User talk:Mztourist/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mztourist! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Longest page
Look at here, together we make the Vietnam War operations article to be the longest page ever in en.wiki. Carolingian (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, letter "A" appears before letter "L" in alphabetical order. Carolingian (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, and I say your English grammar is not that good too. Please look back at your sentence in my talk page, you wrote "it come", you forget that it should be "it comes". Carolingian (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No wonder I have had fixed these errors of yours like more than five times already. Carolingian (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think you pay too much attention on my work, just shut up and let it go. Have you ever written "show not tell" essay. So, the more specific, the much better. What is it wrong with you about the superfluous references? Even if they were there, they didn't hurt anything. So why the hell did you bother to remove them? Anyway, the more sources, the better too. Because there will be a lot of websites later will become broken links. So if this web page is deleted, we still have the other one. If you got a problem with that, then do not do anything about it.

What is the Battle of the Mang Yang Pass, huh? Have you read the source that I gave? There was battle and the Allies conducted a operation during the battle. So what? Why is the 24 Apr 65 entry there, hm? Again, you didn't read the source? It was that the Allies conducted an operation in Thua Thien and during that, they were attacked by the VC. That is what the source say. Do these answer your questions that waste my time?

Moreover, why don't you check these two: Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. They not only list the operations but also include many battles and insurgent ambush or skirmish. Carolingian (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but in the future, I'm happy when you rewrite my words, but please do not remove the sources. Carolingian (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you also added some unnecessary references just like I do, e.g: Operation Oh Jak Kyo I, Operation Wahiawa. So why the hell did you remove mine. I'm warning you, do not remove them again. Carolingian (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oop, and so do you. Instead of removing the references that I added, you should focus on the ones that you work on. Stop worrying about my edits and have a nice life. Carolingian (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I complain because I don't need you to remove the references. In wikipedia, a sentence with a whole bunch of references is normal, so you should leave it. Carolingian (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, thank for your contributions, now it is the longest page ever in en.wiki. Carolingian (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page of the article, someone is mentioning us. Carolingian (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop it already, I have no objection when you add more references to the operations that I already added, so you must also stop removing the references that I add. Hear me! Carolingian (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I already told you. Are you sure that those references that you add will be there forever. What if later in the future, those websites will be deleted? In that case, the articles will have no references. That is why I add my own references. So if one is deleted, we still have the other one. Also, having a whole bunch of references for one information in wikipedia is a normal thing. And the reason that I didn't write the mentions about the books in right format is because I don't want to waste my time since there are a lot more to add. As you can see, the article is way too large now, when you click on "edit" and "save", it runs very very slow. Carolingian (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I never say that I'm busy. So you should stop predicting stupid thing. If you want the conservation over, then stop removing my references. That's easy. Carolingian (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reasons to remove them are not always true. Because a lot of time that I add Fly Army along with a new information Such as this, see that, I add the reference because it has the information about the casualty of the communist (1400), but you still remove it. Ridiculous. So, it is either you are blind or your reason to remove is just an execuse. Carolingian (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But I like it in alphabetical order. Carolingian (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Heckler & Koch MP7 and Heckler & Koch UMP. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mu Gia Pass
Hello. Regarding acronyms and abbreviations WP:MOS says this:


 * Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence
 * When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. This clears the way for later use of the abbreviation alone (the New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority, at the first mention of the New Democratic Party; and the NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, at a subsequent mention). An exception is made for abbreviations that are as well-known or better known than their full name, such as "PhD" and "DNA", for which is it unnecessary to supply the full name on first occurrence.

And while the both of us know what USN and USAF means, I think it is good style with regard to the general readership to write the names out in full length. As I said in my edit summary, only CIA seems to be prominent enough to be used in the abbreviated form. Especially readers from outside the USA may not know the terms USN or USAF. Also, the abbreviations for the armed forces can easily be left away as there is no mentioning of them later in the article. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Good work on Michelin Rubber Plantation so far! Sorry if I was a little premature on placing the template on the article, although I see you've already integrated some references, which is awesome. Keep it up! --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1967)
Congratulations on the new article! I bet it was a lot of hard work. However I will ask you not not to leave naked URLs on the page. It's very easy to cloak them as requird in the WP:MOS and WP:CITE. There are nearly 100 in the references section and it's too much for someone else to do it for you. --Kudpung (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Etchberger
Thanks, I heard about him a while ago but also didn't get around to creating an article till now. Feel free to add anything. — jwillbur 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean War
The war never ended, there has been combat at varying levels of intensity almost consistantly between the two countries even after the armistace ended. Conflicts sometimes run for generations before they end, a good example to equate the Korean War with might be the Hundred Years War. There were combat instances before the so called DMZ war, and instances of combat imediately afterword. Just because the level of intesity of the conflict changes does not mean that the conflict ends and a new new one starts. All conflicts end with a peace treaty or the utter distruction of one of the belligerent sides. Neither of which has happened here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a citation in which the US State Department says the Armistice ended the Korean War. US State Department statement regarding "Korea: Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission" and the Armistice Agreement "which ended the Korean War." I intend to incorporate it into the different KW articles, but you are certainly welcome/encouraged to do so yourself. Oh, yes. I wonder how many people were counting the years in the Hundred Years War or Thirty Years' War as the wars wewnt along. "Yep, here we are at year 67 -- only 23 to go before this war, the Hundred Years War, is over!" Point is, perspective is an important part of editing and those who want to extend this-or-that war beyond an already defined time range are pushing POV. --S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you are back editing the DMZ conflict. --S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tag
I'm sorry if I was hasty but this is a major current event. There's no way this article is going away. If you merge it people will start another. --Andrewrutherford (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are being discussed at WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake. Thank you. __meco (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meco objects because Mztourist edited his/her own comments on the Talk:Shelling of Yeonpyeong page. However, the edit was appropriate in that it was accomplished minutes after the original post. There were no other editor comments in between the edits (other than a page tag which did not address Mztourist's comments.)  WP:REDACT does not prohibit such edits. And in this case the edits served to better state Mztourist's thoughts.  Meco has unnecessarily elevated a minor issue to Administrator level.--S. Rich (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. The notice to the left seems to be required by the admin talk page protocol.  I've added more words of support.  WRT the end of the war, I'll make comments later.  And you are quite welcome.  (PS: The latest firefight between the Koreans is no big deal -- nK is sending a message that they won't be pushed around because sK said they might want US nukes in the neighborhood to protect them.)--S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Opps. Meco was correct when he complained about this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelling_of_Yeonpyeong&diff=next&oldid=398409713 But NBD, I've apologized to him and I hope this fruitless ANI discussion can end.--S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: consolidation/rationalization of Korean conflict pages
Surely someone would have discussed about creating a 'Korean Conflict' article in the past? Remember, that the name redirects to the Korean War article, so it's quite possible someone did create one before, because if it gets merged then so does the name of the article. That probably means the editors rejected the idea for a seperate article, resulting in the merging.

But what I wonder is are these article names, Korean Conflict, Korean maritime border incidents and Korean DMZ incidents all your own idea? I'm always under the impression that article names are used according to what the public (not only wiki editors) generally uses, and I've hardly heard of the term 'Korean Conflict'. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure of the rules and policies on wiki about what you plan to do. Before you take any action, I suggest you consult with someone who understands wiki's editing policy, or copy & paste what you posted on my talk page to the Korean War discussion. Perhaps someone there might clear things up as the Shelling of Yeonpyeong article may not have the attention of those committed to editing the Korean War article. Regards. Wolcott (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm on vacation this week and my editing efforts are low key right now. Your thoughts about rationalizing the Korea pages are well taken, but given the flurry of Talk comments lately, I doubt that any progress can be made.  We will have people who insist the war continues.  Passion rules in this area.  Part of the problem is clearly defining how a war ends.  An much of our thought in this regard is Western.  More importantly, the question of when a war ends "formally" usually is not an issue.  The winners have their parade, etc., and go home.  Regarding 'Korean Conflict" the term is synomous with Korean War, so it won't work.  Indeed, each article talking about these skirmishes lends weight to the ongoing nature of the KW.  Mztourist, your efforts in this are greatly appreciated and I will continue to offer assistance.  Best regards. --S. Rich (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1973
Please consider Talk:Korean NLL Conflict#Introductory sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

S&T Dynamics
I saw your note about S&T Dynamics. You're an experienced editor, so my apologies if you already know that, but you can start in a user subpage, if you don't find it convenient to put up a complete article at the getgo. I know I like to start with some bare information that might not survive a deletion request, and work on it until it is ready for the main page, so I tend to start in a user subpage.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

TSR-2' s "stringent" design specs
I see you have reverted my deletion. Who says the design specs were stringent? What is the source for this? As noted in the article, the design specs were changed, the criteria may have been stringent when first issued, but were they still stringent when revised down? Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a word, "yes." Tony Buttler states in Air Enthusiast, September/October 1995, p. 21, after examining the ramifications of GOR.339, the revised specifications and all the designs submitted by the aerospace industry in the UK. "[N]ever before had such an advanced aircraft been proposed for the RAF." Besides the BAC TSR.2 winning entry, these industry submissions included in the chronological order that the proposals were made: Blackburn B.103A, de Havilland "Modified" DH.110, Supermarine Type 565, Hawker P.1121, Avro 739, Blackburn B.108, Bristol 204, Christchurch (de Havilland) GOR.339, English Electric P.37, Fairet GOR.339, Gloster GOR.339, Handley Page Study GOR.339, Hawker P.1129 and Vickers-Armstrong Type 571; all of which were rejected as not meeting the design requirements. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Perhaps you didn't see the edit note, but I asked that the discussion be centred on the article talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Re: canvassing about TSR-2 performance, See comment:I don't know if you have the time or interest, but I would appreciate your input on Talk:BAC TSR-2 regards Mztourist (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is now approaching WP:CANVASS; stop it now! Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many cn tag's
From template:cn:


 * Any editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, but many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously. Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require reliable sources for common facts (e.g., "The Moon orbits the Earth"), or that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph. All direct quotations and facts whose accuracy might be challenged (e.g., statistics) require citations.


