User talk:Mztourist/Archive 3

Articles to Afd
Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028

Why are you sending all my articles to Afd. You know it is disruptive.  scope_creep Talk  07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:scope_creep, I am not sending all your articles to AFD. After reading Ferdinand Feichtner, I read further on German cryptanalysis and identified another 6 pages that I don't believe satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER and so listed them. Nothing disruptive about it.Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Without discussion. I think it will need to have a look through your articles.  scope_creep Talk  07:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:scope_creep, that would be WP:REVENGE. I would note from looking at your Talk Page that several pages that you have worked on have been declined for lack of notability Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, all the stuff on my talk page, if you spent more than cursory second examining them are rejections from NPP queue that were moved into Afc draft to be check as they were non-notable. Non of them are my articles. I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family.  scope_creep Talk  07:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:scope_creep if you decide to go down that route these comments will be used against you. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough. We could discussed and then you could posted them, but your nasty roundabout ways are the limit for me. Two of these articles took more than two years worth of work to put together from research in various places including conversations with several German universities.  scope_creep Talk  07:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly due to you writing about American subject and have no clue about European subjects.  scope_creep Talk  07:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If they don't meet WP:GNG they don't belong here, those are the rules and you have been on WP long enough to know them.

Hi Mztourist, I wanted to clarify that my post(s) at ANI are not to accuse of bad faith in any way, but to highlight the unintended consequences of batch-noms at AfD. Technical articles like these are not obvious GNGs but require time and effort searching in odd places (books, databases etc.) to resolve one way or another. AfD can materially improve such technical articles that will rarely be touched otherwise, and/or decisively resolve whether they should be in WP.

However, a problem with batch-noms of such technical BLPs, is that there is a limited capacity for editor involvement in them at AfD. The Delete !votes can come quickly on a BLP with no obvious refs on a normal/standard search, and this is when the article creator's stress levels can rise exponentially (they feel overwhelmed and even victimised). As I alluded to at the ANI, one of our more valuable editors,, packed it in last week in such a scenario. While I think some of these noms are potential Keeps, my issue was not that they could not individually be nom'ed to AfD, they most definitely could. I just wanted to clarify this to you, and note your great work on the project. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Britishfinance thank you for your message. The reason why I put them up for AFD simultaneously was because they were all bios of German WWII cryptologists that I felt lacked notability, that the relevant assessment criteria would be GNG and SOLDIER and all could be addressed simultaneously because the same assessment would generally apply to all of them. In relation to your comment that AFD doesn't allow for much editor involvement I don't agree as I think that the article creator and other interested parties have an adequate opportunity to present their case. I don't regard tagging an article as an effective means of soliciting comments as tagging usually attracts only a very limited response. Nevertheless in future I intend to first tag a page for notability and then if the issue isn't addressed with a week or so I will then proceed to AFD. FYI this is the approach I have adopted with Johann Friedrich Schultze (mathematician), the last bio of a German WWII cryptologist that I feel lacks notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GANs
Hi Mztourist.
 * 1) Apologies again for taking so long to get through Battle of Huế's GAN. It turned out to need more work than I had anticipated, but mostly it was me not getting my act together.
 * 2) I am glad that you like the result and consider that the process has improved the article - which is, after all, what it is about.
 * 3) I don't know how the experience of the last two GAN's was for you, especially given your oft-expressed antipathy to the process. If you were happy with it - and I am certainly open to suggestions for tweaks to make it smoother - then I would be happy to work through your considerable back catalogue of high-quality articles looking to turn many of them into GAs. Say at one a month or so?
 * 4) I know that I originally said that Mayaguez incident was ready for a GAN; but, every time I reread it I think that it has too much detail and so doesn't meet 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." We could work on that, but I foresee us both being dissatisfied, and it may be easier for you to withdraw that nomination and select another for your next GAN?

Regards

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gog thanks for your message and for taking the time to do the recent GA reviews, both pages are improved as a result. Obviously I don't agree that Mayaguez incident goes into unnecessary detail and so agree that its better for you not to do the GA review, however I would like it to remain a GAN and see if someone else picks it up. In terms of future GANs I'm open to the idea, but no pages particularly come to mind as they're often deficient in terms of photos and/or RS. I'll take a look back through and see if any seem suitable or if there are any that you identify then I'm happy to look into them. Thanks and best regards Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Re Mayaguez, I didn't think that you would. Yeah, another reviewer may well have a different view. Unfortunately, I have already opened the review in my name, so I have tweaked the talk page to reopen it for another reviewer to pick up.
 * If you have an article which you feel is GA standard bar a lack of images I would be happy to work with you pre- and/or post-GAN to see if we could resolve that.
 * Without really trying I found several possibles. Battle of Kham Duc looks nearly there; maybe a bit of trimming, but on a skim nearly GA class. Or Operation Lancaster II? Or Operation Pipestone Canyon?
 * Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Gog. Battle of Kham Duc is already a GA. I don't think Operation Lancaster II meets GA because its largely single sourced, however Operation Pipestone Canyon may be suitable. Some other possibilities are: Operation Starlite, Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy and Battle of Xuân Lộc. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. Good points. Re the other five, yep; they all look GANable on a quick skim. (Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy: I have doubts over cites 5-9 being RS.) If you wanted to post one of Operation Starlite, Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base or Battle of Xuân Lộc and ping me, I would be happy to pick it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog, I've deleted cites 5-9 from Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy (they predated some later RS). Let's start with that one.Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the quick and painless GA review of Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, do you feel like staying in Saigon and looking at Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base next? I've just expanded the background and just need to add a few refs. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Nominate it and ping me and I'll reserve it, although it is likely to be a few days before I can do substantial work on it. Gog the Mild (talk)
 * nominated thanks. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI
Hi, I've noticed a couple of your SPI reports where you've notified the users concerned "I have opened an SPI here..." with no explanation of what an SPI might be, its significance, or how to respond. The template messages Socksuspectnotice or uw-socksuspect do a lot of the heavy lift for you, and using Twinkle saves you even more work while ensuring all the options are considered.

In cases which lack evidence, the less confrontational template uw-agf-sock can be surprisingly effective in getting the user to mend their ways or, counter-intuitively, to generate more conclusive evidence. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks I will use those in future. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

South Vietnam lead changes
It is not a big change. Just technical literature edits. No content change at all. Just shortening the information to make it neat. No one yet talk about the issue in the talk page. I cannot discuss with ghosts. You seems like the only one, what do you not agree at?Twainkinky (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Twainkinky is a sock puppet of User:Albertpda and it has been blocked indefinitely.

Your GA nomination of Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base
The article Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Starlite
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Starlite you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayaguez incident
The article Mayaguez incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mayaguez incident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Starlite
The article Operation Starlite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Starlite for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Xuân Lộc
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Xuân Lộc you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21talk 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036 and User talk:El C

Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Courtesy note
Hi - I'm just dropping you a note to inform you that I have accepted an unblock request on behalf of, who has agreed to accept a one-way IBAN with yourself. This should have no implications for you, I'm just letting you know that this has happened. Let me know if you have any questions. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Girth Summit, noted, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Phoenix Program
You appear to being deliberately disruptive to good faith editing on the article about the US Phoenix Program. You stated that there was no reliable sources for war crimes being committed during the program which had well documented cases of assassinations, massacres and torture as a normal part of the program, then when sources that specifically mention those assassinations, massacres and torture as war crimes, in reference to the Phoeonix program were provided you still reverted the edit. Your contributions to Wikipedia appear to largely consist of deleting articles and passages that accuse the USA of war crimes in Vietnam, often when those articles appear to have sources that back up their assertions. If you continue to delete the editing I made to the Phoenix Program and refuse to discuss it in detail on the talk page, I'll have to look into how I can find ways to have this arbitrated, but a quick cursory search of Wikipedia policies shows that you're already in breach by Removal of sourced edits in a neutral narrative and Crusading against a specific POV. Please consider holding off on editing this article until you have provided sources that back up your assertions that "assassinations, massacres and torture" are not war crimes.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the Talk page and don't come here to casting aspersions. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in my belief entirely appropriate for me to inform you here that I believe that your editing was against various Wikipedia policies, as you didn't show any interest in starting a talk page discussion for your edit warring, and gave incorrect justifications in your edit summaries.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your belief is incorrect, just like your view that WP:BRD doesn't apply to you. I am discussing the issues on the Talk Page and you are coming here to cast aspersions at me to cover up for your unwillingness to follow procedure. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User:Senor_Freebie_won't_follow_WP:BRD_and_consensus_and_is_making_false_accusations

Pakistani involvement in the Seige of Makkah
I have added citations and RS for pakistani involvement

Thanks
 * Discuss on the article Talk Page not here as the sources you have provided do not appear to be WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Senor Freebie
I appreciate the support for my action, but it might be better if you stay away from his talk page for now, see if he appeals the block, and leave it to others to deal with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as he seems determined to smear me on his Talk Page, I felt I should give a short response, but will not engage any further. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyone who reads that talk page can see his comments for what they are, and any admin who reviews the situation will take it all into account. Neither you nor I commenting there further is likely to defuse the situation, and I don't intend to say anything further myself unless absolutely necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just came to say the same thing to Mztourist, but as SF was continuing the personal attacks on his talk page, I've blocked him from editing that as well. I doubt that he has any intention of appealing because he knows it would boomerang. Deb (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for John A. Heintges
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2403 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda Arendt that is much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Messages
Thank you for your comments. I have no interest in your opinion. Your comments with your first delete on Con Thien were outright ignorant. My opinion is, some of what you do borders on vandalism. Removing Pappy Boyington as trivia from the Turtle  Bay Airfield article is an example, but I do not go on Wikipedia  for this Facebook drama you have put on my page or the snide comments you leave with your edits. So, it would be best if you left your comments off my page and I will  return  the consideration. Mcb133aco (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)mcb133aco Mcb133aco (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcb133aco there are community rules/policies that you must follow on WP, if you refuse to comply with them then there are repercussions and I will escalate these issues if you continue as you have been doing. I am obliged to warn you, which I have done.Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The refs you had a problem with at Turtle Bay I didn't do and you posted your attitude on my page concerning them.  You are quite  correct Wikipedia expects good faith Mcb133aco (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcb133aco your ref to the Navy website was incomplete and in the time I have seen you on WP you have made no effort to comply with WP rules and policies which is why I pointed you to WP:COMPETENCE. It seems that you just want to add the Seebees wherever you can and leave the tidying up to everyone else. Mztourist (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

1967 in the Vietnam War Comment

 * Thanks, that's much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

of 1967 in the Vietnam War resulted in table displaying on top of the references. I strongly urge you to fix this before you do anything else to the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving the table to a better place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Phoenix Program
I notice that an anon has been removing content from the article. Please don't replace it until I've had time to launch a sockpuppet investigation. Deb (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * noted thanks. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Senor Freebie

Not Kauffner
Thank you for your comment on continued full use of full font on Vietnamese names. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of massacres in Vietnam/Section: South Vietnam Army/Your hint
Hi Mztourist,

It is about the contribution of : Hoatdongtrithuc (talk • contribs). He/She asserts "There are many South Vietnam Army's massacres but there is no information about them in this article".

