User talk:MoonsMoon

16th Jebruary 2026

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!

July 2025

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)

Introduction to contentious topics: minimum 500 edits required for editing caste articles

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)

Dance in Thailand

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

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)

Comments

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)

Help

@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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

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

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)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanking me

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)

In Dangrek Incident article

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 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)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Sampot.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I don't think I'm understanding all of this. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Khmer traditional clothing. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a discussion at Talk:Khmer traditional clothing § Edits and photo deletions: what is the issue?. The templates you may have been looking for are {{uw-ew}} (or {{uw-ewsoft}}) and {{please see}}, the latter to invite the other user to the discussion with a message on their talk page, and one of the edit warring templates so that a report doesn't get instantly declined for a lack of a warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

When am I going to be allowed to edit Khmer traditional clothing? The new editor in question never joined the discussion, predictably. I found more information about charobab that I've added to the Sampot article which must also be added to the Khmer traditional clothing article. MoonsMoon (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the WP:DISCFAIL essay contains helpful advice for such situations including an explanation of reasonable timespans. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It didn't. MoonsMoon (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It says: Wait: Check daily to see if there has been a response at either the article talk page or at their user talk page. If there has not been a reply in a week, it is probably safe to move to the next step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

(It is not a strict guideline or policy you'd have to follow, but I like it.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been nine days and that person hasn't said a word anywhere! So it's my understanding I can now edit the article. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

So I checked just in case I missed something and they're globally blocked! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sophialee8899 MoonsMoon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. The global lock is not for block evasion, so WP:BE's permission to undo all of their edits doesn't apply, but of course there is noone left to discuss or dispute your changes, so ... no concerns from my side ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and use some of the photos they kept inserting. If they would have put them in the correct section there'd be no problem. But it was like inserting a photo of a jean jacket into a section about leather pants! MoonsMoon (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to bug you again. I pinged the last legit contributors to Khmer traditional clothing (including you) on its Talk Page about how three different Wikipedia articles have a Khmer Textiles section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khmer_traditional_clothing MoonsMoon (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This does not work. You have to make the pings in the same edit that adds your signature. You'll need a new message there with proper pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My signature? I'm not sure what you're saying here so I'm going to Google it. MoonsMoon (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That worked! I got that ping. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried discussing it on the Talk Page. Before that, I explained multiple times in the edit summary that their edits were inaccurate and unexplained. While this was going on, I'm actually trying to improve the page itself. But fine. MoonsMoon (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cambodian art

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cambodian art, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No you're right, robot, but I have no idea how to fix it, sorry. MoonsMoon (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Where's the mention of Wichitwathakan in the secondary source you claim?

I can't seem to find it. ~2026-42889-20 (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is it? ~2026-42889-20 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

16-17 https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/suedostasien/studium/working-papers/soa-wp-033-reconstructing-angkor-serhat-unaldi.pdf

16-18 https://8limbsus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Thailands-Khmer-as-Invisisble-Minority-Language-Ethnicity-and-Cultural-Politics.pdf MoonsMoon (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2026 (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. Borgenland (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice regarding editing against consensus on Dangrek Incident

Hi,

I, along with another editor, have tried to raise legitimate concerns regarding the neutrality and overall weight of the Dangrek Incident article (per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT), on Talk:Dangrek Incident#Review_of_the_current_article_for_neutrality,_weight,_and_encyclopedic_presentation.

While you initially engaged with us on the discussion, you have since stopped engaging in the discussion and instead continued to add more statements to the live article, directly contradicting our concerns regarding undue weight and also disregarding consensus building (WP:CONSENSUS). I urge you to please refrain from making further unilateral changes to this article and instead engage constructively with the community on the talk page so we can reach a more balanced article supported by better consensus. Hellapaul (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, this is factually incorrect and misrepresents the public page info. I didn’t even edit the article between the 23rd and the morning of the 26th. My perfectly standard edits August 26th occurred before your later post on the Talk Page.

Furthermore, I’ve repeatedly engaged with legit, constructive feedback on the Talk Page. I even made changes based on said feedback from other editors (like Pincrete), and I opened multiple topics/threads asking for assistance in restructuring the lead, prose, and section names. However, these broad, vague, abstract objections re: “narrative balance,” weight/tone don’t bring the expansion of an article with peer-reviewed secondary sources to a screeching halt. Particularly after you both conceded that the only cited example texts (Kamm, Deth, and Vail) accurately and directly verify the content as currently written. WP:NPOV/neutral editing means accurately reflecting what the reliable secondary sources state, not omitting established and documented historical facts.

I repeatedly asked for specific examples and/or any counter viewpoints from reliable, secondary sources, to the point that repeating myself on the Talk Page *again* might get me into trouble for bludgeoning the process. If you have any specific, alternative text/content proposals based on reliable, secondary sources, then please present it on the article Talk Page. Otherwise, please don’t use my Talk Page to log false timeline accusations. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I have elaborated further and tried to make the objections more concrete and clear on the 24th, before your edits on the 26th here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dangrek_Incident#c-Hellapaul-20260824001800-MoonsMoon-20260822184600

We have been trying to explain how your edits overtime erode the neutrality on the overall article, and I explained further on the 24th that arguing that the word "cumulative" isn't explicitly used seems to be a semantic argument and skirting the spirit of WP:NPOV (more specifically, WP:WEIGHT). I also explained how your responses regarding cited example text missed the actual point and is bypassing the objection on a tangent, a mistake which you are repeating again here by citing specific sourcing and instances instead of trying to understand the point on the overall presentation (which I also highlighted on the 24th as a phrase specifically in WP:NPOV). Instead of responding to our comments asking for a collaboration and consensus building that were made before the 26th, you did not respond and then added further texts on the 26th. My edit later on was moreso pointing out this fact pattern.