 * This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as template:Unreferenced or template:Refimprove.

Merge proposal 2011 military intervention in Libya
I was working on the basis of the closed discussion on the target talk-page. If you have any issues with the closure of the discussion, I would talk to the editor who made the closure, or flag it up for review (eg at ANI). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
Rather than provide hints or guidance on moving the BSs, I simply did it. You, of course, can modify your user page as you see fit. And here is where some of the fun of Wikipedia-ing come into play -- you experiment and/or learn from other Wikipedians. Also, MZ, your talk and user page (duh -- this one) are yours. See WP:OWNTALK. Feel free to delete the stuff above that is old or nonsense, and be sure to delete old nonsense. --S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

S&T Daewoo K12
S&T Daewoo had finished developing the K12 few months ago. In addition, Daewoo changed its serial number from XK12 to K12. I hope this link helps you: http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10028&pn=1&num=11126 Kadrun (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg
I've removed the image from Operation Frequent Wind for failing WP:NFCC #10c. Per WP:NFCC #10c, images require a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Also see this discussion. Group rationales such as were added recently to this image file are inappropriate.

Also, for the use you intended having a non-free image in a gallery is generally not acceptable, per WP:NFG. I concur the image is iconic, but a couple of sentences regarding is not much to support it in this particular article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg photo on the Operation Frequent Wind page.
 * I didn't originally add the photo as I knew it was copyrighted by Corbis, but when another user added it in claiming that there was fair use I didn't object as it is the most recognisable photo from the Fall of Saigon.
 * I note that you have pointed to 10c of Non-free content criteria and it seems that I could spend a long time writing a justification that you may not agree with.
 * I would like to point out that under the licensing page of the photo it states that "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)". I believe that the Operation Frequent Wind section falls within this exception.
 * regards Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it couldn't qualify for fair use on that page. My concern is that (a) it failed WP:NFCC #10c, (b) was used in a gallery failing WP:NFG, and (c) was within the context of a very small amount of text regarding the photo. There is a tendency sometimes that when a particular image achieves iconic status for a particular time period/action/event, the image is then used across a broad variety of articles having connections with that event. We ran into this with a non-free iconic image of the hammer and sickle being raised over the Reichstag in the Battle of Berlin article. Some people argued quite vociferously in favor of retaining the image as the most iconic image of that battle. In the end, it was removed in large part because the same meaning could be conveyed using free imagery. There's also a tendency to have national-centric views on events. For the Fall of Saigon, the image is iconic vis-a-vis Americans and those who left with the Americans that day. For literally millions of others who never saw helicopter on the rooftop, never saw the photo, never saw the western press about the event, they have a rather different view. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I can't be bothered spending time justifying it under exceptions to WP rules which you seem to be very familiar with and keen to enforce. Its covered in the refs so I don't really care. With regards to your comments about national-centricism and iconic nature I think you are way off the mark. There are a few photos that define the Vietnam War and this is one of them. The fact that not everyone in the world has seen the photo doesn't mean its not iconic.Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My point, apparently lost, is that the American-centric viewpoint is but one viewpoint, and Wikipedia is an international project viewed by literally billions around the world. What is iconic to you might not be so iconic to someone from, say, Africa. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on your logic there is no such thing as an iconic image, as not everyone around the world would know the image or find it iconic... your logic is flawed.Mztourist (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it couldn't qualify for fair use on that page. My concern is that (a) it failed WP:NFCC #10c, (b) was used in a gallery failing WP:NFG, and (c) was within the context of a very small amount of text regarding the photo. There is a tendency sometimes that when a particular image achieves iconic status for a particular time period/action/event, the image is then used across a broad variety of articles having connections with that event. We ran into this with a non-free iconic image of the hammer and sickle being raised over the Reichstag in the Battle of Berlin article. Some people argued quite vociferously in favor of retaining the image as the most iconic image of that battle. In the end, it was removed in large part because the same meaning could be conveyed using free imagery. There's also a tendency to have national-centric views on events. For the Fall of Saigon, the image is iconic vis-a-vis Americans and those who left with the Americans that day. For literally millions of others who never saw helicopter on the rooftop, never saw the photo, never saw the western press about the event, they have a rather different view. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I can't be bothered spending time justifying it under exceptions to WP rules which you seem to be very familiar with and keen to enforce. Its covered in the refs so I don't really care. With regards to your comments about national-centricism and iconic nature I think you are way off the mark. There are a few photos that define the Vietnam War and this is one of them. The fact that not everyone in the world has seen the photo doesn't mean its not iconic.Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My point, apparently lost, is that the American-centric viewpoint is but one viewpoint, and Wikipedia is an international project viewed by literally billions around the world. What is iconic to you might not be so iconic to someone from, say, Africa. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on your logic there is no such thing as an iconic image, as not everyone around the world would know the image or find it iconic... your logic is flawed.Mztourist (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unit 684
Tell me, who first created the page as Unit 684? There was no such official unit named as Unit 684 in Korea. Kadrun (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kadrun that's what its known as and what is referred to in the nespaper article that is currently the only reference. If you can find alternative references (in English) please provide them. Mztourist (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should remind that the most of the English source related to Korean military is completely wrong. Because it is from newspaper, it does not mean it is right. I am providing the reference if the reference is correct. Kadrun (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://ref.daum.net/item/13930103 http://media.daum.net/politics/administration/view.html?cateid=1017&newsid=20050905110217665&p=yonhap
 * 정식 부대명칭은 '공군 2325전대 209파견대'로 실제로 군에서는 실미도부대라는 이름을 사용하지 않은 것으로 알려지고 있다. Official name is 209th Detachment, 2325th Group, and the military does not use Silmido Unit (Unit 684) as its name. Kadrun (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, it is weird that some English speaking editors do not count Korean reference as valid source. Kadrun (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kadrun, this is English Wikipedia and Korean blogs are not acceptable as references. I know that you have been told this before elsewhere. If you want to go and write a page about Unit684 on Korean Wikipedia please go ahead. The Chosun Ilbo and Korea Times are credible references, if you diagree with what they say please provide other credible references in English and stop changing things because you claim to "know" them. Mztourist (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just provided you a Yonhap News, which just big and credible as Chosun Ilbo, reference and an access link to a professional report, which I just used for editing the page. And you just denied it. Irony here? Kadrun (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing, Korea Times is not credible reference as you think. Kadrun (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yonhap is not in English so cannot be a source for English Wikipedia. Its a simple rule, why can't you follow it? Mztourist (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lima Site 85
Assuming you have read my comments on the talk page of "Bombing of Tan Son Nhat Airport" I believe I have made my position quite clear there, but I will make my point here again. I may have been wrong in changing the name of the article on Lima Site 85, but I used the best sources available to me with the best of attentions. If I had the book titles which you pointed out, then I would have used that as well but unfortunately I don't. You can dismiss Vietnamese sources as propaganda, but it is a far-cry from the Rambo-style shooting up of bad guys which usually characterized U.S. accounts of their battles in Vietnam. The book by Do Chi Ben tells of the preparations and steps taken by the VPA 41st Special Forces Battalion in their efforts to take Lima Site 85, and it included an assessment on the success and failure of their operations quite honestly. There was nothing "propaganda" about that. If you don't like what you read on the article, then please make an actual effort to contribute and cite the appropriate sources along the way and make it better, instead of dressing down Vietnamese version of events which makes my contribution seems worthless. After all, we were born with brains for a reason, I can easily dismiss U.S. version of events as rubbish in the same way you dismissed the Vietnamese version as propaganda. There are two sides to a story and the truth is usually somewhere in between, so let the audience decide for themselves because most of the time I don't even believe in the sources that I've used. But for now, my GA nomination of the article will stand.Canpark (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a forum, so your comments about "let the audience decide for themselves" is way off the mark. Chauhan is clearly a lousy source and relying too much on Vietnamese propaganda with their exaggerated claims simply weakens the article. At least Americans sources aim for objectivity. You should look more widely for sources before trying to push through your articles as GAs. I have made numerous corrections and improvements to the LS-85 page already, which just shows how far it is from deserving GA status. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Section on Lima Site 85
An editor pointed out an article is not a memorial. Therefore, this rule WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the section on U.S. missing personnel.Canpark (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Review done...
I've finished off the review of the Mayaguez incident - a couple of queries for you on the review page. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just a reminder that you've got some final comments on the Mayaguez incident, and an initial query on one of your other GA review articles still waiting for you. Thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Best wishes. Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Related to S&T Daewoo K12
You have stated the following: No reliable English language reference has been provided to show that this gun has completed development and entered service, accordingly it remains the XK12
 * S&T Daewoo Corp. itself stated that K12 has finished its development and advertising the gun to the public named as K12, and also gave a source of the gun being called as K12 by official (government) from reliable news written by one of the most respected military-related journalist in Korea. Furthermore, asking for "reliable English language reference" is opposing the whole purpose and idea of existence of Wikipedia. If you need a English language reference for every information that are describing something about other nations, that is an action of vandalism on knowledge and disregard & disrespect on non-English speaking people. In addition, if you are willing to state the gun is still being called as XK12, you should post a reliable refence rather than vandalising the valid sources and information. Kadrun (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
TalkWoe90i 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

About your photographs of No.1 Torpedo
Dear Mztourist,

I am GB_ruleofgame@wiki from Korea.

I have recently found out that your phototgraphs in ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) were being incorrectly cited in a wiki section regarding the sinking of PCC-772 Cheonan and thought that you could have also mis-understood the fact.