I think as follows: In case of existence of massacres committed by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (aka ARVN), following sources mustbe available: - Military information from South Vietnam. Since the fall of Saigon in 1975 this information should be kept by the current political system in Vietnam (2020).

- The american allies of South Vietnam should know about everything regarding the military actions of ARVN. If these claimed massacres really exist, so the american allies should know that and these massacres will be listed for example in the List of massacres in Vietnam from Wikipedia. I don´t think, the american allies should hold back this information.

- In case of the existence of the claimed massacres, the current political system in Vietnam (2020) will do, I repeat, will do all necessary propanganda steps for propagating the "atrocities" of ARVN. But the "atrocities" are never spread, made public, neither in Vietnam nor in the world.

Summarized: We should recognize, that there are no massacres comitted by ARVN on old fellow countrymen. Any doubt about this fact should be considered as conspiracy. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Beautiful Bavaria that comment is about 1.5 years old. The position hasn't changed. If someone can provide reliably sourced information it can be included, if not then it can't. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing with In ictu oculi
Hi there. I noticed that you selectively engaged In ictu oculi asking for their reply at Talk:Nguyen Van Thieu. While curtesy pinging editors involved in similar discussions or the general editorial state of an article is an important and necessary part of garnishing an informed and relevant consensus, canvassing replies from particular editors based on their history of !voting, as it appears you have done here, is detrimental. In the future, please make sure to engage all involved, regardless on which side they sit. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsPugle In ictu oculi commented at Talk:Võ Nguyên Giáp, but as you didn't bother linking your proposed mass move on Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu on the Talk:Võ Nguyên Giáp page In ictu oculi may have been unaware of the mass move and so I informed them of it. If I wanted to canvass I wouldn't do it so transparently. Mztourist (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsPugle its also a bit rich accusing me of canvassing when here: you pinged only Users who supported your position on another discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I pinged all the other editors from the other discussion that you failed to notify. You'll also notice that I pinged the only active significant editor of the article. Also, saying that what you did wasn't canvassing because says a lot. You pinging only In ictu oculi is literally the definition of canvassing - why didn't you ping the others (like I ended up doing)? ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, what exactly was your intention with (973936473)? I'm not sure if you're taking after In ictu oculi, but if you think I'm somehow participating in a race-based 'attack' on Vietnamese names, report me to the ANI or send me a message, don't send baseless attacks on article pages. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsPugle firstly I wasn't even aware of the discussion on Viet Minh, so how could I have notified other Users? The intention of my comment "ItsPugle are there any other Vietnamese name moves you have proposed that we should all be aware of" is to ensure that you disclose all pages where you are proposing such moves rather than leaving interested Users to try to find them for themselves which is effectively votestacking.Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just find it hard to believe you just randomly found In ictu oculi and decided to invite them to a discussion and they just happened to !vote in the same way you do. I also hope that you would assume good faith that I would have pinged all other editors (like I did) in any other related discussion. Even if I didn't, there's no policy that compels me to "disclose" any RMs I've put forward, and sure as hell, a RM isn't the best page to. And exactly how is it votestacking for me to ping all other editors who weren't already involved from related discussions? ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 04:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to randomly find In ictu oculi, as I said above they "commented at Talk:Võ Nguyên Giáp, but as you didn't bother linking your proposed mass move on Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu on the Talk:Võ Nguyên Giáp page In ictu oculi may have been unaware of the mass move and so I informed them of it." Its votestacking because the Users you pinged supported your position on Viet Minh, i.e. exactly what you accused me of doing with In ictu oculi. As can be seen on the discussions, other Users also oppose your proposed move which is clearly why you feel the need to WP:BLUDGEON everyone who disagrees with you and accuse me of canvassing. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, what I gather is that you basically decided to notify just one editor from that discussion by going to their talk page, instead of pinging them on the new discussion or leaving a comment like you did here - how is that not canvassing? And I'm not sure if you noticd, but the reason why every person I pinged may have supported the move was because every single editor (other than you and In ictu oculi) supported the move. And I accuse you of canvassing because all the evidence points to the fact that you did, not because I'm 'retaliating' or something like what you suggest. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 10:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I notified one User, you pinged three, if you want to accuse people of canvassing look at your own actions. I wasn't even aware of the discussion on Viet Minh but obviously would have opposed it. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. 23 August 2020

Please review your edits
Would you go back and review your several edits to Battle of the Bowling Alley, as at least once you changed "South Korean" to "KPA", and there may be more? Shenme (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Shenme congratulations, I made one mistake. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Late apology
Hello Mztourist, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted thanks. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relocating a response
Hello MzT. You may or may not have seen this response to your inquiry on the talk page already, but I decided the comments ran a little long in that space for what was really an idiosyncratic response to your query: I tried to enclose them in a hat/hab box, but for some bizarre technically reason I could not puzzle out, the template was glitching and collecting the entirety of the following threads, down to the bottom of the page, within it. So I decided to relocate the post here, insofar as it is mostly a response to you on your question of how to handle this situation procedurally, and thus not essential to over-arching discussion. I hope you don't mind:


 * I would just point out that WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy, and it therefore has no relevance as evidence of community consensus for abrogating our normal WP:Notability and WP:V standards. Beyond pointing that fact out, I'm not sure what more you can do; if a given editor doesn't understand that basic distinction with regard to our notability standards, I don't know that a more nuanced argument is going to sway them, but you can at least in such circumstances point out the nature of WP:SOLDIER's status as an essay so that anyone else responding to the discussion is not mislead by reading the advice in a hurry and missing this critical factor and mistaking it for an actual SNG.


 * It's your call of course on how far you want to push the discussion on the CONLEVEL issues here in any given AfD discussion, but in any event, I don't see any resolution to this RfC that is going to result in new policy language that will be useful to you, particularly as you are not looking to promote the essay to an SNG. There is the fact your read on the situation seems to have gained a small consensus above: I'm not sure how many of those !votes come from regulars of this project and how many are, like many, bot-summoned respondents of the RfC--from the looks of things it is a mix--but possibly the closer of this discussion (or a successor thread if you go that way) will make an observation that there is local consensus that the essay should not have the flag officers are presumptively notable language, and that it should be removed. Even if that doesn't happen, you could always raise the issue at WP:VPP if you think there is a problematic tendency to treat the essay as an excuse to ignore actual policy: were we having this conversation a couple of weeks ago before you started this RfC, I might have suggested you start there.


 * If, in the unlikely event that consensus shifts against you here, and the trend of editors quoting the essay like a policy continues, that avenue remains technically open to you, but I should warn you that some may suggest you a forum shopping at that juncture. Personally, I don't think that would be a fair interpretation of the situation: the question of how the essay reads as addressed here is discrete from the question of whether any essay can be treated as an SNG without going through the WP:PROPOSAL process and being vetted by the larger community, and as I said above, no local discussion here can bootstrap the essay into defacto guideline status without that process, and that is an important policy point regardless of a previous discussion. Nevertheless, fair or not, it's an accusation you might face if you had to raise the issue again so soon after this thread.


 * Fortunately for your position, your opinion is carrying the day with !votes so far (unsurprisingly in that the policies involved here involve some of our most basic and fundamental points of community consensus). One thing you might consider doing is making sure to request a formal close by an admin at WP:AN, once the RfC has run the standard 30 days. This will increase the odds of getting a truly neutral, comprehensive and useful closing statement with regard to each point. Since neither you not anyone else is presently suggesting to promote the essay to a policy at this time, there might not be a need for a shift of venue after-all, but I still think it was a mistake to have raised the question of the SNG status of the advice as a subpart of the discussion: that was never something that was within the purview of this project to decide without a WP:PROPOSAL, and asking it here has only needlessly enlarged and complicated the discussion. However, the respondents thus far have the right end of the stick insofar as policy is concerned: even those who would like to see the the essay promoted--and I think maybe it should be, when the time is right--are experienced enough to recognize that it hasn't met the requirements as yet. So it should hopefully all work out.

Snow let's rap 07:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Snow Rise for your valuable input. I'm concerned however that the discussion of change of forum etc. may have led to a loss of impetus in the discussion and that perhaps I should start a new shorter RFC to ensure that more comments are received rather than criticisms of the location or framing of the existing RFC. The problem is what should that RFC say? Certain Users say that WP:SOLDIER works perfectly well, but they ignore the fact that articles are being retained which lack SIGCOV in multiple RS and that is what really needs to be reiterated. Perhaps the RFC should be: "That #2 of SOLDIER is amended to note that just achieving flag, general or air officer rank does not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Insofar as you were advised by multiple editors to reconstitute the discussion in a simpler format, I think you are probably are on safe ground to do so, particularly if you plan to host the new RfC in the same space and intend to ping back the previous respondents. I can't promise no one will cry foul, but most of the responses thus far have converged on the same perspectives, so I hope that doing so will not create any headaches/accusations of bad-faith efforts for you.


 * As to what to place in a new discussion, I will start with what should be avoided: don't even raise the question of whether or not the essay is "effectively an SNG": it simply isn't until it goes through a WP:PROPOSAL process, and no amount of discussion there can override that most basic principle of community consensus (that is to say, the policy that defines how we make policies on this project). I appreciate that you may have added it in the first instance as a kind of rhetorical device to force regulars of that particular project to recognize that it is not a policy and that it is problematic to treat it as one, but I don't think it is likely to have that effect, and, in any event, is needlessly confusing the discussion--and indeed played a significant role in creating the ancillary debate about venue, since the process of determining if an essay should become a guideline is a matter of broad community input.


 * Instead, I would focus on the other nexus of the discussion, trying to adjust or eliminate the phrasing of point #2 in the essay. Unless I misread the foregoing !votes, I think you are getting support for the argument that this presumption is probably (at a minimum) overbroad, and is not yet supported by a strong showing of evidence that all members of the class covered by that language are likely to have in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The responses are somewhat mixed, but if you ping back everyone who has already participated and reset the RfC timer via the new discussion tag, I think you stand a decent chance of getting a consensus on this matter.  I would add, however, that Peacemaker's caveat is very important in regard to how you phrase this, the second time around: it's not a question of "inherent notability" but rather whether the argument for "presumed notability" (as discussed at WP:SNG) is a reasonable one--so I would frame the question accordingly.  And you can do away with point #3 altogether, insofar as it is just a synthesis of how the previous two points play out when interacting with standard policy and process.  Get a consensus for eliminating or appropriately altering the flag officer provision of the essay, and you will have achieved your objective through a much more streamlined process.


