This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mztourist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It seems that every time I come across a well written article on an operation during the Vietnamese War with an impeccable infobox it is you who has written it. There must be many more that I haven't noticed. Impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea if you are interested, but after assessing Operation Oregon I added an image and put it in for B class assessment. I got this comment:
Nice work so far. Assessed as C class. For B class, I feel that the lead and the Aftermath would need to be expanded to discuss what happened next in the war and analyse the fighting. It would probably also need to cite more than just one source.
It would seem that you have written a large number of articles which are close to B class. I would guess that if they each had an image - I have made an attempt at a vaguely appropriate image in Operation Marauder - they would be virtually there. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, which is much appreciated. As you will have gathered the Vietnam War is my thing and I am trying to write a page about every major battle or operation. This is fairly easy for the Marines because they produced a terrific history of their involvement (the US Marines in Vietnam series) with the last volume published in 1997. However for the Army its not so straightforward because their US Army in Vietnam Combat Operations series has been produced very slowly, the first being released in 1998, the second in 2000 and the third in 2017 and so far they only cover up to September 1968! Obviously for the larger battles and operations like Con Thien, Khe Sanh, Tet Offensive, Hue, Lam Son 719 and the Easter Offensive etc. there are multiple sources available, however for many of the smaller battles and operations the official histories are about the only available sources and so most of the pages will never be able to be brought up to much more than C or B class. In relation to images, unfortunately free use images of the smaller battles and operations are difficult to locate and the US Government seems to have made official DoD images harder to access over the last few years, obviously when I find them I drop them in Commons and add them, but its not always possible to locate relevant images. Finally in relation to the assessment comment that "I feel that the lead and the Aftermath would need to be expanded to discuss what happened next in the war and analyse the fighting", that really goes to the heart of the war, unlike WWII or Korea it was non-linear, there were several different types of warfare being fought almost simultaneously across the country and while the Allies may have succeeded in pacifying one area they inevitably moved elsewhere, the PAVN/VC reinfiltrated and the Allies often had to mount a similar operation in the same area several months later. Very few battles/operations had a significant impact on the course of the war other than the Tet Offensive and the Easter Offensive. thanks for the feedback, regards Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Just happened to see this. Mztourist, have you gone carefully through all the Army Vietnam Studies? There is potentially a large amount of material in there. From a quick look, there are several that bear directly on combat operations; Ceder Falls/Junction City, Mounted Combat, Ceasefire to Capitulation, Airmobile Operations, The Final Collapse etc. Specifically on the U.S. Army rather than the Marines, there's Stanton, "Shelby Stanton (1988) "The Rise and Fall of an American Army". It's described as the first complete Army battlefield history.[1] (full text, please cite properly)It's overheavy on previous regimental history which wasn't too relevant to one year conscripts counting down to their DEROS, and honestly appears a bit biased by his background, but would be a start for post-1968 combat. Also, the PAVN history has now been translated in English as "Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954-1975", which I can potentially try to get on JSTOR or Muse for you. Buckshot06(talk)05:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I have more than enough work at present recreating the air base pages that you have "presumptively deleted" and referencing those which you have indicated that you may delete, as well as debating with you over POV edits from anonymous IPs...Mztourist (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just had to revert a strange edit by you which appears to have termed the addition of a WP:THIRDPARTY academic source, an article in the Asia-Pacific Journal, as "vandalism." I am somewhat confused about why the addition of an academic source - a peer reviewed academic journal article, among our highest confidence level sources - is "vandalism". The "Asia-Pacific Journal" article is twice cited by other academic work as listed in Google Scholar, so it is a relatively well respected academic article. If you have a problem with this particular article, please follow the correct procedure, which is raising the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). In the meantime, I do not see any valid, policy-based reason why the reference, and the data it supports, should be removed. If I'm confused and there's an issue with the source that I'm not aware of, feel free to make me aware of it. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk)05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
MZTourist has consistently been changing and re-editing and distorting actual articles based on allegations that witness testimonies are all "government-coerced discussions". None of this is verifiable, and has called Newsweek and other articles as "unproven" despite edits stating these are only alleged. Its interesting that he has a very strong POV bias and has consistently re-written articles around war-crimes, war atrocities and others to fit his narrative.