The 'torpedo wreckage on display' in your photographs was a mockup. K-CIC(Criminal Investigations Command of Korea) had already replaced the real one with a mockup as of Dec. 2010.

Regards,

GB ruleofgame (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * and your reference for those "facts" is? It was on display at the War Memorial of Korea for the 1 year anniversary of the sinking, it was not a mockup.

Photographs of the real No.1 Torpedo
Photo collection of No.1 Torpedo blamed for the sinking of PCC-772 Cheonan

http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70131033874

I am the owner of this blog.

I also have a posting regarding this issue.

[1번 어뢰] 모형 - 고로케 또는 생크림 어뢰

http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70111058177

[Google Translated] http://translate.google.co.kr/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70111058177

GB ruleofgame (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not a reliable source for Wikipedia and postings on your own blog page are of no value for verifiability. Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought if you would compare the photographs, you would notice the difference between the real one and the mockup.

Anyway, here is the better explanation:

The Korean word '모형' in the description '북한산 CHT-02D 어뢰 추진동력장치 모형' written on the tag stand in front of the torpedo mockup means 'mockup' in English.

You can verify that here-> http://translate.google.co.kr/?hl=en&tab=wT#auto|en|%EB%AA%A8%ED%98%95

The whole sentence means; 'A Mockup of the propulsion unit of North Korean CHT-02D Torpedo'

There are two of these mockups, one in War Museum in Seoul and another one in Korean Navy's 2nd Fleet Naval Base in Pyungtaek.

I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable with my wiki-talk. I didn't mean to, but I just wanted to make things correct in every detail.

I would like to thank you for your recognition to our nation's tragic incident.

GB ruleofgame (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mayaguez incident
So let put it this way: The US Marine lost 7 out of 8 it's chopper, 18 KIA and 41 WIA on a rescue operation in an island with no hostages, only 100 armed Khmer Rogue soldiers. Just by making that mistakes is already a loss.

And I only put the summary as "US Marines unable to rescue hostages, taking heavy casualties". Does the Marine be able to rescue them from their attack? Did they not lost 18 man? So what is wrong with that summary?. Also if I want to change the outcome, then why did I keep the "Successful release of SS Mayaguez crews"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

US Marines did not get the hostages out from the rescue operation, US Marines taking heavy casualties, US Marines landed upon an island with false intelligence. How about that? Another thing: Ever since you posted in my page, DID I ATTEMP TO EDIT THE OUTCOME AGAIN? So why I trying to talk, you're trying to threaten me? Yeah, bring it to the Admin, why should I be afraid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, after reading the article again, I admit that I was wrong. The US Marines are indeed taking casualties, but in the end still able to secure the SS Mayaguez and it's crew. However, it's impossible to leave the summary like before, since it only describe the outcome, while the rescue operation that took the majority of the article was left ignored. Leaving it like this would likely to cause confusion to first-time readers, like me. So I suggest another summary edit: "First rescue attemp unable to extract the hostages, taking casualties". Would that be fine?

Also as you said, English is not my first language, and I still having difficulties using it. Also by bring up the largely ignored Vietnamese sources, I might have change the article a lot more than I thought. However I am not the fanboy that you thought I am. I respect the user making the article, and not intent to destroy their work. You can count on that. Zeraful (talk--Zeraful (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro-communist Vietnamese?
Excuse me, should I consider this NPOV as well? Is this an attack on myself? All I do is add some Vietnamese (North Vietnamese, commies, whatever. Sources is still sources) perspective (which is based on real research), which doesn't affect the outcome of the article, so why shouldn't I be able to edit it?

Another thing: In the Battle of Dienbienphu article, I posted on the talk page about the fate of French Union POW 3 months ago. Did anyone care to look for it?

This is the Free Encyclopedia, not anyone's own. Zeraful(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I did not use the term puppet/coward when referring to the ARVN/RVN, or deleting US/ARVN figures and replacing them with Vietnamese ones. Though the information these sources served may bought a dramatic change to the way most people think about the war. (For example, each PAVN/NLF battalions only having 220 troops at their prime (1975), and the total regular force (4 corps and 1 corp-size logistic task force) were only about 250,000-270,000)

And contrary to popular belief, most Vietnamese military researchers keep a neutral attitude in their work, as those research were intended to provide a clear picture of the situation, which might coming handy in the future. Unfortunately most of them doesn't always available, and even if they do, just to find a place where there's a book on sale or Internet sources which featuring them...Zeraful(talk)--Zeraful (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * that is complete rubbish. Most Vietnamese sources are full of POV propaganda and completely overstate US and ARVN casualties. I live in Vietnam and can see this stuff all the time in Museums, books and newspapersMztourist (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ktroop.com/useofarmor3.htm Here is an article about the use of armored forces in Vietnam, featuring several Vietnamese work after the warZeraful(talk)--Zeraful (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look for the translated sources, and they are pretty much POV. There's some good bits in them, of course, but on the whole they are solid POV Party publications (as one could reasonably expect given that they were published just after the war).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

question regarding saigon embassy bombing photo
I noticed that you added the photo File:Scene of Viet Cong terrorist bombing in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam., 1965.jpg to United States Embassy, Saigon and indicated that it depicted the 1965 embassy bombing. I recently wrote an article (Barbara Robbins) about a victim of the bombing and used the photo and a question came up as to how we know that the photo depicts the embassy bombing, since it isn't in the image description. I know that you added the photo a long time ago, but do you happen to remember your source for concluding that the photo depicted the embassy bombing? Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I looked at the coverage in Life Magazine (April 9, 1965), and while Life didn't use this exact photo, I think they are depicting the same thing. The facade of the building in the Life photo (bottom of the page) appears to be identical to the facade of the building in our photo - there is a metal grate and above it some decorative stud-things (don't know what they are called) and there are pylons and rails (streetcar?) common to both photos. Both photos also look the same as this contemporary image of the building I'm going to add a note to the photo description page saying that the image appears to depict the Embassy bombing. GabrielF (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at a number of photos of the bombing and the car wreckage looks identical and the surrounding buildings all look the same, so I'm absolutely convinced the photo depicts the Embassy car bomb scene
 * Thank you again for investigating. I'm certain you're right. GabrielF (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of FSB Mary Ann
If you get a chance, would you mind looking at this article? I've been doing some major work on it (although I'm not done with the battle section yet), and a second set of knowledgeable eyes would be a help. Thanks! Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy too, will try to get to it in the next couple of days.
 * Thanks! Like I said, I'm not done working it over yet, but I think there's enough there that it's worth reviewing. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

fyi
You requested speedy deletion] of Dirty thirty (Vietnam). Geo Swan (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation for North Vietnam article
Hi Mztourist, can you please help to mediate in the edit war that is reigniting in the North Vietnam article please? The user Zeraful keeps imparting pro-communist POV and false POV content in the international relations section of the article, like insisting how South Vietnam was obliged to follow the terms of the 1954 Geneva Conventions but refused to do so, and that user kept refusing to accept that North Vietnam's Viet Cong forces were attempting to invade the South (which is the main reason why the Vietnam War occurred, and that user's definition of invasion actually applies to the Vietcong, but he/she kept denying it). I already developed a final compromise edit for that article to address Zeraful's concerns, but that user kept insisting that the edits go their way and satisfy all of their (mostly POV) demands, which cannot be achieved in a compromise edit, since all parties must make equal amounts of concessions in order to fulfill a satisfactory amount of demands. I would greatly appreciate your help and efforts in resolving this issue. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Nguyen1310 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's more explanation regarding Geneva. In 1954 a convention was held in Geneva, and an agreement was signed by North VN, P.R. China, France where Vietnam would be partitioned into communist North and democratic South temporarily until 1956, where elections will be held nationwide to create a new national government. However, the State of Vietnam (the predecessor state to South Vietnam) was only an observer at Geneva, and did not sign the agreement at all, so since the State of Vietnam didn't sign it, it was not bound by the agreement's terms and was not obligated to follow the agreement. As well, the State of Vietnam ceased to exist by 1955, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) was established, so France's signature in the Geneva Agreement was therefore rendered ineffective. And regarding the Vietcong, they and the North had the intent to invade and take over the South by force, which is why the Vietnam War occurred and why the North eventually invaded the South and merged it with the North until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Below is a copy of the statement i made earlier about the edit war that brewed with Zeraful last week on the same article:


 * The user Zeraful who kept deleting quite significant amounts of content in the article, regarding that country's diplomatic isolation before the 1970s, and kept changing the words used in the article. Somehow, that user didn't want the article to mention that the North was largely isolated and unrecognized by many countries worldwide, esp. by non-communist and democratic nations, and only had foreign relations with other communist and some developing countries. I know for a fact that this is true, as I came from Vietnam myself, and it makes no sense that the North, a communist country, had diplomatic relations with numerous democratic nations before the 1970s. Even China (PRC), a powerful and prominent country, was isolated from the worldwide community because many non-communist countries refused to recognize China because of it's political system, and it only managed to establish relations with countries like the US until around 1972. As well, this whole section about North VN's diplomatic isolationism is long-standing info, it has been on the article for a long time now, even before I was a member of Wikipedia, and I believed that the info was correct, and there's nothing wrong with it as it has been there for a long time without any controversy or dispute, until now with Zeraful. I felt that I cannot accept something false to be true or right, that's why I kept reverting it. And, Zeraful was changing the terminology used in the article, like instead of calling communist countries "communist", which accurately described the political systems of those countries at the time, the user changed it to "Warsaw Pact" countries, which is grossly wrong because the North had relations with other communist countries outside the Pact, like Cuba or N Korea or P.R. China. Zeraful also changed the term "non-communist" and "anti-communist", to "Western", which is again wrong because not only did non-communist Western countries didn't Recognize the North and were only diplomatic with South VN, non-communist Asiatic countries also did the same thing, like S Korea, Japan, ROC Taiwan, Thailand, New Zealand etc. It seems like Zeraful is deleting the whole North VN diplomatic isolation thing, and changing up terminology, primarily out of their own POV and wanted to remove facts that are true but are negative about North VN, and wanted to censor those things out. One of Zeraful's disputes is that the North VN article lacked citations, so I suggested that Zeraful put citation needed templates beside content that didn't have enough sources, instead of just deleting some of the content outright, until enough sources are found, just like what I saw on many articles in Wiki, however, Zeraful kept deleting some of the content. But even through all the disputes I had, I still lead efforts to make compromised changes to the article to address Zeraful's problems with the article, which can be found on my last several edits on the North VN article.

