User talk:MaxPrem

January 2017

Hello, I'm UserDe. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. UserDe (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vietnamese people, you may be blocked from editing. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 05:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Qing dynasty. Jim1138 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being disruptive

Adding this to twenty+ articles is inappropriate and wp:disruptive. Please stop. Jim1138 (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's from the book" isn't really enough. Is the information appropriate every single time? Relevant? Drmies (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its very relevant to the subject. Its good information. Shows aspects of the slavery and show its not simple.

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Qing dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jim1138 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one abusing me. You lied that I posted on 20 articles. I did not. You lied that I vandalized. I did not. You undo my edits for no good reason and try to intimidate me. Take this to administrators.

OK, I am an administrator, and I think that my colleagues here likely agree with Jim1138. Your arguments, in the section above, are way too underdeveloped; you think these things speak for themselves, but clearly they don't. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe my edits are relevant to the articles. If my argument above is underdeveloped then that is the fault of my weak argument. But I strongly believe my edits themselves are relevant to the subject matters. I posted about slavery in :

1) slavery articles: Relevant.

2) conquest articles: because slavery was a part of it. Relevant.

3) conqueror articles: because they were the ones engaged in slavery. Relevant.

The informations themselves I posted about was general informations. Some slaves achieved a position of power. The purpose of my recent edit was adding to that. Those high ranking slave could even have their own slave. With source from a book about World Slavery plus the link so people can confirm it.

With that said I think its very clear that the main issue is because I posted the same edit on too many articles at a time. I promise I will tone it down. I will not post so many at a time. I did not know that is looked badly on wikipedia. Thank you for the notice Drmies.

January 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sino-Vietnam War, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You've copied and pasted "Some said China lost the war or at least not won it" or similar wording with the same source, "^[1]^[2] in Sino-Vietnamese war and other Vietnam related pages. I don't recommend you accuse others of vandalism mindlessly. I've tried to assume good faith regarding your edits but based on the warnings I see here, I'm becoming doubtful. DDDD 05:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aknanaka. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I think you should see MaxPprem2.--O1lI0 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ O'Dowd, Edward C. Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War. Routledge. ISBN 9781134122684.
^ Westad, Odd. Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465056675.

[1] O'Dowd, Edward C. Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War. Routledge. ISBN 9781134122684.

[2] Westad, Odd. Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465056675.

[1]

[2]