I don't really understand him accusing me of being a sockpuppet either. He has instead of fixing discussions or editing it to rephrase it, just blanketly undid edits, even when I fix them. A stubborn, very sad man to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.86.244.135 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It is interesting that you have omitted citing the Deseret News/AP story source that you previously provided about the supposed "Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre", link here:Tay Vinh Massacre, which clearly states "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations", presumably because that undermines the POV that you are pushing.Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, this was one source that I used, which at the time I didn't explain. Even when I wrote on further massacres which you deleted, citing Newsweek and Hankyoreh, you deleted the entire section even when I wrote "could not be verified" and added notable exclaimers. You could have just edited it to refit YOUR POV, which accepts for a fact the most obscure, unverified sources yet dismisses any source which alleges on ROK atrocities.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.86.244.135 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You are a POV pusher and probably a sock of a banned user who hides behind IPs. The sources you provide are all based on Vietnamese sources which as I have said and the AP story quoted above confirms are not reliable. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I had come here intending to advise that I was moving the whole discussion to the SVVN War talk page. However, we seem be having a discussion here. Firstly, you cannot write off Vietnamese sources as unreliable in toto. One must have sufficient grounds for believing that a particular source is POV for such-and-such a reason and justify it. The place to do that is WP:RSN, not just trading insults. If all Vietnamese sources were unreliable, then no reputable publisher would have republished the PAVN's Official History in English nor would the U.S. Army have employed ex-ARVN generals to write numerous pieces of the war's history after 1975!! Second, having started to look at the Heonik Kwon article on alleged massacres "..based entirely on Vietnamese sources which are not reliable", the first near-primary reference I found substantiating any allegations was to the American Friends Service Committee - the Quakers - in 1974. So, Mztourist, first, while Vietnamese sources may be affected by SRV government writ and propaganda, we cannot simply write them off just like that. Second, do not allow your strong views to lead you into POV or intemperate allegations yourself, because, clearly, the American Friends Service Committee is not a Vietnamese source. So I would kindly request you, again, to take any problematic sources to WP:RSN instead of describing them as "vandalism", which adding sources is clearly not. Buckshot06(talk)10:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Buckshot06 I find it hard to believe that you could read the Heonik Kwon Asia-Pacific Journal story and regard it as being in any way reliable as he fails to provide any reliable references for the claimed massacres. The separate Hà My massacre page is based entirely on Kwon as a source and see my comments on the Talk page there Talk:Hà My massacre#Ref improve. It could well be a hoax just like many of those which I have collected here: User talk:Mztourist#Deletion of non WP:RS Vietnam War articles. In the 6th para Kwon refers to "massacres in two neighboring villages of Ha My, Ha Gia and Ha Quang", this is apparently separate from the Ha May Massacre which supposedly occurred in February 1968, but Kwon provides no reference for it. In relation to the investigation supposedly conducted by 2 Quakers alleging 45 massacres, where is a copy of that report? Have you or the IP actually read it when you place so much faith in its reliability? The Quakers had their own POV to push regarding the war. Footnotes 23, 26 and 27 which supposedly relate to massacres are Vietnamese sources and inherently unreliable as propaganda and on this I draw your attention to the AP story quoted above. The relevant extracts of which are: "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations" So yes, I do regard Vietnamese sources with great suspicion as they still push the same propaganda agenda regarding the war and go so far as to completely invent battles and events e.g.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To. As to your argument that "no reputable publisher would have republished the PAVN's Official History in English" I'm not sure which publisher you are referring to but I don't see why it wouldn't be published as it was the North's claim of the progress of the war and no doubt like all the translations of Vietnamese histories of the war that I have read I'm sure its full of "puppets", "mercenaries" and wildly exaggerated claims, but it is their version of history. In relation to the US Army employment of ARVN Generals to write history of the war, I am sure that the Army would have exercised editorial control to ensure that all content was verified.Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't have access to a 1974 report by the Quakers. The process with WP:THIRDPARTY is that the journal editors assess whether the academic writing it is credible, and if they're credible, they publish it. That's the process endorsed by WP:REFERENCES as among our highest standard - peer-reviewed journal articles - and unless you have specific information to attack the credibility of that article or the Quaker report, you need to back off. If you do, go to RSN.
