WP:CHALLENGE. — MarkH21talk 12:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To help resolve this without cluttering the unrelated matters at Talk:Nyingchi, I have opened WP:RSN. — MarkH21talk 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Au contraire. See WP:RSN. Shall I undo the reverts, or would you like the honors?Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Five editors have found it unreliable, while you are the sole editor calling it reliable. Stop re-inserting contested material, that is against WP:CHALLENGE and is disruptive editing. If there is no consensus for restoring challenged material, don't re-insert it. A consensus for reinsertion is required before you add it back; right now that has not been achieved. — MarkH21talk 01:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Have you read the RSN? Each of the reasons stated have been proven as unfounded. Citations, academic credentials, proven reliability, etc. Among those amazing credentials are that Canada's immigration agency and U Minnesota Human rights library use it for reliable accounts on current conditions in Tibet - a huge vote of confidence. These citations/reference uses depict a highly reliable RS with Oxford's and Harvard's blessings. So, is it that even after the slam dunk of evidence on reliability, opinions as to its reliability can still be valid? Aren't those editors beholden to respect a proven Reliable Source, and withdraw objections?
 * BTW, did I miss the consensus on changing the title to "Economy" from "Tourism"? It happens to effectively bury the section being disputed. And will use sources (Chinese state-run media) not as reliable as Tibetan Political Review. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I started it and responded to your post there along with other editors; particularly to the so-called academic credentials and citations. So far, every single editor besides you has found the source to be unreliable and the concerns to be legitimate. If 5 editors uniformly disagree with you, then you might not be on the same page as the rest of the community. Furthermore, do you understand what the WP policy about consensus? This clearly isn't a slam dunk in the direction that you think it is.In any case, there is a clear consensus from those who have commented that the Tibetan Political Review is definitively not a reliable source for anything except statements about itself. Of course, the current consensus can change and the consensus can be broadened. Right now, it's not about whether you think it's a slam dunk or whether I disagree with you. It's about the community consensus."Economy" is a standard section title for a settlement, and tourism is just one aspect of that. It doesn't hide anything because "Tourism" is still a subsection at Nyingchi and it currently is the only material in the "Economy" section. I don't know what you're talking about when you say will use sources (Chinese state-run media) not as reliable as Tibetan Political Review, but I haven't commented on anything resembling that nor have I added any content from Chinese state-run media. — MarkH21talk 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

