User talk:MoonsMoon

Hi, MoonsMoon. I just want to say to you that I'm not an extremist doing flawed things, but I have my principles, so do you. Thais and Khmers have been formed at the same time, Khmers didn't come before Thailand, and Thailand didn't come before Khmers. And Khom is not Thai, but related by marriage, not nationality. Khom is not Thai-propaganda, Khom is often misunderstood as a term. Khom is not a nationality, Khom is a civilization that later intermarried with Thais, and Thais absorbing Khom identity. Just like Khmers absorbing Angkor Wat, (In Thai we call Nakhorn Wat).

And If you dare to mess with me again, well there are consequences. I'm a Thai person, but my ancestry and heritage can be traced back to the Monic ethnic group, which lived at present day Myanmar. Civilizations like Dvaravati, Hongsawaddy. The Swan is the symbol of Mon, and the symbol of Mon, is the symbol of Mon Royalty, That's right. My ancestors were once royals, who migrated to Thailand/Siam after the Burmese took over my lands of the Irrawaddy Delta, my ancestors titles, became Phraya, which is below Chao Phraya in which Chao Phraya is King.

-RedCheekshavingfoodtoeat!

Hello, I'm Criticize. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Khom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Criticize 23:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I added "fascist" as it's used in the citation supporting the content. Quoted from the cited content: "This idea became more sophisticated during the time of military rule under Phibun. The ideological

foundations of his fascist-leaning policies were laid by the Thai thinker Luang Wichit Wathakan, whose officially sanctioned ideas about Thai nationalism have been pervasive until today. One of the

theories he put forward was, that the Khmer of today have no connection to the ethnic group that built Angkor, which he termed khom." I'm confused as to why that can't be included as a descriptor? MoonsMoon (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ekdalian (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that an admin responded to your edit-warring ticket by applying extended confirmed protection to the page until October 13. Since neither of you have the required number of edits (500), this effectively stops the edit war until then. I also see that the other editor removed the disputed content about two hours before the protection was added. I'm sure this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it's actually the better state for the article to be in. Allow me to explain. We are encouraged to follow a process called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" (wp:brd). In this case you were the wp:bold editor adding content, the other editor did the wp:revert to remove content they disputed. At this point, the proper thing to do is for the bold editor (you in this case) to start a discussion on the article talk page and say, "Hey, I see you reverted me here, let's discuss", and then wait for a response. There is no hard and fast rule for how long, but at least a couple of days. If you get no response, the better thing to do is seek other opinions rather than restore the disputed content. This is consistent with the essay, wp:onus which says the burden is on the person seeking to add disputed content to get consensus before doing it. There are several ways to do this, I already gave you one in article talk (go to relevant wikiproject pages and ask for help). Another acceptable way is to scan the list of most recent editors and wp:ping them in article talk to ask for help. Again, neutral questions are best. You can get a list of editors by content added to the article and/or most recently edited by going to the article revision history and clicking on the "Page statistics" link. Let me know if you have further questions or need help. Xan747 (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I never should have bothered. But since we're apparently allowed to use Facebook as a reliable source, I'll remember that when I find something I like and then just keep reverting the edit like Hotgas did since how things are done. MoonsMoon (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

We're not allowed to use Facebook as a reliable source, and did not realize that was the case here. That changes thing a bit, and if you will document that in article talk for me, I'll have a look and make any suggested changes for you which I feel are appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I brought it up in the Dance In Thailand Talk over a *month* ago. It's still there. No replies. I'd mentioned it in my edits multiple times too. It was ignored.

It's literally a Facebook post. It just happens to be that TNN Thailand printed it, though without verifying anything. So yes, the source is literally Facebook - https://www.tnnthailand.com/socialtalk/140881/ MoonsMoon (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok so that is basically one person's oral tradition, and yes, it's just a copy of the facebook post with no further analysis ... so not a good source. But now I am confused because the other editor is *removing* content you added back, which as far as I can tell *is* properly sourced, so why are we even talking about facebook now, unless there is content based on that source you wish removed? But this really should be discussed on article talk, not here. I only came here to discuss the procedural aspects of navigating Wikpedia's complex and often capricious dispute resolution system. I'll ping you there to continue this. Xan747 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dance in Thailand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khmer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi MoonsMoon, do you mind if I edit your comment to format them into proper Wikipedia links? Northern Moonlight 19:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Which comment is that?

Also, I was told I could add an additional George Groslier quote to the existing one. However, Hotgas once again reverted the page (which I guess is just going to keep happening forever) and now that you've reverted it back the new content for which I got permission isn't included. MoonsMoon (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 I got an email to confirm my own email address which I did of course. Then it said there was somebody assigned to help me if needed, or something like that. Well now I need them but I have zero clue how to find them or even what their name is. How do I get back to that info? I clicked the link in my email again but that didn't work. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any experience using the e-mail system, or any sort of help system that would require using the e-mail system. Maybe someone at wp:teahouse can help you. Xan747 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem, thank you so much for being patient and helping me. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome, any time. Good luck! Xan747 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dance in Thailand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khmer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! :-/ MoonsMoon (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @MoonsMoon, I was notified that you thanked me for my edit at Sompot chong kben, and I wanted to say thank you for my first thank ever. Ligh&Salv (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I am unable to find any cited source in the “Incident (June 1979)” section that explicitly supports the figure of 110 buses. Reference [6] mentions 20 buses, and the other cited sources do not specify a number. Could you please indicate which reliable source supports the number 110? Per WP:V, numerical claims should be directly supported by the cited material. Rainy1992 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"On the morning of Friday, June 8, 110 buses pulled up at the border site of Nong Chan, a few miles north of Aranyaprathet, where several thousand refugees were now camped in fields." page 88-89 ^[1] MoonsMoon (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you bother coming onto my Talk Page if you were just going to ignore it and delete the content anyway? MoonsMoon (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)