I am not saying it is intentional, but right now it looks more like you're trying to evade and exhaust to eventually push through the desired outcome. To avoid that, I am recommending discussing this further before continuing to append the article even more and more. If you are worried about appearing like bludgeoning the process, then it would be better to discuss together further, instead of prematurely and inaccurately accusing us of trying to stall you or initiating a bad faith discussion.

Can you please read through what I had said on the 24th, try to understand the point on the overall presentation, depth of detail, quantity of text (as explicitly stated in WP:NPOV) and go from there together? Hellapaul (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am still new to this and not well-versed on the precise definitions yet. I am not sure exactly where to draw the line in the distinction between WP:BLUDGEON , WP:GAMING, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. So I may not have been accurate or precise enough earlier. Let me attempt to clarify as succinctly as I can.

We are raising the points on the cumulative effect/overall presentation. You argued that this is vague and not part of the WP:NPOV. For the vagueness, if it is not clear, then we can discuss some more or collaborate towards a remedy. For not being part of WP:NPOV, I simply disagree and explained why on the 24th before your further edits. You keep bringing back to how each individual part is sourced, which to me just looks like a non sequitur that misses the point and redirects the convo to a tangential point, intentionally or not. I explained all this on the 24th. Instead of trying to discuss and collaborate some more, you expanded the article further, pretty much what we are wearing against. Then, you are now saying that we are stalling, appearing like you're not assuming good faith on us. It looks like some combination of WP:BLUDGEON , WP:GAMING, and WP:TENDENTIOUS, which is what you imply you would like to avoid. So then, let's try to understand each other instead of assuming bad faith on us and ramming through changes. Hellapaul (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice regarding continued editing during an unresolved dispute

I am notifying you that I intend to request administrative review of your editing conduct concerning Dangrek Incident.

The concern is not your position on the historical subject, but the editing process. There has already been an RfC concerning the article's tone and weight, an extended Talk-page discussion concerning NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and a requested move that closed with no consensus.

During the subsequent discussion, concerns were repeatedly raised about the cumulative effect of further additions and the need to resolve the dispute through consensus. On 26 August, you were specifically asked to stop making unilateral additions while those concerns remained unresolved. You responded on 27 August, but the substantive dispute over the overall presentation was not resolved.

You have subsequently continued making substantial additions to the article while the underlying concerns remain unresolved.

I therefore intend to ask uninvolved administrators to review whether this pattern of editing, in the context of the previous dispute-resolution history and the August Edit Warring Noticeboard discussion involving you, warrants administrative intervention or an editing restriction. Mumu1942 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. MoonsMoon (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I was away for a while and just saw that this has been raised. I am quite disappointed by what I feel is a very lazy(?) or perhaps careless(?) review of the points you have raised well on the ANI. It just appeared to be 1) this is LLM generated so I won't care if the points that AI helped summarize are valid or not and 2) well figure this dispute amongst yourself. 1) seems to be a technicality rather on the substance and 2) seems to be almost like shirking responsibility when we had tried to resolve the dispute earnestly in length to no avail and we are at an impasse (hence needing help)..

Is this how it usually is on Wikipedia? I'd like to help improve wikipedia but if this is how it is I am quite appalled and discouraged to contribute. It seems too susceptible to one particular user just bludgeoning the process, and unilaterally doing whatever she would like to do, with some wiki-lawyering + exploiting flaws in the process to help jam in her edits without consensus.

Not sure how to proceed, if this is just how Wikipedia is, or we had not done the proper job due to inexperience (it really shouldnt be this hard to try to contribute, I feel like needing to be a lawyer to get anything done). Perhaps the first submission was too long and just ignored due to LLM help while the second amendment was too short and didnt get enough points across that we had tried and it's not just about content dispute but now about the process? Should we re-raise with better points? I had also mentioned other admins in the article talk page itself and they just basically gave short advice and tell me to figure things out myself.

My faith in Wikipedia is quite eroded after this. There are probably more of these cases throughout on articles without much attention by the community at large as well. I guess I'll just give up and let this user repeat her view points over and over in a very undue way and use her preferred terminology even when there was a clear lack of consensus. Hellapaul (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Administrative notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MoonsMoon – continued editing during an unresolved dispute on Dangrek Incident. Mumu1942 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Notice regarding administrative review on editing conduct

Hi,

I am notifying you that I intend to raise the issue of your editing conduct on the Dangrek Indicent article. I had previously tried several times to engage with you in order to build consensus and work towards an article that has more due weight, but it seems this was not possible and you have since preferred to just ignore consensus building. I believe this particularly constitutes tendentious editing.

In reviewing your edits and talk page here, I also wonder if the issue with undue weight and NPOV I have seen here may have occurred more broadly across articles in the broader topic. I will also be raising this as well.

Hellapaul (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bludgeoning, tendentious editing, and erosion of NPOV by MoonsMoon. Hellapaul (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)