 * So, in short (if I can say as much: I am not exactly succeeding at brevity today), open the new RfC with the very simple prompt of Should WP:SOLDIER include a presumption that individual soldiers have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources if said individual "held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents", as is currently found in the WP:Essay?, or something to that effect. Provided you respect WP:RFCNEUTRAL it's also permissible to include some additional contextual discussion of the relevant policies in this area, of course, to explain how this all shakes out and how this discussion arises, for the benefit of bot-summoned respondents, but I think I would argue against it in this instance: keep the prompt relatively simple and the rest can be handled in the further discussion. At most, I would add some commentary that similar presumptions are sometimes allowed in formal notability guidelines as per WP:SNG, but only where the presumption is well-reasoned and -evidenced. And even that I think I would save for your own !vote (which you can pre-format and place immediately below the prompt in the same edit). Sno</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 09:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Snow Rise, my concern is that that formulation would be seen by some Users as attempting to remove #2 from WP:SOLDIER which isn't my intention and is likely to arouse strong opposition. I'm fine with #2 of SOLDIER as it stands, my problem is how it is being misrepresented as a rule and misapplied with pages created for people who lack SIGCOV in multiple RS. I'm more inclined towards Should #2 of WP:SOLDIER be amended to note that simply achieving flag, general or air officer rank, or their historical equivalents does not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article? regards Mztourist (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no real distinction between those two proposed changes, except one leads to clearer wording that doesn't have any ambiguity with regards to the change. Currently the essay includes language saying there should be a presumption of notability for anybody who achieves such a rank. What you are proposing is that the policy should continue to do that, but then immediately in the same breath say that there is no such presumption and that GNG needs to be followed in such instances. That does not make a whole lot of sense to me and I doubt that kind of change is likely to be endorsed; in fact, you might lose some respondents who would otherwise agree with your stance that the presumption is unsound and/or unproven as-et, simply because of the convoluted and self-contradictory approach of putting those two statements next to eachother.


 * Put otherwise, if your objection really is to the SNG-immitating work-around presumption here, you might as well own that and take your chances at getting a consensus (which I think stand a decent chance of doing with an RfC, regardless of some degree of resistance at the project). Otherwise, you're just better off making the SIGCOV argument on an ad-hoc basis in individual AfDs. Which, honestly, may be your best option here regardless, but if you're determined to have an RfC on the matter, it should cut to the most express route of bringing the essay in line with existing policy: remove the policy-inconsistent wording, rather than retaining it and then adding extra language that contradicts it. But it's your show at the end of the day, so you can go with whatever you think is best. But I can tell you as one bot-summoned respondent to the initial discussion, I would support removing that language but would not support retaining it while adding what you propose, as it leads to a problematically confusing pastiche of statements that essentially form an oxymoron. And I don't think I would be the only one to express that view.


 * Regardless, I would definitely drop the last sentence from the prompt and save it for your !vote. While it is a plain statement of policy that you are quite correct about, here is is functioning as the core of your argument and placing it at the end there in that fashion is likely to be seen as an attempt to prejudice the party reading it towards your take on the issue. It's a good basis for your argument and an objective fact that accurately describes community consensus on the matter, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the prompt, and, as I read it, it runs against the grain of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If you do include it, I would soften the argumentative tone by moving it to beginning and altering the presentation to "Given the requirement of SIGCOV that the subject of an article must have in-depth coverage in WP:Reliable sources, should..." but even that skirts the line a bit. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 10:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User talk:Snow Rise, I note your comments and see the contradiction, however deleting #2 from WP:SOLDIER will meet strong opposition and I'm afraid won't gain consensus. In relation to making the SIGCOV argument on an ad-hoc basis in individual AfDs I have been doing that for months now, but one user in particular claims that SOLDIER is effectively an SNG and that consensus is that generals don't get deleted regardless of coverage, which usually gains support from Users who see just meeting #2 as a Keep and so some truly non-notable generals have been passed as Keep or No Consensus. I'll give it all some more thought. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (2nd nomination)

Orbat AFDs
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049

Pretty Nose
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 14

i don't understand why
I must remove my comment but I did to avoid so much argument. Please reply here not on my talk page. BlueD954 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BlueD954 because otherwise I could write a Comment that I agree with Fram, Fram and PMC could write comments that they agree with me, all of which serves no purpose other than to clutter the page and muddy the arguments. You have made your Keep argument, unless you have anything more to add or a point that you are querying you shouldn't be making comments that merely endorse someone you agree with. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it but the way you wrote it was threatening. But I will not pursue it further. BlueD954 (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing threatening about it: [] Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Command Post Tango
Please stop before you both get reported to EWN. Thanks Adakiko (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Adakiko tell that to user *ss who keeps deleting coordinates claiming they're protecting South Korean security. Mztourist (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's wp:vandalism then report to AIN, but I think it probably falls under a dispute. Don't get yourself blocked. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't get blocked. I've been on WP for many years now unlike *ss and you. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon what personal attack? Mztourist (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Its obvious who is being two-faced here" posted at 04:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC) on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Diff.
 * Please note that I also warned the editor you were fighting with, who also engaged in personal attacks. Wikipedia's WP:NPA has no "but he did it first!" exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon I don't see how my simple rebuttal of a personal attack on me using the same term amounts to a personal attack by me. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * [Self reverted]
 * And I really don't care for your mischaracterization of my comments, nor for your thinly veiled insult regarding the meaning of rebuttal. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, that was a personal attack, plain and simple. There is no point in arguing otherwise. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And what brought you here User:Drmies? Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Recent changes. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Recent changes to what? My Talk Page? Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Help:Recent changes, where I saw this edit go by, which looked like the thing of thing an admin should be interested in. Plus, your name: years ago I dated a woman who rode an MZ 125, or maybe a 250. I don't know why I would be watching your talk page specifically; I don't watch anything specifically except for articles I have worked on. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * [Self reverted]
 * Drmies would you care to comment on this juvenile behaviour by Guy Macon? Mztourist (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

[Self reverted]
 * User:Guy Macon, please. Not helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't really know much about the situation nor do I care. But the limited amount of interactions I've had, this user seems to reply in a very abrasive way half the time and is very defensive about edits he made. Seems to take things very personally which I find odd. But then again the internet seems to invite argument rather than reconciliation and wikipedia is prone to arguments it seems. Easier if you just let go of this and not think about it. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IP 216.209.50.103 there is a very clear policy WP:BRD which you choose not to follow. If you disagree with something you discuss it on the article Talk Page, I have made this point to you repeatedly on Sơn Trà Mountain. Or is that you User:A bicyclette? Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Siege of Cardiff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff 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/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Edouard2 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Yeosu
Hello Thank you for that; I do know how to do them, though; what I was looking for was some opinion on whether it was a good idea or not. I’ve posted again at MILHIST and will I'll see what other feedback there is before doing the other three. Thanks again, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

reverted
My edits are not a violation of policies or guidelines. It need admin's help. It is unnecessary because there are no coordinates on pages in the same field. Read the comments I left at my talkpage or WP:ANI and discuss again about this dispute. If you keep doing this, you will be penalized. Goondae (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:& You have to follow BRD and discuss on the article Talk Page, if consensus cannot be reached the issue can be elevated to the appropriate forum, in the meantime stop edit-warring this. I am again reverting your changes. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Just deleting coordinates is no any problem. The other military pages don't have coordinates, but why you causing trouble because detailed location or coordinates only at 7th Infantry Division (South Korea), 3rd Infantry Division (South Korea), Capital Mechanized Infantry Division, Busan Naval Base, and Command Post Tango? It was the user who inserted the coordinates that caused the problem in the first place. So there is no need to display coordinares at all. If this is not the case, is there any other reason? Goondae (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Numerous other military pages have coordinates. The reason that you give for deletion, South Korean security laws, is not a valid reason for deleting anything on Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You know something wrong. ROK forces has a closed nature unlike other countries because of North Korea. Coordinates are indicated on local facilities including military bases, not military units. And there is no known information to the public that the military unit is stationed. Also, I browsed many pages of other military units(mainly USA and UK military units), but there was no any page with coordinates. Goondae (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not "know something is wrong". I suggest you follow the advice of User:Adakiko on your Talk Page. Stop posting here. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On WP:SOLDIER...
I notice that you often comment when people use WP:SOLDIER as a basis for a Keep !vote in AfD discussions about how it's "only an essay, not a guideline" - but you often refer to it yourself when !voting to delete an article. It seems to me that (1) this is a bit contradictory and (2) it seems a bit more than "only an essay" since WP:NBIO - a guideline - has the section #Military personnel - whose sole content is a "See WP:MILNG" - which WP:SOLDIER is a subsection of. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger I always refer to both WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, because SIGCOV in multiple RS is always required even if one of the six criteria of WP:SOLDIER is met. WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay, at the very top it states "Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the discussion which led to this essay". If you read through that discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90 you will see that the participants voted not to create a new guideline. WP:SOLDIER therefore has an ambiguous status, certain Users act as though its a guideline when it clearly isn't and Users unfamiliar with the background assume that it is, with the result that we have many thin pages about people who achieved a certain rank or award but who lack SIGCOV in multiple RS. As noted by User:EyeSerene in the discussion: "How I read the current proposal is that we're first saying: significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article. We then go on to say: these are the types of people that will probably (but not always) have this significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * User:TimothyBlue thanks, Happy New Year to you too. Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

IP Editor
That IP you reverted on Operation Delaware has been busy. It's been poking around on Operation Junction City and a few other places. I also spotted a similar IP doing some very similar messing on the South Vietnamese Liberation Army page and there's another one going after more Vietnam battle articles along with some from Afghanistan and other conflicts. Whoever it is seems to be obsessed with the same areas: casualties. Just thought you might be interested. So far it's been three very similar IPs, but the pattern of editing is all the same. Intothatdarkness 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Intothat, yes very busy. I left a message on their Talk Page that I hope has some effect, but as they're an IP not sure if they will even see it. Happy New Year Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Look, I'm not going to report you for clearly violating 3R on Vietnam War casualties. But I did make a talk section, and you made no attempt to engage in it in any real way. My point was valid; the phrasing of this was editorializing an article and drawing conclusions which the article doesn't support. This is too silly for me to keep trying to debate, but you need to get the idea that you don't own articles. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't 3RRed, I'm preparing an SPI against you A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Navy Cross recipients for WW2
Hey, I've been noticing that you are deleting non-notable Navy Cross recipients. How about you look at List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II? A lot of the articles listed do not uphold WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER, and because I have my own work to do, can you look at those articles? Cheers, Lettlerhello • contribs 14:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lettler, I'll take a look when I have some time. regards Mztourist (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Daecheong, etc
Hello Further to the discussion at MILHIST on this, and in the interests of transparency, I am to let you know I have posted these incidents at WP:RM. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Navy ship namesakes
Hi. I don't see the point of removing a bunch of biographies of naval officers. These have been around for over a decade. They're small, but the subjects were awarded the Navy Cross and the Navy thought enough of them to name ships after them. That seems adequately notable to me. Is Wikipedia running out of space for new pages?