As regards your repeated assertions that all Vietnamese sources are worthless, this is simply unsustainable and against wikipedia's principals. You simply cannot write off every indigenous source as propaganda - you need to justify your claims in detail. U.S. people, may, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings, but this is not U.S.-military-encyclopedia, and one *must* advance *reasons* why you believe that such-and-such a source is too biased to use. Drmies explained this to you over a year ago - I don't really expect to have to do it again. Buckshot06(talk)11:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
As regards Pat To and Hoa Da, one can easily believe the casualty counts are inflated. But simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place. I'm of the opinion that outbreaks of firing at the specified time/place probably did occur, but the casualties could have easily been exaggerated. The PAVN did do this for propaganda reasons, but you'll almost certainly know better than me that U.S. military reporting could not be relied upon at time for casualties either. Body counts were overestimated willy-nilly. We have to try and put aside our biases, sift the available data, and adhere closely to the reliable sources. Buckshot06(talk)11:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The Kwon Asia-Pacific Journal story was used to get the Quaker claim into the page, but you don't think its worth checking the Quaker report or Kwon's article about the Ha My Massacre? I have set out the unreliability of Vietnamese sources in 9 of the 11 pages deleted above. Your statement that "simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" shows extreme arrogance and disrespect of all those who took part in the AfDs. There is no RS that shows that anything happened at Hoa Da or Pat To. I don't see why I should have to prove repeatedly that Vietnamese sources are propaganda. I also don't know on what basis you say "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." Where have I ever claimed or confirmed a U.S. military background? Once again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions. I do know that your suitability to be an Admin is questionable. Mztourist (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's past time this was moved to the article talk page and third opinions invited. I'm going to copy this over and my further replies will be made over there. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)23:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Try not to stress about the articles too much. This happens on Wikipedia all the time and all or most of those military articles have been pulled into the Military wiki at Wikia. So, if you find one that's been deleted, chances are good you can see it there and help fix it rather than just live with a lazy deletion. Feel free to look around and maybe help out a bit. Cheers! 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:658B:51FB:A830:CCC3 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I really have better things to do than go and recreate articles that are deleted apparently without proper process. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh no that's not really what I'm saying. I guess what I am saying is those articles (at least the military related ones) are likely also over at the military history wiki on Wikia and you could work on it there or at least see it and see what was deleted. Wikia also has a deletion wiki called speedy deletion wiki that also frequently has articles that were deleted on Wikipedia. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:95BA:D5C3:683C:12E (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(from talk 19 TASS) How long do you think, currently, that you might need to rewrite/re-cite all the about ten USAF Vietnam base articles? I've had various ideas about giving you a time limit over the last couple of weeks but would like to hear your estimate first. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk)07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept any time limit that you try to impose, particularly when you are simultaneously stalking my work and creating problems for me elsewhere. You need to wait until the presumptive deletion discussion plays out Mztourist (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you not see (a) that the reason I started keeping an eye on what you're doing currently is those ten or so articles; (b) that I could delete them all in the next half hour, and be fully policy compliant, and that (c) the reason I am holding back is that you're attached to them and wish to revamp them? The presumptive deletion discussion at Milhist has been over for a day or so now, effectively, and had very limited validity in the first place. Because you've been so ornery about the copyright rules, you and those ten articles keep returning to my attention. Regards Buckshot06(talk)21:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Your keeping an eye on what you're doing = WP:HOUND. The reason why you've been stalking me is because I pissed you off here [2] by questioning you over presumptive deletion. The discussion on presumptive deletion isn't over and you are not acting within policy as you claim. Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970
Because I believe you are interested in the truth. The document is a period (1970) study from U.S. Army sources substantiating exactly what I've been trying to put across to you. As far as I can tell, you might believe it, because it's from a source you're inclined to accept the truth from. Buckshot06(talk)11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Our mission here is to build the best data available about specific events, and to incorporate that into articles. Are you truly not interested in reading more about the Vietnam War from a reputable U.S. Army source, to expand your knowledge? Buckshot06(talk)11:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you impugning my good faith, and those of a number of other users? I am pointing out to you that your data is incorrect, and instead of engaging with me and discussing your impressions, you seem to be more interested in criticizing me. Why are you criticizing me for providing you with more data? Honestly, you've attacked the motives of a large range of other people, but your continued seeming unwillingness to engage with other, alternate sources is beginning to make me seriously doubt your own motives. Why am I continuing to engage with you? (a) because I hope to open your mind to alternate sources and views, (b) because I'm beginning to be worried about the points of view you appear to endorse. Do you not see that saying that all Vietnamese casualty figures are "laughable" is itself not in accordance with WP:NPOV? Buckshot06(talk)11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to do something productive, why don't you look into this sudden surge of Vietnam War edits being made by User:A bicyclette and IP: 172.86.241.3 who both appeared out of nowhere 5-10 days ago or don't they concern you because you like their POV and they are causing issues for me? Having just revealed User:TDN92 as a sock and dealing with their changes and your HOUNDing leaves me with little time to create content and continue cleaning up the Vietnam War airbases. Why are you continuing to engage with/keep an eye on/HOUND me? Simple response - don't. I have no wish to engage with you at all and have no reason to do so if you stop HOUNDing me. Mztourist (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Pathetic Recent Behavior
Its quite obvious you are engaging in the most pathetic behaviour I have ever seen on wikipedia. Judging by your history your process seems to operate in a pattern: a) claim POV/minor issues/imaginary disagreements b) Undo changes made by other users c) User reverts d)You-unvert and tell them to do consensus with YOU, while refusing to mediate e)They revert f) you report. Meanwhile you have launched 3 Admin complaints against me and a sockpuppet complaint in less than a week because I refuse to comply with YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS. It is amazing that YOU personally decided to take up the task of being an admin, unasked and decided to make everything conform to your own views, of course such voluntary behavior on your end I assume you want people to thank you for at some point.