Edit War on Authoritarianism article, call for mediation
Hi Mztourist, there's an ongoing problem happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs)

Recent edit
I hardly care enough to revert this edit. Nevertheless, my impression is that external links are generally intended for sources that would be referenced if the article became featured--not for partially related, self-published reminiscences.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dirck Halstead was an eyewitness and photographer during the evacuation from the Embassy, its therefore at least as relevant as most other See Alsos on Wikipedia Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Korean Cold War
I removed a PROD tag, not an AFD tag - my edit was 100% correct. Please be more careful in future. GiantSnowman 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. If even you know there isn't one, I have no idea why you falsely accused me of removing it! GiantSnowman 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a PROD can be removed by any editor with no reason given - but that's not why I did it. I removed the PROD because the article was previously discussed at AFD and then later restored, and therefore a second AFD needs to be opened by those wanting to delete the article. GiantSnowman 10:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure is not PROD, as I have already told you. Read Proposed deletion which states "Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it [...] has not been and is not being discussed at AfD." The correct procedure is a new AFD, again as I have already told you. GiantSnowman 10:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice was not "nothing" - this is now the FOURT time(!) I have told you the article needs to go back to AFD. I cannot be any clearer than that. GiantSnowman 10:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RNZAF squadrons
Great work with the articles you've been creating recently on RNZAF squadrons! Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Mayaguez incident.
Stop breaking the link I added to Mayaguez incident. I am linking the very first reference to U-Tapao in the Aftermath section. The article is 65K long. I am not required to read the entire article from the top. When I saw U-Tapao in that section, I scrolled backwards through well over 10K of article before I gave up looking for a link and went and made my own. I added the link because when I wanted to click that link it was not there.  Randall Bart    Talk   09:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Xrefs should appear once in an article only, there is no need to repeat them Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the MOS supports Mzt here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You and SRich are a pair of the biggest no-brainers on here
You and him have set the tone for the Korean articles based on your own self-righteous right-wing dogma. So you were in the Marines in Korea. Big deal? Does a flea know what a dog's thinking when it's on its back? Of course not. Take for instance - your stand against the "war has not ended" line - don't like it do you? But the fact of the matter is the rest of the world - regardless of whether the US State Dept says it is over - consider the armistice to be a truce not a de facto conclusion to the end of the Korean War. But hey you're too American to know that, or that Sygmann Rhee refused to have the ROK sign so the US did it for South Korea by proxy. But again as an American, you're nationally not known to give one iota's consideration to the facts, or what the rest of the world thinks, or academia proves.

You and SRich are the reason why these Korean articles are now just simply an Americanized joke. A mouthpiece for your Republican/John McCain inspired BS that stinks so much of contradiction, hypocrisy and propaganda you're no better (if not worse as you do have choice) than the DPRK. You and SRich should take a good long look at yourselves. But you won't. The USA's policy towards Korea has always been about couched in domestic interest. For instance FDR refused to allow Koreans to govern themselves after the end of WWII, no self determination there, or be allowed to join the US-visa waver program until 2008 (Japan being the second in 1988). Yeah America sure loves the Koreans.

But you should know that living over there in the US military. Not that you'll be indoctrinated. You and SRich have to justify yourselves so you use Wikipedia to peddle your version of the lie to the world. Haha you're wasting a life, facts will always out so that everything you protect with a wilful ignorance to history or proper academic research will be gone, just like you. 86.160.111.44 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! thanks for giving me such great laughs and 당신 씨발! I would have responded on your talk page, but you are obviously too incompetent or cowardly to have an account or have been blocked previously. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was in the Marines in Korea or that I'm American? You obviously haven't bothered reading all of the reasoned discussion on the various talk pages that prove the Korean War is over, in particular that none of the key belligerents (DPRK, PRC, ROK or US) maintains that the war is ongoing? I suggest you get your facts straight in future rather than spouting all of your own "BS that stinks so much of contradiction, hypocrisy and propaganda" And 당신 씨발 again! Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Maximum Speed
Hi there. You may not realise this but the speed of Mach 2.35 was reached by consensus with Bushranger and others based on data from the Austrian Airforce and BAE SYSTEMS. McSly has altered that several times without consensus and is therefore partaking in an edit war. The figure of Mach 2.35 has also been reached by independent consensus on German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon, which counts as a third opinion, see dispute resolution '3O'. I therefore maintain that it should stay as Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Max speed DRN
The dispute over the maximum speed of Eurofighter has now reached [|DRN]. This may be of interest to you.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it really is "whatever" as you've claimed, then why don't you try it again? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the WP rules and I know how people like you work, perhaps I should just WP:ANI you for intimidation and abuse? Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War
You are on 2RR over there, stop reverting, and also do not misrepresent sources like that again, they say the Viet Minh won, not French defeat as you changed it to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As are you against the consensus. Fall says the French lost militarily, not that there was a Viet Minh victory. Lanning is not WP:RS and you haven't provided Crozier's quote. Mztourist (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "First Indochina War". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard M. Tachibana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard M. Tachibana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Richard M. Tachibana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you know?
Hi! Do you know about WP:Did you know? I just came across your recently created article Russell L. Blaisdell and was wondering if you would want to nominate it at DYK. If you are still working on it, do carry on. I just thought to drop in in case you are unaware of such project. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Russell L. Blaisdell
Hello! Your submission of Russell L. Blaisdell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 11:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Mztourist, it has been two weeks since you were notified that your DYK nomination has issues. Looking at the review, they certainly seem like things you could address with some work, but that work will need to be done soon. At the very least, we need a response from you on the nomination's template. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang
Hi, lets try to discuss the issue if you want. I dont have been in that museum or in Vietnam, but of course that's not an argument that invalidates my position. Also, saying that "perhaps any political/history museum in Vietnam...are all propaganda perpetuating the Vietnamese Comunist party's version of Vietnamese history" is clearly not an argument, but a POV-driven statement. I could easily reply that by saying that most military museums around the world are propaganda perpetuating their country's version of history. I could understand & accept that you label as "Communist propaganda" some of its content (for example some of the photos), but labelling the whole museum as "Communist propaganda" is simply a breach of WP NPOV policy. Regards,--HC PUNX KID 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the article's talk page, not here. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers
Hello! Your submission of Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

CCI Notice
Hello, Mztourist. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've opened the page here. Regarding your last comment -- about Wikipedia being 'just the paraphrasing of numerous reliable sources' -- I'd suggest looking at it slightly differently. Substitute 'paraphrasing' for 'summary'. Once you do that I suspect you'll avoid close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues quite easily. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sino-Vietnamese War
Common knowledge is not a substitute for verifiability. Please discuss on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  06:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino nam (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahaha Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 324th Division (Vietnam). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.'Please stop reverting and attempt to obtain consensus for your edit(s)  Tide ' rolls  19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In addition
If this meets your definition of adult communication, you are in the wrong place.  Tide  rolls  08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an entirely suitable response to the tedious argumentative comments that I have had to endure from User:Dino nam over the last few days. Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Tân Mỹ Base) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tân Mỹ Base, Mztourist!

Wikipedia editor Lstanley1979 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice work - thank you for contributing."

To reply, leave a comment on Lstanley1979's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Newbie on the KW article
Our new editor has responded very nicely to the guidance and service-award I've provided. Please forgive me for redacting a portion of your comment. If you feel it is helpful to say the newbie is edit warring, you can revert and I will not touch it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll let it passMztourist (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Megagirl
She got a warning for DMZ before, but blanked the page. Her last edit got her the level 4 warning, and I've been checking for recent edits. (Given the lapse of time since first signing up, I think she's let someone have access to her account. ) – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think she needs to be blocked, do you want to initiate it? Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I think she (or whoever has her account) will stay away. No need to bother the admins on this until we get more activity. At that point she will get an indef. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's wait and see Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Massacre at Huế
Hi, can you please help to keep an eye out on the Hue Massacre article, there was recently an reattempted addition of fringe, denialist, Communist POV content, that was previously removed per editor consensus under numerous article talk sections. Thanks Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)
 * Will do, it seems we have a few revisionists on the Vietnam war pages these days. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mztourist. I keep thinking it's from the same individual/same collaborative group or something, that's why the content referred to is exactly identical... Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it probably is. As you probably know, a few sockpuppets pushing a particular Vietnamese POV were blocked recently. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, i had to deal with aplenty of them. I'm quite confident that this person/these people are paid online commentators by the Hanoi dictatorship, that's why they all engage in similar editing behavior and content because it's from the same person/same group. In Vietnam they're called "chuyên gia bút chiến" (online polemics), there's even a Viet wiki article, titled Online Propaganda covering it. In China, it's called the 50 Cent Party. Metaphorically, "student learns from master". Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And no surprise, he deleted stuff he didn't like on as well! During my time editing here, almost all edit wars and personal attacks i observed on Vietnam-related articles occur almost exclusively on articles involving/about politics and history, ie topics getting in touch with the VN Communist Party. That's why i am confident that these are paid online commentators. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

57,000 killed
You wrote: "The 2 references provided apparently state that China claims Vietnamese losses were 57,000" - So, WHERE IS THIS NUMBER in these source? I only found "30,000" in this source.