btw, please ask before reformatting edits at RSN. It changed the legibility of the text purposefully formatted below your lead. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're expected to indent responses, which is all that . See WP:THREAD. I indented your comment per WP:TPO because that is a basic formatting issue for threaded discussions, but your objection is duly noted (even though your own reformatting seems to preserve the indents) and apologies if it was unwelcome.By the way, your adds so many bullet points to single comments that it is now difficult to easily see which comments belong to a single editor. My suggestion is to only use bullets within a comment in such a way that it is still clear that it is one comment from one editor. — MarkH21talk 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I want to cool off a possible misunderstanding. Since RSN 313, I've been adhering to you general advice for RS and sources, with allowances for specific instances. Even though the closing said all should be reviewed separately. My understanding of your advice was all should be inline sourced via RS, with exceptions. No problem.
 * Now, RFA appears at Nyingchi. Not my edit, but Normchou's. I added Smith back to Normchou's edit. Esiymbro first added RFA to the section.
 * What may be the misunderstanding is that RFA remains, despite reverts, which I'm thinking is a form of support. So, I can't help be respectfully notice your edits around the RFA, without deleting the RFA. That's all, that's what I perceive of as support. These edits  and . So, what do you need to defuse the situation? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My not removing the other content does not mean I endorse or reject it, particularly since it is currently under a separate discussion by other editors. Please do not assume support in the absence of opposition (this is a common pattern, e.g. do not assume reliability in the absence of claims of unreliability). I also did not express any explicit opinions about RFA in the previous RSN.So as I said in my at RSN, just drop the false claim and we can move on. Also, please do talk into mind the feedback from WP:ANI and refrain fom commenting on other editors' opinions (especially if it's not explicit) in the future. Hopefully you will also receive further clarification and feedback on your editing restrictions from the admins there. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. (Returning after equipment issues.) Just wanted to share the policy I read months ago, WP:SILENCE, which was the basis of the comment of "support" for RFA on RSN. As I understand the policy, if the edits remain without reverts or reedits, it's implied CON, which I on RSN described as "support", based on the diffs provided above in this thread.
 * So, hopefully this info on policy lets you know why and the basis for the "support" edit. Possibly, implied CON with a link to policy would have been more careful. But, what do you need at RSN? Would a statement with an intro of:
 * "As a note, the previous statement describing "support" by MarkH21 for RFA was based on my understanding of WP:SILENCE for implied consent. Since the editor has clarified here that their support for RFA "is a false claim" and has not been stated,... 1. I wish to modify the characterization of 'support' to 'implied consent' of RFA as RS(? or)... 2. I provide this as a clarification that they have stated they do not support RFA as an RS(? or)...
 * Is there another option 3. you'd prefer? Sincerely attempting to address your concerns. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Waiting on feedback from you before posting clarification on the RSN. While waiting, I provided a few more academic cites, editor info, and clarified earlier cites. Just wanted to let you know I am waiting to see what you need, or if the info on where I was coming from with policy has diffused the issue, possibly. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not not give "implied support" for the "replacement of.
 * WP:SILENCE (which is about the weakest form of community consensus) does not say that every editor that has edited an article agrees with everything on that article. I have removed unreferenced edits on large articles like England. That does not mean that I thereby imply that I support every single claim and the reliability of every single reference in the article.
 * Two other editors were already discussing the addition of the RFA-referenced content when I removed (not replaced) the TPR-referenced content. I did not comment on the RFA-referenced content at all.
 * I did not support previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia nor did I "implicitly support" it. I also did nothing in contradiction to [...] previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313; I never commented specifically on RFA at RSN archive 313. Nor has any other single editor "supported" or "implicitly supported" the replacement of text in contradiction to what they have said at RSN archive 313 about RFA.
 * When you claim that someone supports something and they tell you multiple times that it is false and asks you to drop the false claim, just admit that it was false. Don't assert that it was still "implied" when they are telling you that it wasn't. Don't keep trying to justify the misrepresentation of another editor's position.
 * So just admit that the initial claim was false and move on. — MarkH21talk 04:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So just admit that the initial claim was false and move on. — MarkH21talk 04:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Preventing erasure
Hi, I understand the lack of verification of certain facts. Therefore I will clarify and hyperlink where necessary on Dreadlocks. Hope this is ok. My intention was so that the cultures and their histories aren't erased which someone had previously done. Most of the sources on that page refer to non-verifiable information such that actually seventy percent of the page could be erased in terms of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles are not citations. Again, see the policy on verifiability and the guideline on citing sources as has already been mentioned on your talk page and in the edit summaries. Do not add the material back without citations. — MarkH21talk 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, the African Section is unverifiable and so is the In Western Counterculture section. Delete those as well if you're trying to be thorough. See the policy on verifiability and the guideline on citing sources if you need help. Enjoy erasing useful information without doing your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference (source) 1 should have cited the Hinduism section you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Those unreferenced claims may be deleted as well. That's not the point though.I understand that you're upset about seeing the removal by multiple editors of content that you had added. But if someone removes unreferenced content that you have added, you cannot add it back without providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the content.If the book in reference 1 supports all of the multiple claims that you added, then cite it and provide the relevant quotes and/or page numbers. You also deleted references without explanation.Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes: . — MarkH21talk 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No I'm good thanks. You edit as carelessly and haphazardly as you wish. I've got better things to do.

Your GA nomination of Boston Chinatown massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boston Chinatown massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boston Chinatown massacre
The article Boston Chinatown massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boston Chinatown massacre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
You currently appear to be 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. 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: 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. Please stop edit warring at 2008 Tibetan unrest and bring concerns to the talk page there. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * It has been explained to you by both  and me that  is inappropriate and incorrect.
 * My second ever non-consecutive edit to 2008 Tibetan unrest, 20 hours after the first one and after GS's additional explanation to you, isn't edit warring.
 * — MarkH21talk 18:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — MarkH21talk 18:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reverting without con twice on edits to same "Chinese Response" section paragraph is, um, a serious editing issue. There are now numerous edits and deletions at the page. It is defined as edit warring. Another editor and I have already been reverting unhelpful and non-neutral edits just restored. If all of the refs haven't been read, an editor is not familiar and deleting text without CON is also a form of edit warring. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit introduced factual errors as explained to you by  5 times  in addition to my edit summary . A second non-consecutive revert where a policy violation has been explained to you some six or so times by an uninvolved admin and another editor is not exactly EW-template edit warring.You also seem to be mentioning and conflating unrelated edits where you talk about other editors. But you're being very vague. If you're talking about my deletions of unrelated unreferenced and misreferenced content, go to Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest where you have already been pinged. — MarkH21talk 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , seriously, rather than wikilawyering about edit warring, a much better look for you would be to say 'ah shit, yeah, my bad, thanks for fixing that' . Your edit introduced a blatant factual error, Mark fixed it - let's not argue the minutae of what is a revert and what is a bold edit. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war about East Turkestan; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. --ROXANNE9090 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been reverting multiple editors and editing against an established consensus from a previous discussion on the talk page. Stop reverting and use the talk page. — MarkH21talk 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