—WWoods (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Wwoods read WP:SOLDIER, the Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 and so unless the recipient has SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG they're not notable and non-notable namesakes of ships get deleted in favor of a redirect to the ship, usually with a few sentences explaining the name. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the article Paul Leaman Clark
I have mixed emotions about the proposed deletion of the Paul Leaman Clark article. I understand your reasoning for the deletion, but hate the fact that his award of the Navy Cross means less than some minor athletes entry into a Wikipedia article or some minor hollywood star that made two B movies. I understand that the Military History Project holds a higher standard of notability than almost any other Project on Wikipedia. We can justifiably be proud of this. As I see it, there is little information about many of the namesakes of the U.S. Coast Guard's Sentinel-class cutters because not only were they serving in a small, mostly un-recognized branch of the armed forces, they were all enlisted personnel. Little is known of their personal lives outside of their official service biographies in most cases.

To integrate their noteworthiness into the Sentinel-class cutter article would seem one solution to the problem of individual articles; however, this would encumber the Sentinel article to a great extent and would be outside the scope of the article. There could be up to 58 Coast Guardsmen honored by the time the Sentinel Program is completed and that is to many entries for even a summary of each individuals accomplishments to be included in the Class article. Clark's devotion to duty was recognized by by his superiors and in turn by the Navy. Would it be possible for Clark's Navy Cross citation to be included in the USCGC Paul Clark article? Perhaps in each ship article could include the reason that each cutter was named for the person recognized? Perhaps a separate article on the namesakes of the Sentinel-class that could be linked in the mainspace of the Sentinel-class cutter article? I would be interested in your ideas on this subject. Just looking for direction here. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't see your comment when I left mine, below. FWIW I think the USCG has plans for 62 cutters now, four more than originally planned, to meet new foreign station commitments that weren't part of the original plan.  They ended up building an additional 2 dozen or so Marine Protectors, over their original plans, so we may see that many additional Sentinels.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Cuprum17 and User talk:Geo Swan if you read WP:SOLDIER, a single award of the Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 and so unless the recipient has SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG they're not notable and non-notable namesakes of ships get deleted in favor of a redirect to the ship, usually with a few sentences explaining the name. So for someone like Paul Leaman Clark I believe that a short paragraph about him as namesake on the ship page is all that's required. For Maurice D. Jester I think that the same approach applies, I don't think that being on the cover of Life is SIGCOV. If you disagree then you can dePROD and I will list it at AFD and we'll see what the community thinks. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul Leaman Clark was dePRODDED so I put it up for AFD. Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And so was Maurice D. Jester so I guess we'll see how that plays out. Mztourist (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
You added prod tags to Paul Leaman Clark and Maurice D. Jester. You used the same justification, for both ''Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG."

As you would have seen upon reading the article both men are namesakes of USCG cutters. The names of this class of cutter were chosen to honor notable enlisted sailors. Those cutters cost $65 million each.

We have special purpose notability guidelines for some narrow classes of individuals. WP:ACADEMIC says, or at least used to say, that one criteria that was sufficient to fully establish an academic's notability, all by itself, was if colleagues published a book, where each chapter was about the work of the academic in question, or if a conference was held where each panel was devoted to the work of the academic in question.

I don't think ACADEMIC is the only special purpose notability guideline with this kind of deference to the views of experts in the field.

In general, we show some deference to the professional judgment of a BLP individual's peers.

In my opinion, the namesakes of these USCG cutters were highly respected by their professional peers, as evidenced that vessel costing $65 million were named after them

Clark not only had a vessel named after him, he had an annual award named after him - another instance of recognition by his peers, thus another notability element.

Jester was profiled in Life magazine. In the days before televsion and the internet, this was incredibly significant, as Life was one of the USA's most important magazine - much more significant than any magazine today. He wasn't only profiled - that issue's cover photograph was a picture of him. I'd appreciate your explanation as to why you don't recognize this as establishing his notability.

My approach to prods, which seem questionable to me, is not to immediately remove the prod. Instead, I contact the prod placer, as I have done with you here.

I might be wrong. If the prod placer can offer a fuller explanation, they might convince me, and I can work to avoid whatever mistake I made and didn't recognize. Or, alternately, maybe during our discussion they may realize the prod placement was a mistake, and they may avoid future challenges of that type.

Either way the project is improved.

A few months ago that backfired. When I left my request for further explanation instead of trying to answer they reverted their own prod, initiated an AFD, with the exact same justification they had used in the prod. Please don't do that, okay? Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Signatures in PRODs
Hi, just a note, signatures are not required in PROD nominations. Template:Proposed deletion automatically points to the nominator. Happy editing. <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 12:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Explicit. Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, noted you are having trouble prodding stuff, due to the Article Rescue Squad. (I call them project ARSehole) They do it because they can, and our rules and policies can't stop them. Nasty non agf approach we can do little about. I sympathise. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your message it gave me a good laugh. Nothing for it but more AFDs! regards Mztourist (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will watch for them. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That pub looks like an over egged pudding now. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes an incredible collection of thinly sourced trivia. Mztourist (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2021 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2021 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

NOR, 3RR & NPOV violations on Lai Đại Hàn page
Lets discuss our content dispute here. You added in unsourced POV material, i want you to explain why you insist on including it in the article even after i explained it was unsourced, your only defense was that "its true" but it doesn't matter what you think is true you need to back it up with verifiable sources and you haven't provided any. Doubly, "pressure group" is a defamatory descriptor. Next i want you to explain why you removed properly sourced information on the Justice for Lai Dai Han's International ambassador, your claim that its not relevant is highly questionable please explain why you think so. The section of the article is about the Justice for Lai Dai Han organization, Jack Straw is a very prominent and notable person his involvement in the group then does not seem irrelevant. The irony of you clamoring on about me not edit warring (despite me not doing so) while violating the 3RR yourself is not lost on me. XiAdonis (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are banned from my Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to resolve our content dispute if you refuse to engage with me I assume that means you've given up and will have no problem with me reverting your edits correct? XiAdonis (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Make no such assumption, content disputes should be resolved on the relevant page. Do not post on this page ever again other than any mandatory notice. Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Content disputes can be resolved anywhere including user talk pages, i'll post here as many times as I like. You have 2 choices either explain your edits and engage in a discussion or cease protecting your rule violating additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of don't post on my Talk Page do you not understand? Content disputes are raised and discussed on the relevant page, not a User's Talk Page. I have told you that you are banned from my Talk page, if you post here again other than a mandatory notice I will take this to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UP

Question
Do you really believe that someone "having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor""...? I saw that and just had to seek clarification. - wolf  00:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild for U.S. ships in WWII yes. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very elucidating. Thank you - wolf  03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As elucidating as your Keep on Articles for deletion/Jorge Otero Barreto. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That article.... Intothatdarkness 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes...Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One might hope that all those who voted keep will rush out to correct the sourcing errors and such with those articles. One might also wish for money to fall from the sky. Intothatdarkness 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, don't see that happening as sources just don't exist. Mztourist (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On this latest one, I'm finding MUCH more information about other people who were killed in the incident as opposed to the article's subject. It doesn't mean the incident itself is notable, but I think it says something about motivations or intent. Doesn't seem to matter, though. I'm sure it will be another drive-by Keep. Intothatdarkness 17:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a very clear agenda shared by a small group who will turn up to defend this one and others like it.Mztourist (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious what you might think of this site: http://2ndbde.org/preface.php. Layout is pretty plain, but he's hosting scans of national archives stuff and has the two silver star citations for our favorite article. He also has one of the citations for a bronze star but (interestingly enough) it doesn't mention any oak leaf clusters. Just thought I'd get a second opinion before adding anything to the article. Intothatdarkness 03:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its an impressive blog, but I don't think it can be regarded as RS. If it has actual scans of documents then obviously those can be used, but will mostly be PRIMARY or breach of copyright. I'm not seeing the Bronze Star citation, where is it? Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to go to the Hall of Valor section, select the medal in question, and then sort through the units. Otero got his BSV when he was with Echo Company (the recon platoon) and not Alpha Company. I tracked down both Silver Stars and the ARCOM in addition to the BSV. This guy's thorough enough he includes addendum pages (the original ones) when there's a mistake on the citation (usually not noting it's actually an oak leaf instead of the first award). Just perusing it, I saw a number of NCOs who'd also won two Silver Stars while with the Second Brigade (which to me makes Otero less notable). I didn't count officers because award practices for them could be different, but there was at least one major who got three SSs while with the 2nd Bde. Intothatdarkness 14:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, found it. Bronze Star isn't that important however. Mztourist (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know. I looked more in the hopes it might confirm the 5 BSV bit in the article itself. Intothatdarkness 16:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no matter how much we may look the sources just aren't there.Mztourist (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Slowly but surely that article's getting there. I have some ideas about the aircrew badge and those air medals, but I don't know if there are good RS out there to verify what I'm thinking. Same goes for his time with the 173rd. Oddly enough, he has the 173rd patch upside down in the shadow box picture I referenced.Intothatdarkness 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the whole page very dubious and I remain convinced that he doesn't meet GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, as I've found many veterans with more decorations and achievements who don't exist on Wiki. But since I haven't seen a single keep voter touch the article since it was "saved" I figured I'd take a whack at it. At least the Vietnam side. I am wondering, though, if he was one of the contingent of door gunners who were detached from the 25th ID during the advisory period. It would explain the aircrew badge, the air medals, and the 25th affiliation. Junior enlisted didn't tend to be advisors, after all. Intothatdarkness 15:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In regard to this edit, the wikilink to the discussion was broken, but I'm not sure what the problem had been. I'm just giving you a heads up on this, as I didn't make any substantive change to your comment; I was just fixing a wikilink which for some unexplained reason did not work. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159

rmv purely decorative flag per WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Thank you.
Thank you for pointing out the error. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's BS!

 * Thanks when I got the email notification I thought someone was just abusing me again, so this gave me a good laugh! Given I was strongly in favor of the Merges I thought I should do my part and clean them up. Thanks again. Mztourist (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL! Anytime. GenQuest  "scribble" 07:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI
Mentioned in an ANI discussion. -- Green  C  19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mztourist,
 * Please consider coming over to ANI and commenting on the complaint brought against you. It would help to hear your intentions with your edits. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already provided my response. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060 Result: No Action Required; 7&6=Thirteen Warned. "There is consensus that the mergers and/or redirects by Mztourist at issue here, which concern articles about people after whom ships were named, were appropriate. 7&6=thirteen is warned to avoid personal attacks or other aggressive conduct towards fellow editors, or they may face sanctions. There is however no consensus to impose sanctions on 7&6=thirteen at this time."

David Atkins (Royal Navy officer)
You appear to be engaged in an war. This can get you blocked from editing. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, discuss your source on the Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David Atkins (Royal Navy officer) "The result was redirect to HMS Defence (1763). Going down with his ship, again."

Edit warring at Lai Đại Hàn
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 read WP:TALK I think we both want to make the article better :)8ya (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2021 (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.


 * Given that you deleted my earlier edit warring warning to you as spam here:, I should really do the same with this, but will keep it here as a sign of your bad faith. Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I have blocked you both from editing the article for 48 hours. I don't think either of you are going to agree on this, so I would strongly recommend seeking dispute resolution. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ritchie333 why have I been blocked? I didn't breach 3RR, I warned 8ya about edit warring and was ignored and I had earlier attempted to resolve the issue on the Talk Page with no progress. This seems punitive against me. Mztourist (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the standard block template on your user talk page, simply because you've been on the project for a long time and I thought it would be patronising. Anyway, if you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: . In general, I will unblock if any other administrator thinks it's a good idea. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333 you need to put the proper block notice here. Mztourist (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:jpgordon I am surprised and disappointed by your review. You say that I was "also warned about edit warring; you didn't stop". I made my last edit on Lai Đại Hàn at 10:21, User:8ya posted their retaliatory Edit Warring warning on my page above at 10:43. So your statement is clearly incorrect. I find the false equivalence between me who followed the proper procedure in line with WP:BRD and WP:QUO and 8ya who decided to give up on the Talk Page discussion and imposed their preferred version on the page (which remains there as I didn't revert it) breaching 3RR in the process to be completely ridiculous. Mztourist (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TPS MZ, in cases like this, (I have had similar blocks in the past in which I didn't go past 3RR) Admins, even the good ones, wont back down. You'll easily get unblocked by kowtowing, but this isn't worth it. the block was unfair, yes, but I always find that punishment blocks like this are not worth fighting. Wear it like a badge of honour, and continue your good work when unblocked automatically. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you decided to mention me: it wasn't me who gave up on Talk Page discussion, it was literally you not answering anything and telling me to "take it to another forum". By the way I'd still be up to talk on the talk page :)8ya (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 8ya I can't help it if you don't read what I write, pretend not to understand, can't provide diffs and fail to provide any non-Japanese sources and then blame me because we can't reach an agreement. Further discussion with you is pointless, seek another forum for input. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

stop reverting my edits
You stop it too. You must ask the user who inserted the coordinates at that articles first. The user who first caused all the problems is with the user who inserted it. Rather, you are more disputing and also, they are not yours either. I will comment on WP:ANI about this edit warring and I will revert to the version before the problem occurred, you join in ANI too. Do not revert again in disputed articles until debate is over. Goondae (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Goondae post your comments on the relevant page in dispute, not here on my Talk Page. I don't even know which page(s) you are referring to. You are welcome to take it to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Algerian War
Hello there, I guess that you still disgree with the "result" there. I tried to fix it up here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algerian_War&action=edit&oldid=1012020095 with many sources that I brought which includes much information about this war and warfare in general, but our friend Bitton is keep crying that I had "attacking him" and my user got blocked... can you please try to fix this matter with these sources? 2A02:ED0:53A1:800:11BF:DE2A:184E:B1F9 (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the issue, but getting blocked for edit warring isn't the way to achieve it. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Otero Barreto
I think I've done as much on that as I can, although I may venture back if I dig up anything new. If you trip over anything about his claimed time as an advisor (which would have been pretty unusual for junior enlisted), let me know. I think it's more likely he was a door gunner or something in one of the 25th ID's early detachments (which would account for the air medals). It's also odd that his campaign stars line up exactly with his time with the 101st ABN and nothing else. Gotta say I do find it ironic that someone who voted delete had to do the majority of the cleanup on that article...Intothatdarkness 16:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect your efforts, but to be honest not sure why you bothered! As we know, the original creator pumped out a lot of poorly sourced pages on marginally notable "heroes". I am very skeptical about most claims about Otero Barreto's service. Mztourist (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More to prove a point than anything else, I guess (and to try to do something about those "most decorated veteran" claims). Frankly I think the only thing that's seriously verifiable about him is his time with the 101st. Sure, he showed up in a documentary that's (as far as I can tell) never really been released, but what veteran of the 173rd is going to have the "flying butterknife" in a shadow box upside down? I have to say I was a bit disgusted some of that sourcing stood for as long as it did. Intothatdarkness 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes its just ridiculous that such a poorly sourced page remained there for so long. Mztourist (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really starting to get concerned about the level of misquoting and misattribution in many of these articles. I just went through and scrubbed some more from the Arroyo article. And people wonder why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously in some circles... Intothatdarkness 15:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of compliance with notability, sourcing etc. I'm not at all surprised that the actual content doesn't reflect what the thin sources say. Unfortunately its the nature of the writer and his agenda. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I plan to continue highlighting examples in AFD as I find them. Intothatdarkness 13:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I AFDed all the most obvious ones, but I'm sure there are a bunch more. Mztourist (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. What bothers me is the misquoting of sources. Sometimes it's really excessive, or simply claiming things the source doesn't even say (like the Hackworth piece in Arroyo). Intothatdarkness 14:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't surprise me at all, but I can't be bothered spending any time tidying up his messes. It seems clear that ensuring that WP is a high quality reliable encyclopedia isn't a high priority for him. Mztourist (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD
Hey Mz, while I may not agree with your exclusionist stance, I do like to think you sincerely want to help project. That said, I would ask that you reconsider arguing with every single person you disagree with at AfD. Every editor is entitled to post a !vote, usually supported by some rationale. You replying to every single one to repeat the rationale for your !vote does not really serve a purpose. (Are you really trying to convince each editor to change their !vote, and if so, how often does that actually happen?) Regardless of who-posts-what, after reading your first comment, the closing admin will still evaluate each and every other !vote based on their own merits - or at least they should). Anyway, please take that into consideration at future AfDs. Thanks for all your work in MilHist. (and glad to see you got your archives up and running). Have a nice day - wolf  16:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild I do not "argu[e] with every single person [I] disagree with at AfD" nor "reply[] to every single one to repeat the rationale for [my] !vote". If I see someone make false assertions of guidelines or that anything but SIGCOV in RS establishes notability I will point that out to them. Inclusionists like you and the ARS who want to retain every page no matter how thinly sourced should be challenged and your passive-aggressive and LAST comments to me don't incline me to accept anything you have to say. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to get into a whole thing with you. Quite the opposite. My apologies, I did not think you would take my above comment so literally, on every point. I will try to be more direct. The lengthy back-and-forths, that sometime stray off-topic, that are occurring on some AfDs, should be had on a talk page instead. I know the last word thing has been an issue, but I tnink you and I can dialog in a more collegial manner. I'm sure we can. I am making an effort here, how about meeting me halfway? Sound good? - wolf  05:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite your protestations you clearly are "trying to get into a whole thing with [me]". You came here to my UP with your politely worded passive-aggressive comments about me arguing with Users on AfDs and yet you show the exact same behavior that you accuse me of at Articles for deletion/John T. Newton and when I point out your hypocrisy you hide my comments and state that your comment was just a clarification, but based on your comment above: "Regardless of who-posts-what, after reading your first comment, the closing admin will still evaluate each and every other !vote based on their own merits - or at least they should)" such "clarification" is unnecessary. "Can't you see [that]?" It seems to me that you always want to have the last word, making some snide remark or urging me or others to "let it go" e.g. . So I have a hard time assuming good faith with you, I don't see what effort you believe you are making nor how you are in any way meeting me halfway. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, it's entirely up to you, what assumptions you make and how you choose to behave every time you react to those assumptions. I can at least say I tried. More than once. I've tried to limit needless afd threads, and after all, I am now here, trying to initiate a dialog. And while you choose to take a bad faith view of previous comments, take a look at some yours as well. They are not all sweetness and sunshine. Perhaps we both could lighten up some, hence the reason I had said 'hey, meet me halfway'. Or you can be difficult, but I don't see a need for hostility. Anyway, like I said, it's up to you Mz. - wolf  07:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone chooses how they react to everyone and everything. You say you have tried, tried what? To get me to stop commenting at AFDs? While you continue to do so? Why don't you actually take some initiative, stop trying to get the last word in and "just let it go" more often as you like telling others to do. Mztourist (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's clear from your continued hostility here and your latest attack at AfD that despite my effort here to try and resolve our differences, you have no interest. The discussion I has hoping to have to didn't even get started, so instead I'll say this, if you change your mind and decide to you want to try and be more cooperative and collegial, let me know. In the meantime, please try to keep your comments at AfD, (and anywhere else), civil and on topic, try not to badger participants. Have a nice day. - wolf  18:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your purpose in coming to my UP remains unclear to me and I can only presume that it is for some ulterior motive. As I said, practice what you preach at AFD and stop trying to always get the last word in. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained my purpose repeatedly. Why you are choosing to feign ignorance, and continue with your hostility and disruption, is the real mystery here. Like I said, let me know if you change your mind. - wolf  04:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No you have never explained your purpose, only your intention to stop me commenting at AFDs. Go on, succinctly explain your purpose or let it go. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My very comments above say otherwise, just as yours everywhere speak volumes. - wolf  05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have written a lot above, but explained nothing. So explain your purpose or "let it go" (do I need to attribute that now?). Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With your senseless hostility and your complete lack or originality, what with your need to repeatedly copy me, this has become a complete waste if time. And, you've already acknowledged my explanation, you can't now claim I never provided one. - wolf  04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Senseless hostility"? "Complete lack or originality"? Hilarious, even here you try to get the last word in. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why you want run two simultaneous threads on the same page at the same time, one is sufficient. The thread below was just a anyway. Due to your behavior at AfD, I came to see if we could have a civil discussion and put any differences to rest. You obviously have no interest in that and instead would prefer to try and engage in an endless, meaningless flame war, where you either repeatedly copy me, rage-post bizarre insults, or both. I have no interest in any of that and so this will be my last reply. Hope your day get better. We're done here. - wolf  22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hilarious, you started the second thread and then you criticize me for it?! "Rage-post bizarre insults"? I'm not even sure what that means. You came to my UP to tell me how to behave at AFDs, while you undertake the very behaviour you criticize me for and claim that was "a civil discussion [to] put any differences to rest". You fail to recognize that your recent behavior and comments to and about me mean that I have no assumption of good faith towards you. Delighted, but not entirely convinced, that will be your last reply, that really has made my day get better. "We're done here" Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. - wolf  03:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You really are unbelievable, when I provided the link to your comments on my Talk Page you suppressed it as off topic and now you want attribution... Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You posted link a day ago, with no specific quote. I hatted the comments as they were off-topic. Now you add a quote a day later, and several posts down. Hatted or not, how can you possibly call that attribution? Your the one that choose to post disruptive, off-topic comments, not me. I have no idea what you think you're trying to accomplish, but please stop. Thank you - wolf  04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your entire comment on my Talk Page was directly relevant to what was being discussed at the AFD. Once again, you show your hypocrisy that you should be able to comment and reply to comments at AFD but when I do so its disruptive, off-topic or already evident to Admins. Why don't you take some real initiative and stop? Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That you don't see the irony of you using "hypocrisy" as a personal attack is astonishing. Look, I saw concerns, and tried pointing them out. I've even gone to far as to try reaching out to you directly on your talk page. There is no give with you. No willingness to be even just the slightest bit collegial and and word towards any kind of resolution. In fact, you now seem bent on trying to make things worse. I don't know why you're like this. But it's not necessary. It really isn't. -  wolf  05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You seeing concerns in others, but not recognizing them in yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy. You claim to be reaching out, but even your first comment was written on the condescending basis that I have a problem which you graciously are advising me on. The funny thing is that I had actually reduced my comments on AFD already, but your comments here and refusal to limit your own comments on AFD have blown back. As I have said to you repeatedly, take the initiative yourself, reduce your own comments at AFD, stop trying to always have the last word, "let it go"... Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I not sure what I find I more amazing; your inability to recognize your hypocritical use of the word "hypocrisy", or that you use the word, again, as a blatant personal attack while preaching to me about how to behave. "stop trying to always have the last word" - Wow, you either ask questions that seek an answer or post comments that demand a response, then have the gall to complain that the such replies are a need for the "last word". You have, by far, the worst case of must-have-last-word-itis I have ever seen. Not just in any exchange with me, or on any AfD, but in just about every thread you post in, with any editor, on any page. Perhaps you should examine that. "The funny thing is that I had actually reduced my comments on AFD already" - hm, and why is that? - wolf  04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I find more amazing, your inability to explain your purpose, your personal attacks, your inability to recognise your hypocrisy or the fact that you accuse me of having "by far, the worst case of must-have-last-word-itis". Take a look at your own comments here and elsewhere, where you always try to get the last word in. To quote you: "QED", "let it go", "we're done here". Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See here for reply. - wolf  22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or rather I should have written "We're done here (or at least I am but I'm sure [you have] something more to say)". Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Group discussion on Category:Months in the 20th century articles

