Min968

 

Hello, Min968, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hu Weiyong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Secretariat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jingtai Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Canal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xuande Emperor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hormuz and East African.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Wanli Emperor, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MOS:LEAD Remsense留 07:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with above. @Min968 I have shorten your lead, please work with other editors and discussing how to improve the page. Danial Bass (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Min968. Thank you for your work on Xuanfu Garrison. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Min968. Thank you for your work on Jingtai Mausoleum. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Min968. Thank you for your work on Zhu Zaizhen. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Min968. Thank you for your work on New Governance of Longqing. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Min968,

Please leave an edit summary for every edit but especially page moves. If you don't leave an explanation of why you are moving an article to a different page title, your move is likely to be reverted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense @Underbar dk How can I possibly negotiate with people who are always trying to block me? Has anyone ever bothered to listen to my explanations? I have put a lot of effort into my work, but everyone seems to view it as illegal. I have been waiting for almost 5 years, but no one has improved the articles about the Ming dynasty. Will anyone care in another 5 years? I want to continue this projects, how can I do it, who can tell me, in a legal way. I am also quite tired of having to work like a thief. Min968 (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

To make my stance perfectly clear: I really, truly value your contributions to Wikipedia. My ideal outcome would be you being able to resume contributing normally. However, it is even more important that one is able to work collaboratively and communicate with their fellow editors. From what I understand, the issue remains two-fold:

1. Historically, you've had a track record of disruptive behavior when others edit articles you're working on. This includes you not adequately communicating your reasons when reverting the work of others, and not working to establish consensus with others regarding specific details. The ANI thread that resulted in your original block seemed really short, to a degree that I think even years later further discussion is likely worthwhile. The original thread and block cited WP:NOTHERE—while I understand what was meant by this, I think I disagree that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, you really needed to communicate with other editors and try harder to establish consensus for aspects of articles.
2. The chronic pattern of sockpuppetry following your initial block seems to be the bigger problem, unfortunately. It's difficult to re-establish trust with someone following a single incident of sockpuppetry, even more so when it has been an intractable habit of theirs.

Blocks are not punitive. I am not an administrator, but my understanding of site norms is that this could be resolved if you can convince an admin that you will contribute non-disruptively going forward, according to our behavioral guidelines; this includes convincing them that you will communicate more effectively with your fellow editors, and that you will not continue abusing multiple accounts. I think it is possible that an admin would be receptive to your case, but you do have to convince them.

I am willing to vouch for your merits in good faith, because I do think you are engaging in good faith and could contribute non-disruptively. However, there's only so much I can say based on future promises: again, the history of sockpuppetry makes it much more difficult to trust that someone will make good when given another chance. I spent an hour writing all this because I think it's worth a shot. I hope I've adequately communicated the issues here in a helpful and constructive way.

In case there any comments they'd like to make, I'm boldly pinging:

• LlywelynII, who made the original ANI report.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights, who made the original block.
• Pppery, The Wordsmith, and Spicy, who have contributed to the subsequent SPI.

Apologies in advance—I'm pinging so many in part because I know people are often very busy, so there may be less pressure on any one individual to respond if they lack the time or inclination to do so. Remsense诉 12:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to respond. It is disheartening that my attempts to correct my mistakes often result in them becoming worse. When reading articles about British, French, or European history, one can see that they are written with great skill. However, when it comes to articles about Chinese history, especially the Ming dynasty, the quality is often disappointing. I have considered giving up, but my passion for the subject is difficult to let go of. I understand that this may be a challenging task, but I am sincerely hopeful for the opportunity to rectify my errors and collaborate with others to improve Wikipedia. Best regards. Min968 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also care deeply about this subject area; it is an unfortunate situation if one of the big contributors we do have for it is on the outs like this if the situation can be rectified. That's what I'm hoping for too. Remsense诉 16:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an admin but I'm game for additional moral support if this editor can point to three specific instances where they actually improved anything. [I know we're discussing a block: Three examples of what they would improve if they could works too.]

At the time of the block, regardless of how passionate they may be about Chinese history and regardless of how much work there is to do adding info from Chinese sources and properly handling such sources, literally everything they were doing that I saw was disruptive and entirely incorrect nonsense. I was literally just asking for an admin intervention in that one instance; apparently, the mess they saw when they looked closer prompted a quick strong ban. People grow up and improve but, y'know, show a few examples and ping me to come look.

Similarly, even if the quality of the edits has gone up, they should be mindful that the way they edit—particularly large disruptive edits on major highly-visible pages—needs to be handled better this time around or they're just going to end up right back out in the penalty box. Goes double if they're still trying to force the admins to play whack-a-mole, which is never much appreciated. — LlywelynII 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

LlywelynII, thank you very much for replying. They have written the majority of the following articles, among others—for some of them basically every meaningful part of the article:

• Xuande Emperor
• Wanli Emperor
• Xuande Emperor
• Emperor Yingzong of Ming
• Hongzhi Emperor
• Jianwen Emperor
• Longqing Emperor

It is obvious to me that the issue is not editing competence as such. This is vital work in my mind. Stretches of my own contribution history look pretty inane also, I'm guessing. Of course, I agree that you were reporting genuinely disruptive behavior, and that's what I'm looking to rectify here. One can learn to use draftspace more tactfully.

