User talk:Massive flight

I don't think removing all of he and him pronouns with Hưng in the article Lê Minh Hưng was necessary. Tornado Elliott (ask) 13:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Use of pronouns and given names should be rotated evenly between sentences in order to make readers able to easily track who "she/he/it/they" refers to. If we use too many "he" pronouns in a row in a paragraph, readers have to read the previous sentence, and even read further back to find out who "he" refers to, which is hard to give track and time-consuming. Massive flight (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

yes, but you replaced most, if not all of them. Tornado Elliott (ask) 13:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you are mistaken? I didn't replace all of them but still alternated evenly between "he" and the given name sentence by sentence. Massive flight (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I noticed a large deletion of data from the article 'National Economics University', I personally feel that this amount of, while uncitied, data shouldn't be directly removed, but kept for some time along with the template of more citations needed for editors to find citations (or reasons the information you've deleted shouldn't be on Wikipedia). This is why I've undid your edit for now to maintain the information that has taken some time do find. Thanks for your contributions! Crawsome Crustacean (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This information has been left there and not sourced for a long period, though. Massive flight (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Why did you not add the template for more citations? Crawsome Crustacean (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I did now. Massive flight (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just because a sentence doesn't have a reference tag immediately afterward doesn't mean it's unsourced. The following is fairly common:

This person did A and B.^[1] This person also did C and D.

where all four of A/B/C/D show up after diving into the first source. The first sentence may have originally been in the article, and then someone later added the second sentence without duplicating or moving the citation.

In this case, removing the second sentence damages the article. It would be preferable to dive into the source yourself and verify if it supports C and D. (Even if it doesn't, another source somewhere else in the article may support C and D. Items C and D should only be removed if no citations can be found, or if it's defamatory or otherwise dubious.) Zowayix001 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it may be sourced in a source somewhere already in the article, but it is still not cited. But my current priority is not looking at every source to check if they contain the relevant uncited data, which is very time consuming. Furthermore, the policy is that every uncited data in biographies of living people must be immediately removed. Feel free to add back any sentence with relevant citation. Massive flight (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Vietnam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Massive flight! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Hồng Nhung. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Hồng Nhung, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I said these are my last reverts. I will report to administrators if the user continue reverting. I am intending to left them a more detailed comment on their talk page. They are adding unsourced data to BLPs. Massive flight (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your last reverts should have been about 16 hours ago. You were already well past the point of acceptable conduct when I warned about continuing to engage in edit-warring. You chose to ignore that warning. Continue in the same vein when this block expires and you will quickly find yourself blocked for much longer. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I will attempt to communicate with the user on talk pages. Massive flight (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)