User talk:Crows Yang

August 2021

Dear Rdp060707, my apologies if I'm not replying in the correct way cuz I'm kinda new to the mechanism here. Just wanna say thanks for your reminding, I've added a source to my editing, please refer back to me if there're any questions. Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Battle of the Nevada Complex, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#Battle_of_Zhenbao_(Damansky)_Island

I want to clarify the reason why I believe "Result" should be left to as it is ("Indecisive; both sides claim victory") without specifying any territorial changes. There are no doubts that the Chinese eventually got the island - the question is when it happened. As you have mentioned yourself, there is no consensus among the sources on the date: different sources mention different dates - be it August 1969 or September 1969 or some other later date - it doesn't really matter, as it happened long after the battle that happened in March 1969, so it is obvious that the island wasn't taken as the result of that particular battle itself. We also can't really rely only on Chinese sources as it violates WP:NPOV. Vladimir Gorodinsky is known for his quite sensationalist views, so his claims doesn't really represent any kind of "Soviet (Russian) POV" except his own. They probably should be left as they are, but that's not enough to draw any kind of conclusions on the topic. Anyway, all the territorial changes that happened later are specified in the article's top infobox. Personally, I don't like "Soviet victory" in the article's top infobox but someone has changed it from a more neutral statement and it seems that there are people that like it. I wouldn't agree with "Chinese victory" either as there are few sources not affiliated with China that claim that the Chinese managed to won the battles. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like you're one of the "rulers" of this item, you say the island take doesn't count, then it doesn't, fine! But with Vladimir's claim, your denial of the reliability of his statement by claiming his sensationalism or "revisionism" was just too subjective to be convictive. His claim about the result of using BM-21 by Soviet troops against Chinese troops actually matched not only the Chinese records, but also the reminiscence of Yuri Sologub, former company commander of the 240th Tank Instruction Regiment of the Soviet Army. Soviet's offical claim that the BM-21 inflicted heavy losses on Chinese troops were just too subjective and propagandized. None of Chinese sources admitted any losses caused by the strikes of BM-21. We prove the existence instead of non-existence, that's one basic law of logic. Soviet officials were unable to provide one single evidence to prove that their BM-21s had inflicted any losses on Chinese troops, not even one single picture taken by the participants of the battle to show the Chinese deads. So we can conclude that Soviet government was lying on this point, which literally matched Vladimir's claim. The logic is very simple, you can't prove any losses on the Chinese side, then it didn't exist. There's no problem of citing Vladimir's claim unless it's against someone's personal preference. Lastly, speaking of the "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox, I personally think it's very ridiculous, as all the territorial changes listed in the infobox were actually in favor of China, cuz they looked to me like China gained actual control of all those disputed territories, but the Victory was surprisingly "given" to Soviet. What I mean is, that makes the entire edition look so paradoxical to the readers. Crows Yang (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

- Soviet's "official" claim that the BM-21 inflicted heavy losses on Chinese troops is not really official, AFAIR, but it is mentioned in the sources not aligned with Soviets, e.g., in the Gerson's article and also indirectly in the Robinson's article. As BM-21s were secret, Soviets didn't specify what exact artillery pieces were used (that's why I say they are "not really official"), but he mentions massive artillery bombardment that forced Chinese to eventually leave island on May 15;

- I have no troubles with Gorodinsky claims being mentioned in the article, I just want to point out that his ideas are quite controversial and it would be interesting to see something supporting his claims in other neutral sources;

- Could you please specify the source of Yuri Sologub reminiscence? I'd like to take a look on it.DestructibleTimes (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

-I agree that Soviet's claim on BM-21's performance isn't that official, but looks to me like most Russian and other Western historians or scholars have widely accepted the claim that BM-21 did cause heavy casualties on Chinese troops and force them to retreat, marking the end of the March 15 battle. However, there's a golden rule to determine "casualties", enemy's casualties claimed by our side could never become effective until our enemy recognize the figures by themselves. That's why I keep looking up the Chinese sources which may match Soviet's record regarding to BM-21's work, but so far I've found nothing that admitted BM-21's performance.Some Chinese sources directly denied the claim that BM-21 inflicted heavy losses on Chinese troops. So that's why I don't think we should only rely on Soviet sources regarding to BM-21's business. Moreover, I've also looked up many Soviet and Russian sources in which BM-21's "victory" was mentioned, none of them could ever provide a single picture to show that BM-21s had made any major losses on Chinese troops. On the other hand, some Chinese sources did present the pictures taken by Chinese soldiers who cleaned up the battlefield after the conflict, showing the dead bodies of Soviet soldiers and equipments abandoned by Soviet troops following their retreat. I can give you these pictures if you're interested.