East Turkestan
Dear MarkH21,

I saw your changes in the Wikipedia page East Turkestan. I see that you wrote about the region East Turkestan, and not about the Uyghur East Turkestan, where the page is actually intended for. I refer you to the page Xinjiang if you want to help with this region. I do also find that you write with a Chinese point of view, so please write with a neutral point of view.

Frendly greetings and I hope you had a good New Year! Roxanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROXANNE9090 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has always been about the term and region. Even the current article prose reflects that. You are attempting to change the scope of the article to match another article, East Turkistan Government-in-Exile, against established consensus at East Turkestan.I am not editing the article with any POV; I am telling you to stop edit warring against multiple editors and to use the talk page.Happy New Year. — MarkH21talk 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan has an RFC
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sherdog.com RfC Closure Has Had No Effect on Wikipedia Because of a Small but Organized Gang of Editors
Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318 and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).

But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge of Black Caribs into Garifuna
Hi! I have seen that you have recently merged the Black Carib article with the Garifuna article. The discussion on whether the black Carib article should be removed and become a redirection of the "Garifuna" article was never finished and no conclusion was ever reached. The Black Carib article referred to the Black Caribs of the island of St. Vincent, not the Garifuna of Central America.--Isinbill (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message and for bringing this to my attention! I have to admit that when I looked at the articles before carrying out the merge, I only looked at Talk:Black Caribs and I did not see the discussion at Talk:Garifuna, which was a complete mistake on my part. I thought that it was an undiscussed and uncontested merge proposal that was lingering for almost a year. I'll undo my merge at Black Caribs.If Garifuna specifically refers to the descendents of the Black Caribs outside of St. Vincent, then that should probably be made clear in the article (rather than just formerly known as Black Caribs). I've left a comment at the merge discussion. — MarkH21talk 14:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. I renamed the article to "Black Caribs (St. Vincent)".--Isinbill (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello! Thank you for alerting me that the IP self-reverted their changes! SoyokoAnis 13:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gerry Stahl
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gerry Stahl. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel-Marie Chabert de Joncaire de Clausonne
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a lot of names, and all you have is "Mark"? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not like you have many! — MarkH21talk 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, at least I put my title in my name! Listen, you do math and I do language, and together we'll conquer the world. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I didn't realize that "Drmies" had doctor in it until now! I always read the first few letters like Drmić in my head...Hey! Since math is the universal language,  you do math too. I declare this your involuntary initiation to WP:WPM. According to other RSes, you're also a musician now.  Hmm... — MarkH21talk 15:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, that question came up in my RfA, how to pronounce my name--it was actually the most exciting question I got. Yes, I'm totally in agreement with the first article--it never made sense to me that we (the Dutch) would do 94 the wrong way around. But that second article--well, I'd like to see someone use math to improve The Farming of Bones, and when a person says, "a shared enjoyment of mathematics", that sounds to me like someone scratching a blackboard with their nails. NO MORE MATH!!! Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At least you do it better than the French! — MarkH21talk 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've closed Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331
I've fulfilled your WP:RFCLOSE request. Feel free to add ANI to WP:RSP when you get the chance, and feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wet market
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wet market you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasan Moghimi
Hi Mark, I was thinking that in time of temporary undelete, the discussion page would be open to talk about the article, this is why I tried to work on that page. Later I saw your message on the "view history page" and I reverted another small change which I made later. Anyways, thank you very much for letting me know. Every day I learn something new about exciting world of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfan2017 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanctions Alert
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wet market
The article Wet market you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wet market for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uspn.png
Thanks for uploading File:Uspn.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