http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=1I4HOcmE4XQC&pg=PA2&dq=china+estimate+vietnam+loss+30,000+killed&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=QXkiU5iYIs7joASamoCwAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=china%20estimate%20vietnam%20loss%2030%2C000%20killed&f=falseThandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And remember, "losses" = kiled + wounded + captured (not only "killed")Thandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this on the article talk page not here.Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversions at Vietnam War and Operation Frequent Wind
I removed the image from those articles in accordance with Non-free_content #6. I agree the imaqe is iconic. That an image is iconic does not grant it special status to be used liberally. It must still adhere to our WP:NFCC policy which stresses the minimization of non-free images. This image as used in Vietnam War is not mentioned in the prose of the article where it existed. This image as used in Operation Frequent Wind was redundant to its use at 22 Gia Long Street. In both cases, there are links to appropriate articles where the image is used and discussed. I am reverting your restorations of this image. If you wish to restore them, I strongly recommend you commence a discussion of the issue at Non-free content review. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Operation Frequent Wind passed GA review so presumably this issue was considered, so yes, I will raise it at Non-free content review. It would have been useful if you had made it clear this was your specific concern when you deleted them. Mztourist (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I had with my edit summary here, but perhaps the language I used is more common to people who frequently patrol for NFCC violations. I will attempt to be more clear in the future. Thanks for starting the discussion at NFCR. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

suggestions for Mayaguez incident
Hi! I guess you are one of the people who keep the Mayaguez article tidy. I noticed, that the links in section Declassified sources are dead. And - on the talk page some people ask to provide a map - i could create one, if desired.

Thanks for your attention and all the best Wikirictor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please raise improvements on the article's Talk Page or just be bold and go ahead and do them yourself. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Eurofighter Typhoon. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Edit Warring Allegation made
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mztourist_reported_by_User:Z07x10_.28Result:_.29Z07x10 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been warned for edit warring and false sock accusations, I doubt that this attempt by you will secure a more favorable outcome. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's becoming very apparent that you have employed an evasive edit warring tactic for some time:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#Edit_warringZ07x10 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has long been apparent that you will forum shop endlessly and make false accusations when you don't get the result you want. Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  I feel it's necessary that other victims of your tactics have a record of you deliberately side-stepping the 3RR 24 hour rule right here on your talk page for the second time in 6 months. Z07x10 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If your comments have any merit I am sure they will be actioned, however this is just another example of your inability to WP:DTS Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have considered DTS before raising the matter on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Now you have been collared for the second time in only 6 months.Z07x10 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have opened a claim at ANI and it will be dealt with there, so stop harassing me here or I will raise a new claim for harassment. Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And the edit warring complaint was declined: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Mztourist (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Edit Warring.
You are unbelievable, you are edit warring my comments on the RFC page. Remove all your comments or I go straight to the edit warring noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because your comments are total BS, many of which have already been proven wrong. You continue to claim OR/synthesis still even though that case failed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward.  You don't even know what it means clearly.  RS or OR are two different things entirely.  Secondly the sources are used a thousand times on wikipedia and have excellent credentials.  Your only gripe is with one word on one source that you've taken out of context.  You continue to make a BS case about intakes.  Can you back up that statement with RS?  If not why do you continue to make it on Talk Pages?  If you can back it up with RS then put it in the article.  You haven't based a single thing you've said on any facts whatsoever, you are a disgrace to Wikipedia.Z07x10 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus against you which you refuse to accept, which is why this is being referred to RFC to obtain a binding decision. Your edits have turned my reasoning into an unreadable mess. I have referred you to the Edit Warring noticeboard and I sincerely hope that you are permanently banned for wasting the time of so many people who would rather be contributing quality content, unlike you. Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your cliche vote without grounding in policy in not a WP:CONSENSUS, get that through your head. Your 'reasoning' was already a mess, I only broke it down to explain why, rather than having to write a block of WP:TLDR.  I have contributed quality, interesting content supported by sources.  You and your cliche are a disgrace and a waste of genuine editors' time.Z07x10 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "cliche vote"? What does that even mean? You always write WP:TLDR. "I have contributed quality, interesting content supported by sources", what you have contributed, now and in the past are contentious non-WP:RS pieces that you become obsessed with and then argue to the death as is evidenced on the Typhoon talk pages and your contributions log. Mztourist (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he meant "clique". Liz  Read! Talk! 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 was site banned on 20 June 2015: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and consensus Mztourist (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Section formatting at Talk:Kim_Jong-un
Hello. At the above RfC I've gone through and done some section management per typical RfCs (and like the last one we had on this issue at that page). I placed your support for a non-free image under the Snow Rise section, but I'm unsure if this tracks with your intent or not. Please feel free to modify your support if you feel the need. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

VAP-61
I'm sorry about that. I've removed the tag. Thank you for notifying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalassaxeno (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Verdun
Thanks for the edits, they're the best on that article for ages. Do you have a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js? If you do you can install a script to find duplicate wikilinks, which can save a lot of work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its mostly minor stuff as the page is in good shape. Despite visiting Verdun several times its the first time I've read the page. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're most kind; as I looked over it this morning I realised that it's due for a spring-clean. The number of place names to wikilink can be quite mind-bending in French articles, particularly where there are ten places with the same name. When I did Operation Cycle it was enough to lose the will to live. I want to separate the later French offensives in new articles to slim the page a bit but I'm trying to get the last of the Somme articles finished before 1 July. Instead, I'm procrastinating with East Africa WWII. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, fortunately I went through many of the little towns mentioned near Verdun and so know the proper names. Thanks for fixing my non-MOS error regarding Entente and German Army numbering, I will go and revert my similar changes on Battle of the Marne. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Clean ups
Greetings MZ, took a few dupes out but double checked first. We got some "links to disambiguation pages" notices last week though, another pitfall of having lots of places with the same name. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. Yes I got the notification and cleaned the rest of the ambigs out earlier. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Neufchateau one is a bit like a Jack-in-the-box, it changes every month. Thank you again for taking such trouble over a painstaking task. If you're ever in the purlieus of Hull, I'll buy you a pint. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That might be the only reason for me coming to Hull! Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a local town for local people, how an immigrant like me fetched up here is a long story. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Communes of the Pas-de-Calais department I was able to use pages like this but never found a Belgian equivalent, don't suppose you know of any?Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is useful. No I have no knowledge of any Belgian equivalent. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bugger! Do you have a link to the MoS on flags in the infobox please? I think I'll join in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure its Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag use in Laotian Civil War page
Thank you, I thought some of my flag usage might've been excessive. I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed, since most US operations in Laos were covert and thus executed through subordinate agencies with plausible deniability.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Vastly excessive unfortunately, please see regards Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Inactive Navy aircraft squadrons
Hello, MZ! I see you've been working on some of these articles. I set a lot of them up a year ago or so, and have a minor ongoing interest in them. I'm providing some information from my memory that might be useful to you. (See HERE for details about the articles I worked on.

Please be careful about renaming squadrons in an effort to standardize things. The Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons is pretty much the standard work on these squadrons, and is the source of most of the information in the articles. The people at DANAS have put a LOT of effort into naming the squadrons. Because of the varied lineages of squadrons, this is an extremely hard thing to do properly. The scheme they came up with is a bit unwieldy to outsiders, but it works pretty well overall. I remember expending a lot of effort on "names" when I set these articles up. There is a lot of temptation to rename some of them in an effort to make things simpler and/or more standard. What I remember from long ago is that this is a very difficult task to do properly. I think that for the most part I ended up keeping them named as they were in DANAS. There were a lot of reasons to rename them, and also a lot of reasons not to do that. In the end, the latter reasons won out. If you are interested, I may be able to find the discussions that took place about the renaming, or remember some more about it.