 * In that you've been a major contributor to the articles in Category:Months in the 20th century, you are invited to participate in a discussion among the contributors about a basic framework for the project, at Mandsford 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing These Days
I've lost track of the number of inaccurate citations I've corrected lately. Stuff that's misquoted, misattributed, or flat out NOT in the source being cited. Apparently verifiability no longer matters. It feels like you have to check every linked source, and seriously question anything that isn't linked. On one of those AfDs I had to pretty much redo every new source/cite that had been added (misquoted information, removing stuff that wasn't in the source, adding things that were but for some reason weren't added...you name it). It feels like it's gotten worse, or maybe I'm just loitering in the dark alleys of Wikipedia more than I used to. Intothatdarkness 18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you, some Users will add in any random source to try to bolster their thinly sourced pages. Unfortunately there's not much you can do about it other than what you're doing or just walk away from those pages, increasingly I just do the latter. Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is I have dispute with Mztourist so I need admin's help. Thank you. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Thanks Chetsford! Much appreciated! best regards Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinates
Google maps are not RS. Therefore, I get to delete what I don't like? Must. Start. Project team. CN-bomb the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia... Adakiko (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

please stop it
I reverted your edits back to before the problem occurred. Discussion has been interrupted in ANI, and the discussion must be reopened for the final decision of the admin. And the coordinates of those pages are unreliable information because there are no sources or citations. Only those pages have the coordinates inserted and the other military unit/base pages don't have them anywhere. So there is no need to display it, so what are your intentions of displaying it? As ANI commented, the user who inserted it first caused the problem, and the dispute is growing because of you. My reverted edit is not a violation of policy/guidelines and is justified. Goondae (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Goondae you are edit-warring which the closer warned against. You need to follow the rules, not edit-war to try to get what you want. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Patrol Craft Fast
MZ: You might consider using one or both of the following links to add citations to the article Patrol Craft Fast section Mark I and in the article Patrol Boat, River, section Armament. Both craft as well as the Coast Guard Point-class cutters were equipped with the piggyback 81mm mortar/M2 50 caliber machine gun.

*     * Notes on Mk 2 Mod 0 and Mod 1 .50 Caliber MG/81mm Mortar

Just a suggestion. The citations were used originally in the article Coast Guard Squadron One. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cuprum17, I've added those in. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So? Mztourist (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexander K. Tyree
You previously proposed this page for deletion in the past. An editor has filed a request for it to be undeleted, and this has been done. You may wish to nominate it for AFD or otherwise watch the article for developments. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of George Jacobson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Jacobson 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/George Jacobson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jamesallain85 this appears to be a WP:REVENGE nomination for my AFDing of various poorly-sourced pages that you have created. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Kept

Nomination of John B. Selby for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John B. Selby 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/John B. Selby until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:NotReallySoroka/Arbitration Draft

Kept

They did
Although necrosp is deeply aggravating, they did actually answer your question at the end of the message they wrote 4.5 hours ago. --JBL (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks my comments wasn't sufficiently clear, I have clarified it. Mztourist (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aggravating is one word... Frankly, I find the "obituary=notability" idea somewhat silly. By definition obits are puffery, and often sponsored/paid for. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't see how the Times could have written so many obituaries itself which means they were provided by the families. Obituary is defined as "a news article" which cannot be the case for all those killed in WWI. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Easy Company Take Two
I was not thrilled to discover that almost all the Perry article at AfD was a direct copy from that CAF site (including errors in the original site). I checked the Deiz article and it's not as lazy, but the trend is concerning. I'm already involved in cleaning up more Puerto Rico-related articles and don't have time for another single-agenda article creator. Intothatdarkness 13:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothat, I'm not surprised. You can't create pages that quickly unless you're copying from somewhere. I'll keep AFD'ing their unworthy articles, you'd hope they would get the message but clearly don't. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothat & Mztourist It looks like the editor was previously warned about copyright violations at least twice before. Additionally, the complete lack of communication with other editors is concerning and may require an ANI/temporary block if it persists. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GPL93 I would tend to agree, especially given the tone of the quotes on their userpage. They don't seem very interested in engaging or adhering to policy. Intothatdarkness 16:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothat & GPL93 I did Earwig searches on all the pages they created and found some major violations so have requested a CCI . I have also asked the Admin who gave the earlier copyright warnings what action should be taken Mztourist (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not all the TUskeegee articles suffer from this, as this user didn't create all of them, but it could make their additions to existing articles problematic as well. Intothatdarkness 15:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothat He's been indeffed due to the copyvios, thanks for picking up on that. Now the cleanup begins.... Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. I've been working on one or two of those as time allows. It's a shame some of the knee-jerk "keep" voters aren't as inclined to clean up messes. Intothatdarkness 13:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they're always scarce when cleanup happens. Mztourist (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Frank A. Barker
Hi, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a couple of years, but logged back in today and saw that the former article I started, and others expanded somewhat, at Frank A. Barker was deleted on your proposal back in January. Your proposal cited WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and noted "only notability is as namesake of Task Force responsible for the My Lai Massacre, no other details available." I take your point, given the content in the article as it was.

However, I've done a little more looking and it appears that Col. Barker was more than just a namesake. This New Yorker article from 1972 about the massacre profiles Barker in some depth and reports on his role in the planning and conduct of the operation. . American Experience on PBS also profiles him more briefly and recounts his role in a timeline of the massacre. His role is further recounted in a case study on the website of the U.S. Army's Center for the Army Profession and Leadership. There are probably other sources available on his role; I found all of these rather quickly and easily.

Returning to the notability standards, WP:SOLDIER now states that it has been deprecated and directs users to WP:BIO. I believe the links above meet the basic criteria there (subsection WP:BASIC), though I acknowledge the content in the deleted article probably did not. I wanted to see if you agree, and would support the re-establishment of Frank A. Barker after inclusion of the content in, and citation to, the links above. I could see an argument based on WP:CRIME that he should instead be folded into the Mỹ_Lai_massacre article, but that article is already very long and so per WP:CRIME I think a separate article on Barker is appropriate.

Many thanks, W.stanovsky (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see that any of the sources you have given are sufficient for the creation of a biography page of Barker, they all just relate to the WP:1E of Barker's role in the My Lai Massacre and so should be addressed on that page. I don't agree that New Yorker article "profiles Barker in some depth", while it contains some interesting detail about Koster's patronage of Barker, basically it is, as you say, about "his role in the planning and conduct of the operation". Barker is only known in passing for his role in the My Lai massacre and really only because the task force was named after him, which is fairly minor and already adequately covered on the My Lai page. Perhaps if he hadn't died and been courtmartialled then a stand-alone page would be justified like for Henderson, Medina and Calley. So no, I don't see any basis for recreation of a bio page for Barker, if you think there are additional details that should go into the My Lai page please add them in there. Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr.