-About Yuri Sologub reminiscence,a Chinese article mentioned it but did not provide the full name of the source, I'm still looking for the full text of this source, I will keep u updated asa I find it.

-Btw, I noticed some Russian sources quoted messages from the so-called "Soviet Pacific Frontier Military Region Operation group Combat Diary(March 15)", or "Soviet border troops combat diary" for short. That looked useful to help learn more about this conflict, do you have any clue where this diary can be found? Crows Yang (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

- Well, I think we can't use pictures as source unless they are from some reliable source that we can reference. And since there are photos, they probably have some text description we can quote in the article instead of inserting gory images.

- Good, it would be nice to see them

- I'm not sure what are these, I can only guess that they are supposed to be the references to some Soviet archive documents that were declassified during Glasnost. They were probably copied verbatim from some other, more easily available sources (books, articles, etc.) that should be somewhere nearby. If there are no other sources nearby, then I would mark it with Template:Verification needed or Template:Verification failed and remove after some time if nobody makes a more specific reference. DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to insert some of these photos with text description into the article, but it seemed I was not authorized to do so. Anyways, I'll keep collecting useful things. Crows Yang (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, about the "combat diary" I mentioned above, Gorodinsky actually provided the full name of the document in Russian, here's what he said,

-Большим подспорьем в этой работе для меня стали архивные документы, рассекреченные несколько лет назад. Среди них боевые распоряжения штаба Тихоокеанского пограничного округа, доклады оперативных дежурных, записи телефонных переговоров, тексты телефонограмм в звене 57-й (Иманский) пограничный отряд - штаб ТОПО - Главное управление пограничных войск КГБ при СМ СССР.

Удалось разыскать в Интернете ксерокопию «Журнала боевых действий в районе о. Даманский 15 марта 1969 г.», который велся в оперативной группе Тихоокеанского пограничного округа.

- he said his work was largely attributed to some of the "declassified" documents including diaries, reports of operational duty officers, phone records, texts of telegrams in the rank of the 57th border guards blabla...most importantly, he found a copy of "the journal of military operations in the district of daman on March 15, 1969" on the Internet, or «Журнала боевых действий в районе о. Даманский 15 марта 1969 г.» in Russian. If we could find the copy of those documents, it'd be very very helpful! Crows Yang (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so you were talking about Gorinsky interview. That's the problem with his interview: there are statements that are hard to verify because he doesn't mention the precise references. He would probably say that it is not possible due to limitations of interview genre, which is true, however since I'm not aware of any other texts by him on that topic that contain more specific sources and since his other non-related work is quite controversial, I'm skeptical about this whole story. I think the only to find out is to contact him and ask about the sources he used... DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

He did mention the precise name of one document which was «Журнала боевых действий в районе о. Даманский 15 марта 1969 г.». And I found some information from another article, "Фактологические ошибки и разночтения в регионоведческих исследованиях военно-исторического характера: необходимость и проблема их выявления", there's one paragraph this article says,

- В 2011 г. были рассекречены журналы боевых действий 57-го пограничного отряда, которые велись во время боевых действий на о. Даманский. Информация, содержащаяся в них, носит официальный характер

- What this article says is that in 2011, the combat diaries of the 57th Border Guard Detachment, which were kept during combat operations on Damansky Island, were declassified. So the diary does exist, and at least Gorinsky didn't lie about the declassification of the diary. So at least by far, I can trust what Gorinsky has said in the interview. I will keep trying to "decode" all the documents he mentioned on the Internet, but you're right, the best way to obtain those documents is to contact him and ask for them. Crows Yang (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, archived items have a formalized reference that specify their exact physical location in an archive. He mentioned only the name of documents in this case.

Anyway, there are two websites that may help you - https://cfc.rusarchives.ru/CFC-search (centralized electronic catalogue of Russian state archives) and https://unsecret.rusarchives.ru/ (the registry of declassified documents). https://cfc.rusarchives.ru/CFC-search is referenced by https://archives.gov.ru/ which is a government agency website (*.gov.ru), so they are legit in case you are not sure about it. I have run a couple of searches on both of these sites and found nothing related to "Журнал боевых действий в районе о. Даманский 15 марта 1969 г." or anything else that might look like declassified military combat logs related to the topic. You might have a better luck, though. Again, these are just archival items catalogues, I'm not the sure their content is available online. There is also a chance that some items were not added to these catalogues, even though unsecret.rusarchives.ru catalogues items that were declassified in 1994 and after that and thus it should contain items declassified in 2011. Lastly, there is another possibility that the documents were declassified somewhere before 1994 and thus are not in these catalogues. Personally, I think asking him would be easier than making a formal request to Russian archives, however both tasks are not trivial. DestructibleTimes (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

These websites look useful to me, I'll keep trying to search and see what I can find, but I knew the combat logs or diaries are extremely hard to target even if I'm pretty sure about their existence. I'll keep trying anyways....not sure if I can successfully get hold of him, I'm still looking for his email address or something like that... Crows Yang (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, unsecret.rusarchives.ru behaves very strangely - when it is opened with https, it redirects me to the archives database about the 1812 War which is obviously not what we were looking for. The correct link is http://unsecret.rusarchives.ru/ (with http, yes).

You also probably get a scary warning about "Unsecured Connection", "Untrusted Certificate" or similar when visiting the websites I mentioned. That's because they switched the HTTPS versions of their websites to use certificates signed by a Russian national root certificate that was not added as trusted by most browsers of non-Russian origin. FYI, your browser provides option to ignore the warning and open such websites anyway - that isn't going to compromise your security, just don't enter your credit card details there if you would be asked to do so :D (just kidding) DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yea I've run into the "unsecured connection" warning couple times, but now I'm able to visit these links after resetting my browser. The latest link you provided above also seems working just fine. I'll be careful about the security issues, cuz some other webs did ask for my payment info to open up or download the files. The document search work is just a pain in the *** Crows Yang (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Crows Yang! Your additions to Sino-Soviet border conflict have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DestructibleTimes (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editorkamran (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who started a war by deleting any contents supported by reliable sources which were not in favor of your personal preference. So stop pretending to be innocent. There were users who disagreed with the result of "Soviet Victory" but you undid their edits! So you're the one that needs to be charged. Anyways, I will let administrators do what they have to do, I'm fine with any decision they will make. But remember, this article is not your private property, and we'll utimately be back here to ensure this is a public place that everyone has equal chance to put any contents backed by reliable sources. Crows Yang (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

we'll utimately be back

Excuse me, who are "we" here? DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Editorkamran (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sino-Soviet border conflict

Hello Crows Yang. You've been warned for edit warring on this article due to a complaint at WP:AN3. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Sino-Soviet border conflict shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please get consensus on the talk page first — Czello ^(music) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crows_Yang reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Sino-Soviet border conflict. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely not the one who started editting war

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Admin @Bbb23,I'm writing this is because I must argue that I was not the one who started the editting war on the page of "sino-soviet border condlict". If you check our revision history very carefully,you'd find out there were three accounts namely Azuredivay, Czello and Editorkamran constantly switching amid each other to avoid running into the standard of editting war. But, the fact is that these three users were actually conducting an editting war. They kept reverting any revisions I made to the info box of the page, even if my revisions were all backed by reliable sources.I tried to talk to them before, but eventually realized that it was impossible to reach a consensus over the above three users, they were traditionally the "Soviet Victory" believer and reluctant to accept any other conclusions other than "Soviet Victory". So I tried to add a few more information from other historical documents into the info box to show the readers there were a lot of disputes regarding to the result of the "Sino-Soviet Conflict". However, the three accounts Azuredivay, Czello and Editorkamran insisted on finding excuses to reject any other possible outcomes other than "Soviet Victory". I attempted to add one more outcome without deleting the "Soviet Victory", but these three would just undo anything I put and seemed to have dictated this article's edition rights. Anyways,plz double check on the revision history, the above three accounts reverted or undid my revision at least 6 times within 2 days, that may not meet the definition of editting war for a single account, but it was an de facto editting war! Crows Yang (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you started it or not is irrelevant. You are responsible for your actions. You seem to be trying to justify it, not tell us why it was wrong. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

• Do not refactor declined block requests, or you may lose access to this page for the duration of your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)