You can find all the pages created by any user by using this tool: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages. It may take a while to run. In order to reduce waiting time, be sure to set "Starting date" and "Ending dates". I hope you can find this useful. Thank you. Violetbonmua (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Violetbonmua: Thanks Nothing I Can't (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mạnh An: mình nghĩ mình là người duy nhất trong 815.000 người trên wiki có thể hiểu cảm giác của bạn lúc này Khóc thêm lần nữa (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cảm ơn bạn vì đã hiểu cảm giác của mình. Bây giờ mình không muốn trò chuyện hay thảo luận gì hết, mong bạn thông cảm. Mạnh An (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for creating this article. Should it be named Vsevolod Sergeyevich Knyazev as the English form of his name? Also if you translated this page from the Ukranian Wikipedia you should put a template on the talk page of the article to confirm this (this is required to acknowledge to contributors to the Ukranian article) see Template:Translated page. Have a great day JW 1961 ^Talk 14:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961: I think the name you proposed was in line with Wikipedia's naming policy, and I moved the page to the new name. I'm not very familiar with Russian/Ukrainian names so I don't know which way to write. Thank you for reminding me. Mạnh An (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi An, may I ask about the removal of this image? .

It was placed in the article to help readers visualize what territories that the nationalist Vietnameses usually want.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence proving the existence of the so-called "Greater Vietnam" (I need research or reputable sources), and give the grounds for you to draw such a map (in other words, I need the source to say that Greater Vietnam includes parts of the territory as you draw). Otherwise, this is considered a fictional flag and it is entirely right for me to remove them from articles. Mạnh An (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still not quite sure what you meant yet. “Greater Vietnam” is basically a dream, or a meme, of nationalist Vietnameses. And most of the claims are taken on Laos, Cambodia, and Liangguang. These things are all over the internet. The map are fictional for sure (as it not existed in reality), but the phenomenon are real and this image helps visualize part of it (what nationalists want to have). Or have I misunderstood something?— Daeva Trạc (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is not aimed at what I asked above. [“Greater Vietnam” is basically a dream, or a meme, of nationalist Vietnameses. And most of the claims are taken on Laos, Cambodia, and Liangguang.] Regardless of this subject, please provide verifiable sources for the claims the article makes. I need sources that say this object exists, as well as sources that say Greater Vietnam includes the parts of the territory that you have drawn on the map. You cannot simply be said that: These things are all over the internet. It's an unsubstantiated claim. Prove me what you say: the phenomenon are real. Mạnh An (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1234

These are main claims that I found when I typed something related to Vietnamese nationalism/chauvinism.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources you cite come from Reddit and Blogspot, sources that are considered unreliable in most cases according to the English Wikipedia community, so I ask for a better source. The last source does not mention Greater Vietnam directly, it does not prove anything at all as I request. Please read carefully and actually come up with reliable sources instead of throwing me self-published ones. Mạnh An (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is because only these “unreliable” ones can show what Vietnamese nationalism look like. The nationalists’ sources are never reliable to any common person. There are reliable sources talking about this issue in Vietnam, but the only thing they talk about are “nationalism bad”. They don’t shows any claimed maps that the extremists want. (The last source is about how Vietnam keeps trying to maintain influence in Laos and Cambodia, so I put it here).

What I meant is we can’t talk about how something looks like if we can’t show it. The sources are there to tell people about this phenomenon, not to support them.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept your statement that ["It is because only these "unreliable" ones can show what Vietnamese nationalism look like. The nationalists’ sources are never reliable to any common person"] If you really can't find any more reliable sources than the ones you give, it shows that what you're doing is unsubstantiated and that they're completely "fictional." The reliability of sources is determined by community discussion, and so it's ridiculous to say nationalists' sources are never reliable to any common person. What you call Greater Vietnam is really controversial and you have not proven to me its clear existence, on what basis would drawing a map to simulate be based? Mạnh An (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some guidance, please? If it can be specific in this topic, that’s great. If not, then can you help me with general stuffs? Maybe I haven’t completely understand something.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have in-depth knowledge of the field that you need, so I can't give you help in this topic. But I can help you with many other things. As long as you are willing to contribute useful content to Wikipedia, any community member will be happy to help you. Mạnh An (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I am wondering, can you give me a comparison about the differences between “self-published sources” and “secondary sources”. Both of them use primary sources as their main structure for their own researchs, but one are usually more preferable in Wikipedia even if they are talking about the same subject. I think I need to learn more about them.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, self-published sources are materials such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum posts, and social media postings, which are often published without academic peer review or editorial review by professional panels. For secondary sources, you can see here: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, [...]. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

I cannot yet compare them unambiguously, but in the short term, you can distinguish and understand their essence. Mạnh An (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So which source could be considered as secondary? Do their websites/articles have something that distinguish themselves from the self-publish one? (sorry for the late reply).— Daeva Trạc (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source is the source as I said above. As for your second question, I'm not sure, it seems to be decided by community discussion, perhaps based on some identifying characteristics. You can consult others to find a definite answer. Mạnh An (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like if there are 2 newspapers deliver the same subjects, how can we know which one is secondary and can be used (distinguish personal views and analysis)? Daeva Trạc (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. There may be a lot of secondary sources written about an object, so we choose to use a "reliable" secondary source. A secondary source does not indicate the reliability of a source, only the nature of that source, the decision whether to use that source depends on whether the source is accepted by the community/considered a reliable source. Mạnh An (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So beside the obvious self-published sources, secondary sources (reliable) can only be decided by its way of using words and by the community, right?— Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for your explanation.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]