CSD G5s
Hello, MarkH21,

You tagged pages for CSD G5 deletion where the page creator was not a blocked sockpuppet. Page creators have to be currently blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and be the primary contributor or sole author of a page to be eligible for CSD G5 speedy deletion, you shouldn't tag pages prematurely based on suspicions or the fact that an editor has been reported to SPI. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up and sorry! One draft tag was a complete mistake (I didn't double-check the history). Regarding Draft:Leonardo Costa Lesage, I know that G5s should only be applied to confirmed socks, but that account has already been confirmed on two other wikis (eswiki & commons) to a globally locked enwiki sockmaster. The sock hasn't been globally locked yet and therefore is not literally blocked on enwiki yet, but I suppose it can wait for the formalities to be done. — MarkH21talk 03:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
First of all, I want to thank you for your contributions to history on Wikipedia. In the past I was able to look things up on Wikipedia and it was mostly legit. Although, today it is full of theories, propaganda or hear says with references to links that are either broken, unrelated, or to another internet articles that is spreading the same rumors. This has been very frustrating as a reader, therefore I wasn’t able to refrain myself from editing any longer.

It appears that you have reverted my edits regarding Trần Dynasty’s origin. Based on the historical text writing by Ngô Sĩ Liên about Mr. Kính (please note that I have altered it based on the taboo tradition of not writing or speaking a deceased person’s full given name in public) the word used to describe the ancestor’s origin by the historian is ‘Mân nhân; 閩人’. This phrase can be understood as describing an improper person not adhering to Confucian’s standards, since his family was a fisherman by trade. It also refers to Mân Việt, an ancient ethnic and should not be confused with a location. Whereas Fujian is a location not an ethnicity. The phrase after from the text above reads “或曰桂林人; However, they say Quế Lâm nhân (Guilin people).” Implying that they are indigenous to the area by the time of Mr. Kính. Furthermore, 桂林人 can be understood as a proper contributing citizen as in “quế tịch, 桂籍”, a record of name of those who passed the imperial exam, or simply just a person that smells pleasant. Therefore, as a person who writes history, one cannot say for certain that Mr. Kính was from Fujian before coming to Đại Việt. Please remember that this is Vietnam’s history. Thank you for your time in reading my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:61C0:BCA4:7113:778B:1884 (talk) 4:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my talk page! Yes, there could be some ambiguities in the original primary document from a glance. However, the content on Wikipedia reflects published reliable sources and does not allow for a Wikipedia editor's own original research or own interpretation.In this case, the supporting citations include an academic book authored by Keith Taylor (historian) and published by the Cambridge University Press that directly states: Tran Ly, Tran Canh's grandfather who had led the Tran family into court politics, was the grandson of an emigrant from Fujian. Unless you can find several high-quality secondary reliable sources that directly contradict this (i.e. so that the academic consensus is what you posit), your own study of primary historical texts cannot be used for the content at Trần dynasty. — MarkH21talk 05:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you may want to gather Confucian scholars from Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China to present the two phrases originally written down by Ngô Sĩ L?ên so that they may explain the true meaning behind it. The historian used two different ethnicities to describe the origin of the Trần rather than saying they were mixed. It basically implies that the Trần went from rags to riches. Another evidence to look at is the character 閩 used instead of 蠻. 閩 has the character 門 for door and 虫 which in this case means snake.  It is a graphical warning to teach the heirs of later Lê dynasty rulers not to trust people too easily. It implies that the Lý brought the snakes (Trần) in their doors, which ended their dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:cd40:61c0:bca4:7113:778b:1884 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please respond at the bottom of this talk page section rather than at the top of the page. Also please understand that Wikipedia is about using existing published reliable sources, not generating new research nor presenting personal understanding. Of course, you are free to pursue your own research outside of Wikipedia. Academic pursuits and publications can be a wonderful endeavor, but alas that is something independent of Wikipedia. — MarkH21talk 07:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mont Blanc
Hi Mark. Thanks for acknowledging my edit - I really (really) hate reverting other people's edits when they're made in good faith, as yours was. I'm often worried my reverts on Mont Blanc might appear as WP:OWN, but I care about the subject of the article and do my best to ensure its content is as good and as well-cited as possible. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction! I just stumbled upon that paragraph and found it strange that it was cited to a map that hadn't asserted where the border "should" follow. After I saw that it was originally unreferenced I assumed this was a mistakenly placed ref. Don't be afraid to revert with explanations like that, it was definitely an improvement :) — MarkH21talk 00:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)