You'd think kindergarten had a purpose, in teaching children to play nicely with others and that the world isn't all about them. A bicyclette (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
hahahahahaha! You've supposedly only been on Wikipedia since 21 May 2018, so what you have "ever seen on wikipedia" is by definition a very small amount. Anyway A bicyclette/Dino nam/Mig29VN, whoever you are, the matter is being discussed on AN/I, your continued insults mean nothing to me. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
looks familiar. starts edit warring based on OWN STANDARDS, the ignores own standard of WP:BRD and makes bold changes. in the meantime, if someone else makes changes, has a stranglehold, cries WP:BRD and reports users id not accepting his way. pathetic and hypocritical. Quenreerer (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Quenreerer that's rich, unlike you here [3], I don't sanitise my Talk Page "becuase it was used against me". Stop stalking me and if you keep arguing with me over every edit I make, you will soon alienate even more people on WP than you have already done. Mztourist (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
keep your own standards you bloody hypocrite. you talk about alienation. just look at the amount of people on your own page calling you out. you're a hypocrite and a terrible editor. Quenreerer (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Quenreerer unlike you in your 4 months here, I haven't been legitimately blocked once in my almost 10 years on WP. The fact that you need to cover up your errors speaks volumes about you. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
that's because i didn't abuse the block system to manipulate admins, then turn around and ignore my own BS standards, unlike you. Quenreerer (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Quenreerer and how did I "abuse the block system" exactly? 3RR is a hard rule that you breached. You would do well to observe it and other rules like WP:CIVIL and the advice of Tide rolls on your Talk Page: [4] or you will soon find yourself blocked indefinitely, which would be no loss to the project. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
OP of this page described it perfectly. you're obsessive with some pages, you act like you own them, then report manipulate and bait. you talk about be not being missed, it's readily apparent, that you are a terrible editor to many people. If you'd be gone tomorrow, many would say, good riddance. Again look in the mirror before you accuse. you're a bottom of the barrel type editor. Quenreerer (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Quenreerer you came onto my Talk Page to abuse me, a clear breach of WP:CIVIL and despite a clear warning by uninvolved User: Tide rolls you continue to try to stir the pot. Stop wasting my time and go and do something useful if that's even possible for you given your poor writing skills. Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
and here comes the manipulative crying wolf BS. 'waaa.... you attacked me, but you have bad writing skills'. you can't help yourself can you? believe me, i'm not planning on hanging around, if i don't have to write another sentence involving you, i'd die a happy man. you're a complete waste of time and energy. Quenreerer (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mztourist, you have continued to remove "U.S. claim" or equivalent repeatedly when (a) sources listed on, for example, the 1965 operations page are only from the U.S. side, and there is no disagreement that claims were often unreliable and (b) when other editors at the Milhist RfC have endorsed this stance. I previously warned you that my patience with you removing clear and uncontroversial clarifications to such casualty estimates (whatever the other merits of your arguments over other Vietnam War issues) was at an end. After your most recent revert I have thus blocked you for three days. Feel free to appeal on my talkpage or at any other relevant noticeboard. Regards Buckshot06(talk)10:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Use this template {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. I'm not going to unblock you, but I'm happy to advise the coords or any other admin you wish to review your request. I doubt HOUND is a starter though, considering the reason I blocked you. Regards Buckshot06(talk)12:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
(watching) Support you in that, Dlohcierekim. I can see that it's preferable to ask the blocking admin to consider a voluntary undo than the rigmarole of AN, but only within a reasonabe period of time. That relies on what's deemed reasonable, of course—but if there;s a consensus that Buckshot was wp:involved (and I thought he was too, but didn't like to stick an oar in earlier), then it is phenomenally unfair to leave an editor swinging in the wind waiting on them. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Ohboy, looking at the history for the page in question - WP:INVOLVED does seem to be in play. I only see one revert from Mztourist. I'm inclined to unblock, and full-protect the article. I will give it a little while for the blocking admin to respond - maybe there's nuances that I'm not seeing. SQLQuery me!16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I will unblock after I leave this comment. I intend to post Buckshot's block and my unblock for review at WP:AN. Mztourist, you may comment at AN, but I suggest you concentrate on the substance of the block rather than on issues like hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