—and yes to make it crystal clear: @Min968, you need to never touch another sockpuppet account ever again. That is essential to your case, and to my support for it. Please only make edits from this account on this page pending further developments, ideally. Remsense诉 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're a sockpuppet as well or not, but no I don't want to waste a day going through their contribution links or trying to do comparisons of what pages look like before and after they show up and which other editors are their sockpuppets or not.

I was asking Min (not you) to just provide three specific single edits that specifically improved anything about any article. It's not like I'm a great catch: I'm not an admin or anyone with a lot of pull with the WikiMeFound Politburo. But that's what I was asking for. — LlywelynII 22:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad, I didn't see any indication that you were only asking Min, given that you were replying to me. Remsense诉 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

After discussing with you here, I have stopped making edits on Wikipedia outside of this account. Regards. Min968 (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LlywelynII Thank you for responding. I am currently working on a project to improve the articles about the Ming dynasty, such as the three examples below.

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1188062206&oldid=1187951111&title=Emperor_Yingzong_of_Ming&diffonly=1
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanli_Emperor&diff=prev&oldid=1194314089&title=Wanli_Emperor&diffonly=1
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianwen_Emperor&diff=prev&oldid=1188433308&title=Jianwen_Emperor&diffonly=1 Min968 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Remsense's response closely matches my thoughts on the matter. If there is one thing I should add, Min968, it is that you must cease creating new sockpuppets to add or remove edits on Wikipedia to WP:GAME the system, as you were doing whilst you were talking to us! Doing this does not help your case at all, and that you keep getting caught is not evidence of people "trying to ban you", but you refusing to get the hint and negotiate in good faith. The proper way to get yourself unblocked is literally above your first message in this thread: use the {{unblock}} template and demonstrate that you understand why you are banned in the first place. _dk (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding. Currently, I have stopped making edits using any other accounts besides this one. Min968 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Min968 what I would do now is follow the steps stated in the block notice about how to start an appeal. Remsense诉 00:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense My case was quite difficult to appeal, but nevertheless, I am grateful for the time you have taken to support me. Min968 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to file an appeal? That is the step required to unblock you, I wrote all this with that in mind in order to potentially help your case. Remsense诉 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense I am not very good at this, so I am currently considering how to write an appeal. Min968 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you need help or support, I can help you write it, but I think enough has been written here already so that the process could start and an admin would have something to work with. Remsense诉 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense I think I need your help to write it. Regards. Min968 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I suppose you just need to emphasize that you want to contribute constructively, that you were not sure how to handle the situation upon getting blocked, but now you understand that it's important to both actively collaborate with other edits on articles, and also that the sockpuppetry was unacceptable and will not happen again. Remsense诉 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense I have written a request for the block to be lifted; however, I feel that it is not very good and my case is quite difficult, but anyway, I appreciate your time for my issue. I think I cannot continue working on Wikipedia anymore; hopefully, when you have time, you can consider GA for the articles Wanli, Xuande, etc. Thank you my friend! Min968 (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No! You simply have to wait. These things take a while, I think what you wrote is sufficient to start things, and is quite good actually. Please do not quit Wikipedia, I'm helping you because I feel it's working out! Could I ask that you please trust me here until there's a decision on your appeal? Remsense诉 14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense Of course, I trust you, no matter the outcome of the appeal. Min968 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yamla @331dot I apologize for bothering you, but I would like to know if my case can be reviewed. Regards.Min968 (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It may take a while: I have no control whatsoever on when that is, but I can only promise that an admin will review it, likely before May though that is only a guess on my part, and the best thing you can do is remain patient. Remsense诉 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I should probably try to control my hot temper and impatience even more. Min968 (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I posted a notice at ANI in case an admin who would like to answer your unblock request might see it. I figure it couldn't hurt. Remsense诉 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks 2600:1700:B3B0:71F0:9A3B:250:BB12:FDE5 (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2024 (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).

Min968 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Wikipedia. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @LlywelynII and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community.

My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted:

1. Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors
2. Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest)
3. Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea
4. Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled)

My behavior on Wikipedia:

1. Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project.
2. Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Wikipedia. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes.
3. Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.

Why I chose English Wikipedia and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Wikipedia simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action.

Min968 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You're continuing to create new accounts, such as Someone who is loyal to the emperor (talk · contribs). There's also logged-out edit warring that happened recently. The standard offer is open to you. If you can go six months without engaging in sock puppetry or block evasion using IP addresses, you stand a chance of being unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (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.