I see that somebody or somebot has "found" a copyright violation in one of the articles, and used that as justification for removing it. This has happened before, too. What tends to happen is that some site or publication copies stuff from DANAS. The bot finds that copied site, but doesn't look at its original material in DANAS. They surmise that the copied material is the original, and they flag the Wikipedia stuff as a copyvio. This was a real pain for a while, until the bot's masters figured out what was going on. As I remember it from long ago, 100% of the alleged copyvios were not copyvios at all, but mistakes by a bot. DANAS is a work of the U.S. Government, and is therefore not subject to copyright laws. Lou Sander (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. DANAS is a great resource, however in relation to the naming of squadrons it is limited by its printed format. I would certainly be interested in any discussions you had on this point, but it seems that the accepted format now is squadron name and years it was active rather than First, Second, Third etc. That's interesting about the copyvios as I've encountered it a few times now, generally when I extract one predecessor squadron to make a new page. Regards Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Da Nang Air Base
Thankyou for your hard work reestablishing this article. However, in line with WP:AGFC and the previous history of this article, we have to be *extremely* careful about sourcing for the recreated sections. I note that the first two substantive sections only have a single reference at this point; please make sure they are referenced quickly (within 3 weeks) or I will have to be rather brutal about stripping out and rev-deleting the material. Sorry to have to be so harsh about this. Happy to clarify if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just today started working on this page and expect some time to establish it. I am not aware of any previous history of Da Nang Air Base, please advise specifically where this is located. The current information contained on the Da Nang International Airport is totally inadequate in addressing the important role played by Da Nang Air Base during the Vietnam War and similar to:Phu Bai Combat Base and Phu Bai International Airport; Cam Ranh Base and Cam Ranh International Airport; Chu Lai Air Base and Chu Lai International Airport it is appropriate to have separate pages for the military base and the airport. I will reference all the information I add as I develop the page and will endeavor to locate refs for the information that has been incorporated from the Da Nang International Airport page. Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware of another copyright investigation, Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. Bwmoll3 violated copyright for thousands of articles, and I had to delete the Da Nang AB article. Please make sure the first two sections ("Early history" and RVNAF Use) are referenced within 3 weeks. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Da Nang International Airport into Da Nang Air Base. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted but as I'm probably going to have to delete most of the copied information anyway as per the discussion immediately above, I don't think I'll bother with the copied Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the picture size as a way to add the edit summary that provides attribution. But I just thought in case you don't know, that we are being asked to use  rather than specifying pixels, because it works  better for smaller handheld devices, and because it does not override user preferences if they have a preset preferred image size that works well on their display. MOS:IMGSIZE — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation Hawthorne
The common person would have no clue those units are 101st Airborne. You are deleting "information" from articles.Don Brunett (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
 * I am not deleting "information". The "common person" you refer to merely needs to click the xref link to each unit involved to learn more about it. I suggest you stop edit-warring this as you are on the verge of 3RR and I will take steps to have you blocked. You should also read the Manual of Style and Manual of Style/Military history before making any more changes on Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They should not have to click the xref. It should be listed in the info box. Maybe you should spend more time working on the meat of the article which is very weak????Don Brunett (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
 * xrefs is how Wikipedia works, maybe you should work on the meat of the article rather than making incorrect completely trivial changes that will be reverted. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mztourist forbid we not include important information in the articles especially one that is underwritten.Don Brunett (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
 * There's the thing, you think its important to state 101st Airborne Division 5 times in the article, I don't. I have no idea what you mean by "especially one that is underwritten", are you suggesting that adding the same xref 5 times somehow improves the article? In any event you only use xrefs once in an article. As the full 101st didn't arrive in Vietnam until 1967, i.e. after this battle, it is more appropriate to refer to the individual Regiments involved and while 1/327 and 2/502nd were part of the 1st Brigade of the 101st, its unclear whether 2/320th was actually part of the 101st at this time or not.Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel it needs to be stated twice along with the respective battalions. The 1st Brigade arrived in Vietnam in 1965. I served in the 101st so naturally I have a soft spot.Don Brunett (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
 * My understanding of Manual of Style/Military history is that only the units actually involved are mentioned and not their ultimate parent units, you are free to raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and I will abide by the consensus there. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think the common person knows how to navigate Wikipedia and arrive at the conclusion those are 101st Airborne units? I can tell you that many do not. Have it your way. I am waiting on a approval for one more article to be published then I am finished with Wikipedia for good. Take care.Don Brunett (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

Navy Squadrons
Hello Mztourist. Thank you for splitting the VF-84 page. They always should have been treated at separate squadrons, for the simple reason that they are separated squadrons.

A similar situation is VF-17 and VF-61, both of which now redirect to VF-103. VF-103 has no lineage from the original Jolly Rogers. 103 should have its own page, limited to 103; VF-17/61 should also have their own page. As it was most famous under the VF-17 designation, that should probably be the article title. I've not done a split before; is that something you can help with? Thanks, and best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've already done some work on this. If you look here: you'll see that VF-17 was eventually redesignated as VF-61 and so they should be covered on the same page, as it was last called VF-61 that should be the page title rather than VF-17. I've removed all the VF-17 information from the VF-103 page and fixed the disambiguation for VF-17 so it takes you to the VF-61 page rather than the VF-103 page. regards Mztourist (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Mztourist, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

List of inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons
I've been noticing your work on this article. It looks pretty good. Some time ago I did some work on it, too, and wrote a bunch of new articles on some of the squadrons. My main interest at the time was in boosting the number of articles I'd started. See THIS and THIS for some tables that I found very useful at the time.

I learned a lot back then, but of course some of what I knew is now pretty stale. I do retain an interest in the subject, however, and if I can help in any way, just ask. One thing that has happened is that the online DANAS material has moved. I put references to the new locations in the External links section of the DANAS article, but haven't had time or inspiration to update them elsewhere. The new situation is more complicated than the old one, so updating might be a pretty big challenge. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I have worked my way through most of the VP squadrons and all their related designations recently in the list and now am getting down to the task of actually writing the various squadron pages. There's some very interesting history for many of them, but it does take a while to copy the info in from DANAS, reformat and cross-reference it all. I'm averaging about 5-6 squadrons a day at present. I am using the current DANAS site. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

US military articles
Hi, thanks for your work. Normally the country flag would not be inserted into the infobox, especially where there's a military flag as well. US is not normally linked. And many editors would query why your date formats are international dmy rather than US mdy. Are you sure? Tony  (talk)  09:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will drop the US flag and delink USA. I always use dmy and that is the format used in DANAS. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DANAS
I've posted a new article: List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons. Its Talk page tells where it came from. The links to squadron articles haven't been updated since 2014, so your new additions aren't in there. Since I'm familiar with the tables and their formats, I'll look into adding your squadrons myself. Feel free to do it on your own if you'd like. Lou Sander (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I added links to all your new DANAS articles that I could find after quickly researching your recent contributions. I may have missed some, of course. I'm thinking that maybe I/we should add red links to all the DANAS squadrons that don't have articles yet. What do you think? Lou Sander (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the tables in List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons. I think that all of your new additions have been included. The squadrons with Wikilinks marked "Pending" are ones I'm interested in tweaking a bit. I've also looked at many of the articles you have created -- VERY GOOD WORK! It would be rewarding to communicate with you about this via email. If that is of interest to you, please email me. Lou Sander (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very much focussed on finishing the VPB squadrons at present. I note that many of the pages for the active VP squadrons don't seem to adopt the info from DANAS, while a few don't have pages at all.Mztourist (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am 17 articles short of having started 400 articles, which is a personal goal of mine. (It's not so easy to find new articles to start.) I'd like to get at least some of them from starting articles on VPB squadrons, but I don't want to interrupt your efforts, or step on your toes, etc. Would it be OK by you if I started some VPBs?


 * BTW, I've updated and added some material on Talk:Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, which should be helpful to anybody who is working on any of these articles. Lou Sander (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine if you start on VPB-216 and work backwards, that way we won't overlap. Alternatively you could do the missing VP squadrons. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Don't wait for me, though. If I don't start, just keep going until they are all finished. Lou Sander (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

VPB Squadrons
Thanks for your kindness. I'm very busy now with real life. If you can, please give me until July 18 to do VPB-200 to VPB-216. If they are not done by then, feel free to do them. Right now, go ahead and do the active squadrons yourself, as I'm not up to date on them. I'll get my other articles elsewhere. ;-)

BTW, a worthwhile project would be to go to all the articles in List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons and add a "See also" to that page. I'll probably start it one day, but if you have an appetite for such things, feel free to start it yourself. If you do, please keep some sort of record of your progress, so others can pick up where you left off. Lou Sander (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. 18 July is fine as I'll take a summer holiday for the first 2 weeks of July. I've completed those 4 active squadrons, added some missing xrefs to the List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons and added a see also for that page to all of the disestablished Patrol Squadron pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictures on VAW Squadron pages
I have had these pics left to right for a reason. As part of Alternating left and right per format on VP:PIC. Also want to keep pic during chronological period. Please keep them like this, please. Thanks, also good job with copy edits on the pages. Reb1981 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I read WP:PIC and alternating left and right seems to be aimed at avoiding stacking, however where the text is long enough that there is no stacking or a pic appears under a chronological heading but with a short paragraph of text then I will put the pics in right vertical chronological stack under the history or chronoligical heading. Where a pic appears in the middle of a paragraph as has been the case with a number of them, I will generally move them to under the chronological heading. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbolic picture of the Fall of Saigon
I think this the symbolic picture of the fall of Saigon. The current imagine describes the US' activites, not of Vietnam's ones. The current picture is not symbolic because it describes the evacuation of Americans, not the fall of Saigon regime. The new one really described the fall of Saigon regime.



People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam Lieutenant Captain Bùi Quang Thận planted Viet Cong's flag on the roof of the Presidential Palace at 11:30 am on April 30th, 1975 that is the symbol of the war ends an the fall of Saigon regime I think we should change the pictureHonglienhoa (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the Fall of Saigon talk page not here. Don't change the picture until a full discussion has occurred. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Enoura Maru, Brazil Maru
You have blanked the page. If you are right deletion would be better.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct as they are different ships so shouldn't both redirect to Ōryoku Maru. You're probably right that deletion is appropriate but that is more involved. There seem to be some WP:RS for Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru so I'll add some detail to each. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Thượng Đức
Accroding to Vienamese resouces, NVA is the winner