The article Robert B. Carney Jr. has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear WP:REVENGE PROD, Washington Post obit clearly satisfies WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A single obit does not classify as Significant Coverage. Are you insinuating every obit in the Washington Post is also automatically notable? Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand SIGCOV and I can't be bothered engaging with you, now stop trying to get REVENGE and get off my Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An obituary does not classify as SIGCOV. I am not revenge editing, the page speaks for itself. I do not appreciate your tone, I would urge you to review WP:EQ. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been trying and failing to get REVENGE against me ever since I started AfDing your poorly sourced pages. You need to read WP:UP because you're banned from my Talk Page now. Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of my pages have been as poorly sourced as Robert B. Carney Jr., hence the Afd. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rubbish and you don't even know the difference between a PROD and an AfD! You're banned, don't post here again. Mztourist (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI September 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Magnolia677 that's much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Herbert V. Clark
I have removed the tag from Herbert V. Clark, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!
 * Hey Mztourist, just a heads up that I deprodded a few of the Tuskegee Airmen pages for people I could quickly find at least one additional source for. I think they would be better discussed on AfD. Thanks for cleaning up the pages related to the Tuskegee Airmen! Suriname0 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your message, obviously I don't agree and will AFD them once the current Tuskegee Airmen AFDs are closed. For Herbert V. Clark the book Black Knights that you mentioned just has his name, once, that's not SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there's a very real debate to have about SIGCOV: by far the most ambiguous policy on Wikipedia, imo! Anyway, that's why I prefer AfD for these discussions rather than PROD or the talk pages, it should result in a more consistent and uniform approach overall. Suriname0 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

PROD of Andrew D. Turner
Hello, please check the recent history prior to proposing deletion of a page. You added one to Andrew D. Turner when you had previously had a PROD declined fifteen days prior. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, had forgotten about that! Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Your efforts at cleaning up that editor's mess are admirable, but it will take you a long time to go through all of his creations if you're serious about this. I think they weren't created so long ago that you can't move them to the draftspace – I suggest giving it a try. Avilich (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've actually done all the Tuskegee Airmen now, there's a couple still to go to AFD but I'll wait until some of the others have closed. Now working on some of the other ones he created. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that all those actively fighting to keep these articles are also avoiding the CCI for the person who made the mess in the first place (I even stuck a link on the ARS note about one of them). It would be SO much easier if they'd attend to these articles before they hit AfD. There are initial sourcing errors throughout most of them (not unlike the ones we faced in that mass of Puerto Rico-connected stuff...you have to check EVERY source). And in an unrelated note, thanks for creating an article on Hugh Mills, Jr. He was also the subject of the Squadron-Signal book "Gunslingers in Action" back in 1974. Fascinating guy, but hard to find information about that's RS (like so many Vietnam aviators). Intothatdarkness 17:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothat yes as always lots of opposition to deletion with the usual cries of trying to delete history etc., but few Users wanting to do the work of cleaning up pages. I wasn't aware "Gunslingers in Action", if you have it please add any relevant details to the Mills page. I tried to write the page without using Low Level Hell as a reference. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have "Gunslingers in Action" oddly enough. Got it when it first came out. It's almost oral history in a way, and I know there is opposition in some quarters to using Squadron-Signal stuff as RS (it's aimed mostly at scale modelers). I'll also comb through a couple of other sources I have about OH-6As and see if Mills comes up. Oddly, the First Infantry Division's time in Vietnam is poorly-covered compared to some other units, so there's not much out there directly related to it, 1/4 Cav, and operations in 1969. Intothatdarkness 16:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Unfortunately U.S. Army history of the war in the post Tet Offensive to withdrawal era is quite poor. I know that they're writing a history of the late-68 to end-69 period now, but that won't be available for another 1-2 years. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's annoying. The one major history of the First Infantry Division I've found deals with 1968-1970 in a handful of pages and has no good detail. I guess it helps if Oliver Stone happened to be in your division... If you don't mind my asking, what got you interested in Mills? Intothatdarkness 23:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I read Low Level Hell and thought it was great and he achieved a lot more than many other airmen who have pages! Mztourist (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At least his notability wasn't inherited... Like I said, I'll go through my stuff and see what I can find. The TTU archive doesn't have much on him, either. Aside from Low Level Hell he seems very good at keeping himself to himself as they used to say. Intothatdarkness 03:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL yes. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this close? Do you see a good explanation for the final assessment of consensus? Avilich (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think there WAS any sort of assessment. But I also don't think any of those articles are going to be treated on their actual merits (or lack thereof). Unit affiliation trumps all. And most of the 'keep' voters will immediately lose interest in actually improving said articles once they've had their turn on the stage. Although the improvements in most cases were incredibly minor in my view. Actually, I find this one more problematic in that the Francis section bandied about so frequently in the AfD discussion as major coverage STILL hasn't actually been added to the article. Intothatdarkness 01:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic. The Lawson one may be a case of WP:SUPERVOTE, i.e. the closer included his own opinion when assessing consensus, but I don't think there's good likelihood for overturning a no consensus close on that, even if a deletion would've been appropriate. I mentioned Knox because there isn't a shred of consensus for keeping, either from a numerical (9 vs. 6) or argumentative standpoint, and such a contentious discussion merited--no, required--a more thorough justification in the closure. A simple 'keep' without any explanation was crassly incompetent, and certainly deserves to be taken to deletion review, which is why I brought this here to Mztourist's attention. Avilich (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I obviously agree about Knox...but I still find it highly ironic that the Francis material so highly praised by the drive-by Keep people still doesn't exist in the Lawson article. To me it speaks to their level of attention to detail and accuracy...Intothatdarkness 17:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hi, obviously I think all were wrong, but the No consensus closes at least showed the closer paid some attention to the substantive arguments, while Knox Keep without any discussion was lazy and incorrect, however the most that can be acheived at Deletion Review is going to be No consensus, so I don't think I'll bother with it. Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the keep gets overturned to no consensus it's easier to nominate it again the future. I still recommend giving delrev a try, takes only a minute to create an entry there. Avilich (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * you're right, done. Mztourist (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -  wolf  20:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It would help if you got your facts straight! Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
Please allow the deletion discussions to proceed without deleting parts of the article to favor deletion. It will all be over soon. So far the AfD's are a disaster, with us all repeating ourselves over and over. Let us please allow others to weigh in without crapping on every participant. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop breaching copyright and raising spurious arguments. Mztourist (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * for my own part I am avoiding the debate. it is not even on my watch list. I would encourage you to do the same. The community should be able to comment without being involved in this tendentious debate. JMHO Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, you are actively pursuing every avenue of debate as shown by your ridiculous ANI against User:RandomCanadian. Your hypocrisy in telling me that "the community should be able to comment without being involved in this tendentious debate" is just staggering. Are you really serious? Mztourist (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have worked on the article. I have time invested in proving Willie H. Fuller's notability, but I will not publish any more comments or edit the article if you can agree to do the same. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You should invest your time in proving that the photo is in the public domain otherwise delete it. Mztourist (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (TPS) Or better yet, go work the CCI list I've posted links to a number of times. Intothatdarkness 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Intothat, it is a goal to get there. What I told Indy, is the AfD puts a clock on an article. So I end up working on Afds because of the immediacy. Right now it got so contentious in there, that I am moving on. I have done all I can in those articles, at AfDs and I am going to try to stay out of your way. Looks like Indy is working with me on one, so that is a pleasant and collegial experience. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been working the CCI stuff as well, and it's a better way to get at those articles. You have time to review each existing source for accuracy (which is a problem with those articles and many others I've worked on after the AfD endorphins faded and Keep voters moved on...note I'm not including you in that group in any way, but it does happen with articles) and get rid of as much of the CAF stuff as possible. Happy editing, and sorry for clogging your talk page, Mztourist. Intothatdarkness 18:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of bad faith just on the AFDs I've been involved in:, "attack on history", claiming I'd deleted correct information , poisoning wells , adhom attacks , attacking closer on their Talk Page , accusations of bad faith on relisting , ,  and , , ,

Edit Warring
Please stop edit warring the license templates on the Lena Horne file. The correct venue is WP:FFD. I have added an appropriate template, but if you believe it is disingenuous you may take it to the FFD. I am doing my best to stay out of your areas. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made myself very clear on the status of the photo, the template you have added is incorrect and this is part of your ongoing misleading efforts. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, may I respectfully request your intervention in the civilian article's dispute?
Hi, I'm XXzoonamiXX, and as you know, I'm the guy who came up with the idea that aerial bombings weren't war crimes a while back (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_war_crimes&diff=575896205&oldid=575585639), and since then, you're one of the people who uphold such consensus when users attempted to add U.S. aerial bombing raids as war crimes from WWII to the present. Now a long, but short story. We're currently having a debate on the civilian talk page about what defines a civilian legally or informally in order to appease people with opposite views--one who favor a strictly military vs. civilian and nothing else, and one who favors a military vs. civilian vs. police vs. firefighters in an informal way. I'm on the latter because there are far more facts about it than the former. If you bother reading the civilian talk page for the last two sections as well as the revise civilian history section[], you can see there's a user named Skyring.

Skyring kept on using "consensus" wording every time as a justification for adding assertions that are blatantly false when said previous sources does not provide anything he says, nor there's actually a universal consensus. He also has a habit of changing arguments when I tried to point them out, from saying he's smarter than an average schooler (when it's obviously directed at me) to suddenly saying his argument is about appealing to high schoolers (creating new arguments out of thin air in an attempt to dissuade himself from the previous argument and make me look like a nut), to saying that only Americans use the civilian distinction in respect to police/firemen when I backed up my sources refuting them and he had no counter-arguments at all, to say my sources are only from police when a few of my sources are from the news media Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) (since he's from Australia and keeps on saying his country never uses the distinction regarding civilian vs. police at all).

Recently, he reverted my works (despite my detailed explanations), many without a real counter-source in both revision history and talk pages. Now some other guy joined in the fray and tried to revert my works as well without any real explanation, the guy who started the whole process in the first place. If you actually read my arguments and others on the talk page and revision histories, it's clear that Skyring and the other guy are trying to maintain the status quo of their preferred viewpoints (even though other users said it's not perfect and should be improved) while trying to block others like myself from making improved changes under the guise of "consensus", "WP:LEDE", and something along the lines to make themselves look legitimate.

As a person who keeps on with reliable sources as a basis for consensus, I respectfully request your intervention in the civilian talk page article, especially we share the view that aerial bombings were not war crimes. It's beyond unacceptable at this point this has to come through that I have to ask you this since several others are trying to revert my works without having to explain the legitimacy of their reverts or never take time to read the sources I cited. Take time trying to read the civilian article's disputes because it's really frustrating for me at this point. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no as this is WP:CANVASSING. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, can you take at least a look at the discussions and form an opinion for yourself? I apologize if I'm actually canvassing because I'm not actually aware of such a rule (I've seen some people do that before in my life). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No I can't because your message here would have taken me there. Don't pursue this discussion any further as it will be held against you. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for what I said. Thank you for your time. XXzoonamiXX (talk)

Some advice
I've contributed to a couple of your AFDs, and now to your DRV. I considered saying something about the nomination(s) but its not germane to that DRV discussion (where I believe you are right about the closing comment, but not about he result). Regardless of the genesis of the articles (which actually has nothing to do with the notability of a subject), the goal is still WP:CONSENSUS, yes? If you want to convince someone, especially someone who has participated in discussions for your previous nominations, try to work out what they would need to start sharing your point of view. A lot of that discussion was just bludgeoning from the delete side with the same arguments again and again. If it was one person making a novel argument, by all means, respond. But when many, many people make the same argument (even if you think they are technically wrong) the resulting consensus will still be just as valid. I'm no inclusionist, though I have an avowed dislike for lazy nominations. Yours aren't that. They do, however, kinda miss the point. I understand the desire to limit fancruft and biographies of non-notable minor celebrities, but these nominations seek to delete the biographies of people some editors would consider inherently notable. As an example, we produce thousands of new Olympians every four years, many of whom compete in one event ever, and fade into obscurity. There were how many Tuskegee Airmen? Its an easy argument to make that creating an article for every single one isn't a huge commitment of resources by comparison. And so its a tough starting point. It's even tougher when you're trying to delete the articles of the small handful of those people who arguably have some other claim to notability (like being the first, best, oldest, youngest, most decorated, etc) among that group of people. In my view, these are marginal cases where notability is neither inherent nor non-existent; they fall somewhere in the middle. So arguments of, "just another Tuskegee Airmen created by an SPA" aren't super-convincing. Anyway, despite our disagreement on this particular thing, your efforts seem to be well-meaning and good-faith. Just know there are plenty of us willing to be convinced if you bring a convincing and articulate argument.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Stalwart111, I went through every one of the 70 odd Tuskegee Airmen pages created by blocked User:Bluecountrymutt and found that about 15 of them didn't seem to be notable. Those were then PRODed, many were dePRODEd and then went to AFD. I do not agree with any of the Keeps of the articles I nominated, they weren't notable when I nominated them and the minimal changes made through the course of discussions, particularly the newspaper REFBOMBING didn't make them any more notable at the close. Very few of the Keep arguments (including yours) looked at the sources and you and a couple of other Users made spurious/ill-informed arguments on the basis of ANYBIO. You were and still are wrong that the Unit Congressional Gold Medal satisfies #1 of ANYBIO for an individual or that just being a Tuskegee Airman satisfies #2 of ANYBIO and several other Users agreed with me on this point in the AFDs. So "many, many people" did not "make the same argument" as you contend. Your #2 ANYBIO argument is an Inherited argument, that just being a Tuskegee Airman is inherently notable, I disagree, absent an SNG notability is established by sourcing and none of them satisfied it. None of the Tuskegee Airmen I AFDed had any "other" claim to notability, if they did I they would be among the 55+ that I didn't AFD. Olympians have an SNG so your argument is irrelevant/Otherstuff. Finally if you're so concerned about keeping pages like these then please do some work to actually improve them or clean up Bluecountrymutt's CCIs Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I tried. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you think you tried but here we are. You can have another chance at Articles for deletion/Herbert V. Clark Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TPS chiming in. I've voted delete on these because the sourcing is abysmal in most cases and there are also obvious factual errors in many of them. I've posted the suggestion that people work on the CCIs in a number of places, but there have been very few takers. I've tried arguing based on sourcing, but like Mztourist I've found the majority of the Keep people don't seem to be interested in sourcing (or the accuracy of what's been used or added). Going back through and having to fix "improvements" is annoying, especially when most of them could have been avoided if people were working on them outside the center stage of AfD and took the time to do things correctly. Intothatdarkness 17:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AFD itself could have been avoided if people were working on them instead of nominating them for deletion. It's the reason we have WP:PROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. As I said, I don't think these nominations were bad-faith, but fixing improvements is the way it should work in a project where things are constantly being improved. Everything other than a new article is a fix to an improvement.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's a shame more Keep voters don't stick around and improve what they wanted to retain. Fixing "improvements" that make poor (or in some cases false) use of sources isn't the way anything should work, IMO, yet that's what I keep seeing in many of these articles. But I guess if the bar is set incredibly low it's easy to say something's always improving. Intothatdarkness 01:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "improvements" made during those Tuskegee AFDs were generally rubbish, but justified the Keep !voters to call HEY. Stalwart111 as I said above, I looked at all 70+ of the User's Airmen pages and found 15 to be lacking notability. If I had found decent sourcing for any of them I wouldn't have PRODed or AFDed them. Tuskegee Airmen aren't inherently notable, if they lack sourcing they don't belong here. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bludgeoning from the delete side" should properly read 'the delete side repeatedly responding to cite-bombs, drive-by keep/HEY votes and wikilawyering (eg. the ANYBIO nonsense), lest an inept closer take those too seriously'. Avilich (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those contributions are a pretty plain readings of those guidelines, and I'm a long way from being convinced they should be considered inherently notable. I engage because I'm willing to be convinced and I value the purpose of AFD. But when contributors are attacked, rather than engaged in meaningful discussion, there is no motivation to do anything other than make a drive-by contribution and move on. Very few of the !keep contributors are particularly motivated here; they are names you see contributing to AFD all the time, across a range of topic areas. There aren't two sides to this; it looks like a small group of editors keen to have these articles deleted, against a slightly larger group of AFD regulars who haven't been convinced yet. There's maybe 1 or 2 passionate !keep contributors. When you aren't convincing those people who are most ready and willing to be convinced, perhaps its time to look at your arguments.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said your interpretation of ANYBIO is incorrect, so no it is not "a pretty plain reading of those guidelines". I don't see that you or anyone else has been attacked at AFD, rather some fringe interpretations have been advanced and shot down and the pile-on Keep !votes don't have any interest in discussing sources or changing their views. I'm confused by your comment "There aren't two sides to this; it looks like a small group of editors keen to have these articles deleted, against a slightly larger group of AFD regulars who haven't been convinced yet" that sounds like a precise description of two sides. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then maybe re-read it. I'm saying if you took a step back, you'd see there are a large number of people who aren't particularly pro-these-articles and are ready to be convinced they should be deleted. You are free to believe my interpretation of ANYBIO is incorrect, but it is one that has been upheld (correctly or incorrectly) as consensus in discussions about a range of topics. As with a lot of things around here, consensus isn't about correct or incorrect, it's about interpretation, debate, discussion, and convincing arguments.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, your interpretation of ANYBIO has not "been upheld (correctly or incorrectly) as consensus", GreenC stated the following on your #1 of ANYBIO argument: "No closer will say Stalwart is absolutely wrong, they will note it is a minority opinion in the AfD. Debates over group awards and ANYBIO go back since the start. For example a physics team share a Nobel or 5 people share a major award - that's why ANYBIO doesn't specifically exclude group awards, there are cases people think are OK. Nor does it specify a cut-off number for group size, that's up to consensus. Stalwart's opinion is valid, but it is minority in this AfD." The Keep results were due to pile-on !votes by Users who took the INHERITED/inherent notability view of the Tuskegee Airmen without looking at the sources. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which... completely misses the point of what I said there, and here, and elsewhere. Breathe, dude. GreenC's misreading of my opinion - as much as I might appreciate his calling it "valid" - was still a misreading. And its not a closer's reading of consensus. And nor was I referring to that AFD discussion anyway (see: "discussions about a range of topics"). It has, elsewhere, and a misreading from a single editor there doesn't not make it otherwise elsewhere.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, dude, if more than one user is misreading you, perhaps the problem is that you aren't explaining yourself well. Anyway this conversation has run its course. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ed, thanks, that's much appreciated, unfortunately I think I've done all I can on the page. Mztourist (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's a heck of a lot better than where the page stood a few weeks back. All you can do is all you can do. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page creator User:Bwmoll3 was blocked back in 2014 for copyright violations. Having cleaned up some of his many pages (principally airfields used in the Vietnam War) I'm not sure he was actually a copyright abuser, rather it seems he just pulled from public domain sources but didn't bother referencing anything. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles B.Hall's daughters photo's
Hello this is K3G96, I saw where you edited Charles B. Hall's page and removed his daughter's pictures, and the photos that were uploaded were from his oldest daughter and this is just showing his descendants, and so I was trying to figure out why his daughter's photos are not supposed to be on there? Because I've seen numerous articles of famous individuals and it showed their wives, children, siblings etc, and so this means alot to his daughter to post these photos on her fathers page, this is just showing who is two biological daughters are, thank you. K3G96 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Quit Edit warring
Quit gaming the system and using false reasons to censor information you subjectively dislike but cannot debate against its factuality. I have always given sufficient full reasoning for my edits whereas you keep edit warring without and stonewalling. You cannot be removing indisputable good edits without giving a decent reason yourself and tell the other person to give a reason on talk as you remove their edit.

Your first Reason was false. It wasn't evident. As I written on Talk, there is zero mention of the fact the second campaign pushed UN forces down (200 miles). Most unfamiliar Readers have no clue what the distance is and they should know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052765912

And when the un forces retreat. It's not evident that the Chinese and NK forces can retake the land. You can have two possible situations. The UN forces leaving quickly..and the Chinese forces returning back home or staying their position as they are too tired to advance. OR they advance fast and retake the lands that were formerly UN controlled. It's the latter and hence people should know the full details that the outcome led to UN forces retreating and Chinese plus NK forces retaking territory. Honestly I shouldn't even be arguing but this is just a courtesy message. The next time, you revert without giving an acceptable reason and will have no choice but to report you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052637139 49.179.183.11 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:49.179.183.11 it is clear from your edits that you are not new to Wikipedia and given that you don't have an account I assume that you either a blocked User or someone who makes edits from a variety of different IPs. As you should know if you add content that is disputed and reverted you don't edit war it, rather you are expected to take it to the article Talk page to try to resolve it. I have responded to all your edits on the relevant Talk Pages, you should not reinstate any of your edits until those discussions have been resolved. Don't make any further comments about those pages here. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An article that may be of your interest
Hi User: Mztourist I see that you are heavily involved in Korean War topics and also that we have both edited the Battle of Chosin Reservoir article before. I am messaging you to ask if you could take a look at the article The Battle at Lake Changjin. The article is about the Korean War (battle of chosin reservoir from the POV of the PVA to be more exact) but has as of late been the subject of quite a bit of activity and could really use your knowledge and skills. Thanks in advance for this Estnot (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Estnot I was actually going to take a look at it today but got sidetracked. I believe that film and its POV is responsible for a lot of recent editting on Battle of Chosin Reservoir and other Korean War pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * yes that would be of great, great help. Lots of activity going on in that article much of which is (unfortunately) disruptive Estnot (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh trail
Not sure if you are interested - WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ho Chi Minh trail. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks Gog, will take a look, but don't have the Vietnamese sources to balance the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)