Comment: For what it's worth, this editor is obviously trying to be better and did jump through the hoop above, attempting to show improvements they're making to our articles. There are still issues: From the three 'best example' edits provided, one was adding unused and slightly misformatted citation bloat to the bottom of an article. Looking at the next few edits, however, showed that Min then did use them. The formatting issues are all normal (especially for mobile editing) and only an issue given the expected volume of edits to major articles on the topics. Details commented out here for Min to look at if the lift comes through:

Assuming Min is willing to make a good faith effort on playing well with others, not blanking content (particularly without discussion), improving on their formatting bits, and neeeever forcing the admins to play whack-a-mole with sockpuppet accounts, I do add my non-admin moral support to giving them easier access to a single known account to edit and discuss from. — LlywelynII 10:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for this. Remsense诉 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notifying @The Wordsmith and @The Blade of the Northern Lights for comment. These were the blocking admins of Min968 and Ylogm respectively — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate I agree to wait for six months. What do I need to do after that, such as contacting you or something else? Min968 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can continue to edit Simple English Wikipedia or other sister projects, but you have to stop editing English Wikipedia. Then, after six months have gone by, you make another unblock request. You don't have to contact anyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback. Best Regards. Min968 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Min968 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Wikipedia. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @LlywelynII and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community. My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted: # Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors # Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest) # Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea # Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled) My behavior on Wikipedia: # Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project. # Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Wikipedia. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes. # Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion. Why I chose English Wikipedia and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Wikipedia simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action. Min968 (talk) 3:35 am, 30 October 2024, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC−8)

Accept reason:

Per this discussion, the ban on this account is lifted. Welcome back. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

After a six-month absence from English Wikipedia, I am returning to request a reconsideration of my previous block. Best regards. @NinjaRobotPirate Min968 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CHECKUSER evidence shows no immediately obvious signs of recent block evasion. Min968, you've been so abusive you are now considered banned by the community under WP:3X. Do you wish the above request forwarded to the community for discussion? --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree to forward this to the community for discussion. I am very hopeful for an opportunity to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.Min968 (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you are not appealing this block from the Ylogm account? That will definitely be asked when this appeal is taken to WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I was blocked before, I didn't know what to do or how to explain things. Usually, I just create a new account to continue editing. When I created this account, I wanted to start fresh with a more positive attitude. And when I was banned on this account, I received positive and enthusiastic guidance from @Remsense, so I chose to stick with it instead of Ylogm. Min968 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HouseBlaster et al., could you please ping me when the WP:AN thread is posted? Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unban request made at WP:AN#Min968_unban_request. I'll separately notify HouseBlaster, Remsense, and the blocking admin, The Wordsmith, so they can follow along, too. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Folly Mox I mean I will follow Wikipedia's rules in the future, however, I will prioritize discussion over silence as before. Sometimes, strictly applying rules may not be the best approach; we can solve problems through discussion. Min968 (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense I will pay attention to and study the rules more carefully. Thank you for your feedback and continued support over the past 6 months. I will strive to not disappoint you. Best regards Min968 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back! Congratulations on your successful unban request. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you are wanting any advice / help. Hope to see you around. Folly Mox (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to express my gratitude to you and @Remsense for placing your trust and support in me. I am determined to not let anyone down. Min968 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that in many if not all of your content (related to China or Asian polities), you seemingly use ethnicity/modern nation/contemporary polity name interchangeably, like China/Ming or Vietnam/Dai Viet. Sometimes you use both at the same time. This is confusing. Why use Dai Viet in the title like in Ming-Đại Việt War (1406–1428) when you just call the polity Vietnam in the body? Why call the polity Ming in the title when you just use Chinese or China in the body? Obviously sometimes you must use the broader category name which is often the same as the modern ethnicity or state name when nothing better exists, but in many cases the more specific contemporary name already exists. Please use the contemporary name where possible (e.g. Ming emperor) rather than a more generic vague one (e.g. Chinese emperor) to stay consistent with the rest of the article and to avoid ambiguity. Qiushufang (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

On further analysis, my initial assessment was probably too harsh. I've changed Chinese emperor in results for Tumu Crisis to Ming emperor for specificity. Ming-Đại Việt War (1406–1428) felt a bit odd to me because the polity at war initially with Ming was named Dai Ngu, but the title says Dai Viet, and then most of the article body uses Vietnam. And multiple dynasties were involved. If it was me I would change the title to Ming-Viet War. Qiushufang (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback. I will take it into consideration. Best regards Min968 (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You wrote Jiang Bin (Ming dynasty) with good sources. The article is better than its Chinese counterpart. Good job! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

One thing I think would help avoid friction: could you please get into the habit of using edit summaries to explain what you're doing and why more often? Remsense ‥ 论 01:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not very familiar with using edit summaries, but I will do my best to use them. Thank you for your suggestion. Min968 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply