On Spratly Islands dispute neutrality. Not sure about the underscores in file names and would not be surprised if someone elses' bot comes visiting. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles might get protected. I hope to sort the good edits from the bad ones. It will probably be a slow process due to how many there are. Vacosea (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as neither party involved in most recent flare is resource poor if they wish to influence wikipedia content. Who knows if some of contributors involved have undeclared CoIs like a working hour job in the timezone involved that rewards them to get messages out and regard wikipedia as just another blog to be influenced.... It was fascinating seeing inaccurately sourced info appear apparently before a relevant press conference, so someone might think wikipedia is influential for audience they wish to reach. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by OnlyNano were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:NaHo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OnlyNano^talk 13:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vacosea! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OnlyNanotalk 13:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems you might be moving to an unnecessary 'edit war', which I prefer to diffuse here.

So, Litang County is a relatively new entity. Dating from post-1955 or so, it does not have much name recognition, and it's spelled differently from Lithang. Users here that search for Lithang Monastery or Kingdom of Lithang are redirected to Litang (which should be renamed as Litang County) and can be easily confused.

Therefore, it's very helpful to the readers to let them know that the information they're looking for on Lithang Monastery is also on the page when it's included in the lede.

Additionally, the Tibetan Kingdom of Lithang is called the Chieftain of Litang in Chinese sources, apparently, but both are historic entities. And both should also be mentioned on the pages' lede.

You mentioned a source was needed : Throughout Tibet's history, its Kingdoms and Chiefdoms were mostly led by devout Tibetan Buddhist practitioners (even the Mongolian chiefs). These leaders were patrons that built monasteries, retreat centers, and published dharma texts, and some fought battles in support of their Tibetan Buddhist teachers. The Kingdom of Derge is a well known example, where its later queen was a very active patroness. Lithang Monastery was built in Lithang Kingdom/Chiefdom by patrons. That's how it worked.

So, please, as you can see, there's no reason to repeatedly delete the bolding format on Lithang Monastery nor on Kingdom of Lithang in the page's lede of the comparatively unknown place called Litang County.

The point is to help users. Ok? Is all good now? Metokpema (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source even if the information is accurate, which it isn't in many of your edits. If you want to bold, do that on the "Chiefdom of Litang" page or in the "History" section, not the lede of "Litang County" which would confuse users even more. Vacosea (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why is 1955 Litang County named Litang? It is in the historic kingdom/chiefdom of Lithang. Why is Lithang Monastery also there? Because its patron/patroness led Lithang Kingdom. That's how Tibet grew since the 8th century. To separate Litang County as an entity from it name and its historic role is unnecessary. But I've already explained this.

I try to contribute positively. I add missing notable information and correct errors, especially the numerous fabricated narratives which can be bold or deviously subtle.

I honor others contributions by adding ^{[citation needed]} when their edits are questionable. I even make the non-English speaking editors work intelligible for our readers. If it's obviously fabricated information, I delete.

I do not go and revert edits I "don't like".

My knowledge of Tibetan history is wide and deep. My edits are accurate.

It would be better to develop a collaborative attitude, since this is a group project. Metokpema (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Litang appears to be the modern spelling for the county. You shouldn't have three different subjects bolded in the lede of an article for only one of them. Vacosea (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your recent edit to Paracel Islands. The aftermath of the first sino-french war was definitely that France did become the dominant naval power in the Parcel Islands region. As to the paper version of the reference not saying what is claimed did you obtain the full source ? ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the full source. It's possible there may be other sources but this one was questioned in 2023. Vacosea (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there was distinct POV added in that last unreferenced clause and the paragraph was out of context as written without it. Good catch As a result learnt that Gordon's last stand in Sudan influenced events in South China Sea area and have hopefully made a useful improvement. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]