https://www.vietmaz.com/2012/08/the-victory-statue-of-thuong-duc/

http://english.quangnam.gov.vn/CMSPages/BaiViet/Default.aspx?IDBaiViet=3900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonnytaffoc (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page where this was discussed at length. According to Vietnamese sources the NVA and VC were always the winner. Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we shoul set both sides claimed victoryTonnytaffoc (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. If you want to change this you can raise it on the talk page and debate as to why it should be changed rather than edit warring. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS because they match all requirements of WP:RSTonnytaffoc (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No they don't. You are welcome to raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history which is the proper forum for discussing this before you go changing other Vietnam War pages. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Long Binh articles
First of all I applaud your bold edit of removing article content from the Long Binh Ward article to a separate article about Long Binh Post. This makes perfect sense. However, you have changed the citation style used in the Long Binh Jail article. There are several "references" used in your version that are not cited in the article at all. The only correction on the Kelley citation error was a correction of the page number, which I did. I also corrected the spelling of Kolb that was used in on citation. Please consider my citation style I used previously before making changes and discuss. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you regarding Long Binh Post. In relation to Long Binh Jail, as I understand it the inline citation style I used is what should be adopted and it is easier for a reader as a click on the ref number immediately brings him/her to the book, rather than having to look down and find the book in a list. I did not change any "references", simply converted what was already there to the inline style.Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966)
I think VC had a victory because the damage it receiving (28 deaths) is lower than the damage received by US and ARVN (18 deaths and 20 air planes destroyed), 20 air planes destroyed is much higher than 10 manHaohaomyy (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, you should raise this on the Article's Talk page not here. Obviously I completely disagree with you, US/ARVN losses were 6 dead (I don't know where you get 18 dead from) as compared to 28 VC killed and 4 captured. 20 planes were slightly damaged, none of them were destroyed, the After Action Report details exactly the value of damage suffered. The WP:BIASED and non WP:RS Vietnamese sources you used of course claim that 600+ US/ARVN were killed and 260 airplanes destroyed, which is completely ridiculous. As you should have noted from the deletion of Battle of Đồng Dương and Battle of Hà Vy, you need to provide WP:RS, particularly when the casualty numbers are so obviously questionable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to repost Vietnamese propaganda. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mztourist, user "Haohaomyy" (and "Tonnytaffoc" too) was blocked at Vietnamese Wikipedia by me due copyright violation, using multiple accounts for abuse (WP:SOCK), POV issue and other violate around Vietnam War. The sockpuppeter of this account is MiGVN29, who also was blocked on English Wikipedia (Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN). I want to notice your community too. Thank you. -- minhhuy (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * minhhuy thanks for your message, I will take it up on the Administrators noticeboard. I probably should have noticed a similar "perspective" to the comments of Haohaomyy" and "Tonnytaffoc" and I vaguely recall MiGVN29. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Box Scores for VF Squadrons
Hello! Thanks for chipping in your two cents on the Cecil Harris article. I definitely have some more work to do on that, but in the meanwhile with my work schedule it'll be less arduous to do smaller edits to pages with readily-available material, rather than re-writing and revisiting a great number of sources. Do you think it a worthwhile endeavor to add box score information—tonnage sunk, planes destroyed or damaged in the air or on the ground, etc.—to the various squadron pages that make up the network of DANAS pages you've worked on? I have Fold3 access so those figures are readily available. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure if you want to. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Fighter Squadron Lineage Link
Just FYI since I know you worked extensively on the DANAS articles, NHHC's Fighter Squadron Lineage URL changed at some point recently and is bound to be broken on all the squadron pages you've worked on. I don't know if you know how to bot fix it, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention anyway. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, that's irritating. No I don't know how to get a bot to fix it. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive behaviour
See here. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding accusations, disruption of discussion. The thread is Personal attacks and accusations. The discussion is about you preventing a constructive discussion on the Eurofighter talk page and commenting on things other than the discussion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! 2 days on Wikipedia and you've discovered the Admin noticeboard, amazing...Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Had to research it, and I'm sure they can verify this by checking my browsing history on wiki. I have been here much longer than 2 days, but my IP changed recently.  You have also falsely accused another user.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't think so, even your alternative IP 86.129.181.164 has only been active since 8 October 2016. I'm not sure that WP has any ability to track your browsing history. You will of course note that several other uses have already responded to your frivolous Admin noticeboard complaint and yet you still come here to my Talk Page to try to stir the pot. Whether or not I have "falsely accused" Draco2k as being another of your socks Z07x10 is for an Admin to determine. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whereabouts have they responded please. Link?  I do not think it was frivalous.  My problem was not with your SPI, it was with your persistent derailing of the discussion on the talk page.  Had you just raised the SPI and left it at that, I would not have complained.  You understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Z07x10 you have obviously read the comments of 4 other Users in response to your original complaint on the Admin noticeboard as you have responded to one of them. Your persistent arguments here, there and on the Eurofighter Typhoon talk page just further prove your true identity. People have no interest wasting their time arguing with you about climb rate any more than they did about RCS and Max Speed, this is not "derailing discussion" it is simply that we have better things to do than wasting our time arguing over your latest obsession. You were legitimately blocked and now have snuck back in using a sock and unfortunately it takes some time and effort to shut you down again.Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dino nam (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't want to accept that the Viet Minh were defeated during Operation Castor, they were as clearly defeated then as the French were later at Dien Bien Phu. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Report on AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dino nam (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * hahahahahaha Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Operation Castor. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mztourist, an ANI has already been filed about your edit-warring against consensus on this article. If you persist, you will be reported to administrators and very likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Do you not understand what the purposes of an RFC is? Until there is a result, you are the one edit-warring by changing the item that is the subject of the RFC. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And in response to Softlavender's edit warring complaint Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring we were told that "So long as the RfC is still running, clear consensus has not been achieved. The argument about 'current majority' would allow widespread edit warring during most RfCs, which is not a thing we want encourage..." Mztourist (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, an admin may decide to block your account per the WP:AN3 complaint. There may still be time for you to promise to stop editing this article until the RfC concludes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston I have set out my position clearly on the the AN3 page and await the comments of the Admin with interest. I will of course respect the Admin's decision and the outcome of the RFC. I have not editted Operation Castor since the complaint was lodged and do not expect Softlavender to do so either until the AN3 guidance is received or the RFC is closed. regards Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114
I've reverted your edit again. There are no earlier appearances of the name of the airbase in page 289, which is used as a source.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephidim Airbase was the name given by the Israelis to Bir Gifgafa Airfield while they occupied it from 1967-1979. The Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 page already states "that they should follow the F-4s back to Rephidim Air Base." It is therefore confusing for the reader to read the later reference to "the Israeli air base at Bir Gifgafa" which makes it sound like another, different base. Even though the source may state Bir Gifgafa Airfield the page should be written with minimal confusion and duplication of references, hence my change which should be reinstated. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not in agreement with what you stated in your edit summary. The name of the airbase appearing in the article is backed by page 289 of the supporting source and this is in perfect concordance with WP:VERIFY and WP:VNT.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My original edit summary said "used previous name" referring back to the earlier use of Rephidim on the page. My later edit summary said "it is referred to as Rephidim earlier in the page, shouldn't use two different names for the same place". So my detailed explanation above is in accordance with my edit summaries. As you seem very keen on page 289 of the source and various WP, I note that nowhere in the source is it stated that the Israeli jets signalled that the airliner "should follow the F-4s back to Rephidim Air Base". It simply states that the Israeli jets instructed the airliner to land. So we can either make my original change or we delete the earlier reference to Rephidim Air Base altogether. Mztourist (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm keen to any supporting reference. Any material that is not properly backed by a reference should be marked with a citation needed tag and if it stays unsourced for a while then it can be removed.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that by this diff: you have made the change I suggested. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm currently expanding the article using references that were already there. You're welcome to check my contributions and to correct anything you consider necessary.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 17:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Go Dai Massacre Page
Thank you for removing that page for me. Hankyurae had cited numerous suspeicious and dubious accounts including ridiculous claims about bombers and poison gas being used, not to mention that it was strange that the two PF Battalions just watched as a company of Koreans wiped out their own people. Woo1693 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, there are a number of these purported massacres that are based on limited non-WP:RS sources, unfortunately if there is any source, reliable or not, they acquire a life of their own. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam articles
MZ - I think you know a lot about Vietnam. I came across this proposal, and wanted to bring it to your attention, just in case it is of interest to you: Talk:Cao_B%E1%BA%B1ng If not, please just ignore this. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Ap Bau Bang
There is no requirement that sources be in English. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How can that possibly be the case? How are we able to check that a source is reliable or indeed even says what it purports to say if its not written in English? Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you expect to cover all the knowledge in the world if you allow only one language? You say "how are we able", but who is this "we"? People I know on Wikipedia read lots of languages. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why Wikipedia comes in multiple languages. Vietnamese sources on the Vietnam War are generally WP:Propaganda Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. That's not why Wikipedia comes in multiple languages--I don't read Vietnamese, but I still need to be able to read about Vietnames topics. Try and write Elfdalian using only English sources--you can't. You're talking about the language in which articles are written--has nothing to do with languages sources are in. If you only speak/read one language, you're not qualified to judge non-English material, but that doesn't mean you can't play. And that sources may not be reliable is an entirely different discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Its being discussed on RfC.Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

2d Infantry Regiment
Perhaps you would like to explain exactly why you decided to remove the reference to the Battle of Bong Trang and replace it with Operation Amarillo. The intent of the author was to write about one of the first major battles of the 1st Battalion in Vietnam not the operation. If your intent is to cover the entire operation then you have a lot more writing to do and while you are at it you will have to do it for all the other battles and operations mentioned. I am sure that you must have been with the 2d Infantry in Vietnam and want to get your store told but if that's the case I suggest you write a book. As an FYI I did serve with the 2d Infantry in Vietnam and was there when the mentioned battles for both battalions occurred perhaps we would connect and share notes. One more thing, I am the regiments historian, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4303:3D80:F092:A75B:F462:A73A (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As you will see, I am writing pages for each of the Operations and Battles identified in the official US Army history: Stemming the Tide and so yes I am gradually writing "about all the other battles and operations mentioned". Operation Amarillo was the name given to the operation in which the battle of 25 August took place and I wrote a page that covers the entire operation. The US Army history does not refer to the 25 August battle as the Battle of Bong Trang. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to cross-refer to pages and as the 2nd Infantry participated in Operation Amarillo I changed the 2nd Infantry page to reflect this. Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia policies, you do not own the 2nd Infantry Regiment page. I was not in the 2nd Infantry and do not "want to get my story told", I am simply a Vietnam War historian working to record various less well-known battles and operations where the Viet Cong and PAVN were engaged. Mztourist (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I will have to tell my comrades in arms that were in the battle that it's name doesn't mean anything because certain individuals like yourself are of the opinion that it doesn't. Shame on you! I never said I owned the page, don't know where you got that from. Most of the material on the page has been copied from another source and putting little spins doesn't help it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4303:3D80:F092:A75B:F462:A73A (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to provide WP:RS for everything on Wikipedia. This is not a blog for you and your "comrades in arms" Mztourist (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing
I wanted to change the tone of the paragraph on Donlon, the first MofH recipient for Vietnam, but got a bit carried away. Thanks. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Algerian War
Hi Man, this joke is not funny. Can you restore of what was removed from the article and fix the infobox please? I can't do it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Best if you create an account and then express your views on the proposal on the Talk Page. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Second Korean War


A tag has been placed on Second Korean War requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"pure WP:CRYSTAL and subject is best covered at Korean conflict"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Second Korean War for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second Korean War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Second Korean War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I say...
...that you need a refresher course on WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Please read these and conform your editing to them in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I say take it up on the Talk Page where I am preparing an RFC Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

VF-161 victories 18 May 1972
I don't have access to your Stoffey (2008) reference for these victories, but the painted record in the USS Midway hangar deck indicates that VF-161 shot down MiG-19s, not MiG-17s, on 18 May 1972 (img here: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yOus4zDzJaw/V4xxFPDjZ9I/AAAAAAAA0KM/T8z6ObaDV1UDKRLES8Z3mS7ELKr-ZGBHgCLcB/s1600/DSCN8996.JPG). The same is reported at http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/shootdowns.html. Bobby Longpocket (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we tried
If User:Fustos wants to continue disrupting the project with problem edits, edit-warring, violating policies & guidelines, insulting people and kicking editors off his talk page when they are trying to help him and discuss issues, (as is required), then he'll likely find himself blocked, sooner than later. He doesn't seem to get how things work here (and he quickly forgot that I was the one that welcomed him here to the project in the first place with a 'welcome' template on his talk page that was full of helpful info that he obviously hasn't read). At this point, all we can try to do is attempt to discuss his edits on the various involved article talk pages (he can't kick us off those), and hopefully he'll follow the rules here and be more cooperative and discuss edits, instead of edit-warring and refusing to engage. Cheers - the WOLF  child  11:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I rather doubt that he/she will change approach. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

fyi
Just a 'heads-up', but once he says you're not welcome on his talk page, you can longer post comments there. No matter how benign or well-intended, it's not allowed. You're better off posting on a related article talk page, or even your own talk page, and pinging him. You should probably remove your comment, don't give him ammo, or yourself rope. However, an exception to this is posting notices for things like AN/I, 3RRNB, warning & notice templates, etc. I know you're trying to help, but some people can't be helped. Cheers - the WOLF  child  18:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, whatever. I'm not removing my comments, he/she's been warned. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AN\I
User:Fustos is clearly an uncooperative and uncommunicative user who causes more disruption than benefit to this project. If you want to start an AN/I seeking administrative review of his behavior, and perhaps have him blocked, or sanctioned, or both, you have my support. Start putting together diffs to make your case and let me know when you're ready, and I'll contribute as well. He's not here to build an encyclopaedia, he's here to decorate his favorite pages. The rudeness and belligerence has gone on long enough, so it's to put an end to this nonsense. Lemme know... - the WOLF  child  03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Naval Air Museum Page
I just responded to your unanswered 2016 comment about the chaotic list of aircraft at the museum. Just wanted to add that I would be willing to help you fix it. Busaccsb (talk)

FYI
Thought you might find this useful. Cheers - the WOLF  child  22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I like to keep it all here. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam War edits
You have created a page for "John Laurence" on Wikipedia. I have corrected a number of errors and inaccurate descriptions that you have repeatedly deleted. For example, you wrote "A Sau" to describe the A Shau Valley where several battles were fought between US forces and the North Vietnamese Army in 1967-68. I am a member of Mr. Laurence's family and can verify with him the accuracy of the edits I have made. You seem determined to disparage his work and good character for no apparent reason other than what seems to be your personal bias. Onward&#38;Upward (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what relationship you claim with John Laurence, you need to provide reliable sources (WP:RS) for every change that you make here on Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia it is called the Battle of A Sau, not the Battle of A Shau. There is no attempt by me to "disparage his work and good character", rather I have taken the time to write this page based on his book, you are the one who is showing "personal bias" in making changes that are not supported by WP:RS or which you otherwise don't like, such as deleting the reference to marijuana use at Frankie's House. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From an 850 page book that you may have read quickly, you chose two episodes--both negative--to illustrate your new page about the author, John Laurence. One is your personal description that "large quantities of marijuana" were consumed by him at Frankie's House, and the other is about what you describe as "outrage" over a broadcast interview with a Marine helicopter squadron commander about shooting South Vietnamese troops. Should we not conclude from this that you are biased against the author? When it comes to the editing of the page on "John Laurence," you posted recently, you act like a Wikipedia tyrant. Are you familiar with the Wiki Guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomersOnward&#38;Upward (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I read Laurence's book and was sufficiently interested by it that I decided to write a page about him. You are the one who clearly reads too quickly and ignores Wikipedia policies. I never said that large quantities of marijuana were consumed by Laurence at Frankie's House, I wrote that large quantities of marijuana were smoked at Frankie's House and gave you specific references from The Cat from Hue and Page after Page that backed this up. There can be no dispute that the story of shooting South Vietnamese troops during the evacuation from A Sau caused outrage, Shulimson who authored the Marines official history explicitly says so, as does Laurence. You clearly are trying to sanitise the page based on your purported family relationship with Laurence, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, we adopt a neutral point of view, NPOV, which you are clearly incapable of doing and you then accuse me of having limited knowledge of the Vietnam War, reading too quickly etc etc. If you believe that my edits are unreasonable then the Wikipedia policy is not to edit war with me but rather to raise this on one of the dispute resolutions forums and not keep badgering me on my Talk page. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

John_Laurence edit war
So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away. Judging from your posts in previous edit wars, you are highly arrogant and disputatious. You are also right wing, politically. You appear to be an amateur military historian who has created a new short biography of John Laurence, the former television correspondent for CBS News, ABC News, PBS and several publications including Esquire Magazine, the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review and others. Mr. Laurence has long been regarded by most of his colleagues as "the best television correspondent of the Vietnam War."[1] His coverage of the war received every award for broadcast journalism, and also the George Polk Memorial Award (1970) of the Overseas Press Club of America for "best reporting in any medium requiring exceptional courage and enterprise abroad."[2] You based the bulk of your information on references from Laurence's prize-winning memoir of the Vietnam War, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story" (2002) which is 864 pages in length. From that comprehensive history of Mr. Laurence's reporting of the war, you chose only two anecdotes (out of scores covered in the book) to include on the new page: a report on the killing of allied soldiers by U.S. Marines during a battle in the A Shau Valley (1966) and the recreational use of marijuana by Mr. Laurence and a few of his young colleagues in Saigon (1965-66). You seem to apologize for the Marines for shooting their allies by your choice of language. They "had to" kill them, you wrote. You also characterized the report on the killings as having caused "outrage" when it was broadcast without specifying that the only outrage was in hierarchy of the U.S. military. When I deleted the word "outrage," you left it for a few edits and then, days later, put it back in. The Saigon social gatherings you described as having consumed "large quantities of marijuana" to give the impression that Mr. Laurence was a drug addict, which he was not. Both references seem to me to be an attempt to denigrate the reputation of Mr. Laurence, who is still alive, and, by extention, his book. Every major U.S. newspaper that reviewed the book gave it highly favorable marks.[3] Attempts to edit out those references have met with anger and hostility here on your talk page, and continued accusations of my alleged attempts to "sanitise" the history. You use references whose emphasis on "outrage" and marijuana use are, in my opinion, open to debate. Nowhere in his book does Mr. Laurence use the terms "outrage" to apply to the reaction to the allies being killed story, or "large quantities of marijuana" being consumed in Saigon. In your choice of language and editing, you appear to be an apologist for the military--a pro-military writer and interpreter of military events--in short, a hawk. While I have been reading Wikileaks since 2008, I am new to editing at this level. I am trying to learn the intricacies of referencing and editing correctly and in doing so have made many mistakes. It is not easy to learn. To these, you have responded with impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults. It has become now what might be considered an "edit war." I wish to end it. I have been adding, bit by bit, more relevant information about Mr. Laurence to the new page in an effort to provide a better history of his professional life. The fact that I am a relative does not make me biased or partial. Have you not known families that did not get along? But you have been hostile to much of this. You act like a tyrant, with no sympathy for a newcomer to editing on Wikipedia or another point of view about Mr. Laurence's reporting of the Vietnam War. To suggest, as you do in your post to me about there being a difference between Wikipedia and Wikileaks, shows that your sarcasm knows no limits. Onward&#38;Upward (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Replying to Administrators' noticeboard/incident post
Onward&Upward has replied to your complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard/incident page. Onward&#38;Upward (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: due to conflict of interest, Onward&Upward was given a final warning not to edit the John Laurence page or face a block
 * I hope you will resume editing John Lawrence. You were doing a good job. I didn't see any " character assassination" in your version. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger <sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!  01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/Onward&Upward

Silver Star - The Hill Fights
Are you going to delete the references to awards of the Silver Star at the Battle of Ia Drang article too? - glasperlenspiel (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but I won't allow them to be added to other pages that I watch either. A belated award of a Silver Star just isn't notable. If Sauer had been awarded the Medal of Honor, or perhaps the Navy Cross, it would be different. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

612th Tactical Fighter Squadron
I note that you edited 612th Tactical Fighter Squadron to change Biggs Air Force Base to Biggs Air Force Base. I believe the original form is preferred, see WP:Redirect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the page before I made that change, the Wikilink led nowhere. I created the Biggs Army Airfield page in January 2018. I assume that the previous page was "presumptively deleted" as part of the Bwmoll3 CCI. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I "presume" so. I have recreated Biggs Air Force Base and Biggs Field as redirects.  If you edit the article, you should be aware that Biggs Field, like Bolling Field, moved.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks! Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)