When you tag an article for "needing references", could you kindly also supply detailed tags for specific facts. I know nothing about the article, - how could I help? Where would I start? It would be even nicer if you only tagged specific facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I am sending you this message to ask if you can take a look at some of the debates on the talkpage. I see that you have been quite active on the Chosin Reservoir page and are quite active and knowledgeable on military-related articles in general. Your comments there would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. Mztourist, thanks for creating Operation Dauntless!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Even though this is copied from a source that could be a reference, where did this information come from? Extra sources will also show notability
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
It is all copy-pasted from the non-copyright official US Army history. Each para is inline referenced, so I'm really not sure what else you think should be done to reference it and have removed the tag. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the endless work you put into articles on the Vietnam war. There seems to be no end to the flow of solid articles in this area started or brought up to scratch by you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank for the thanks. I have assessed a couple of dozen of "your" articles in the past couple of weeks. Many were B class, and most of those that weren't needed only small changes to get there. I hope that you get around to making them. I have possibly said this before, but quite a few seem to be within easy reach of GA. Can I encourage you to take a few of them there? In any case, congratulations on a superb body of work and your huge improvement in readily accessible and accurate information on the Vietnam War.
Thanks Gog the Mild I appreciate you taking the time to assess them and provide your usual constructive comments. Unfortunately as I've said previously there aren't many WP:RS for most of these battles and I generally feel that I've taken them as far as I can with the information that I currently have. As I uncover new sources I will obviously go back and add that information to these pages, but unless a trove of photos and other WP:RS suddenly becomes available it would be a long road to GA status. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
In most cases, I don't think that it is a lack of sources holding them back from B class. Eg Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy merely needs the first two paragraphs of "Battle" citing and a lead adding and it jumps from Start to B; or Operation Montgomery Rendezvous is a C on lack of referencing simply because your single sentence "Background" is not cited. (All of these looked like mere oversights to me, and I was tempted to dig out my references and cite the last myself.)
Once or twice a year I have a fit of creativity and expand a dozen or so existing articles to GA. I will add a couple of Vietnam War articles to my shortlist and see how they get on the next time the mood strikes me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
I don't think that I have ever given an editor a second barnstar, but after skimming some of your recent travails, and noting how you have nevertheless continued to make good, constructive, well sourced additions to articles I think that this is the least you deserve. Illegitimi non carborundum. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
My "edit-war" was with the IP sock of a User who was blocked 2 days ago. The IP sock has now been blocked. I am constantly having fights with POV-pushing Vietnamese socks on pages relating to the Vietnam War and particularly purported massacres. As an Admin I would expect you to be more circumspect regarding edits made out of nowhere by a brand new IP account versus edits by me, a User of almost 9 years.Mztourist (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what the IP is doing, I was the first editor to revert you, and you should have gone to discussion then rather than reverting back. The IP may be a sock, but that is not what it was blocked for. It was blocked as a proxy which is a blame-free block. If it is a sock, it is not my sock. It geolocates to Vietnam, whereas I live here. "Purportedly" is a biased term. None of the sources are so characterising the event. SpinningSpark12:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
"Regardless" is a copout. I put the article up for AFD before you made your change so why did you make your change when the AFD process was already underway? "Purportedly" had been stable since June so why did you feel that it was necessary to change the consensus? And why did you not see fit to question the IP and its edits? Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your edit on lieutenant general Herman Nickerson Jr., I had planned to write article about him for a long time. I did that in previous week, but did not save it in order to check it before final post on Wikipedia. I noticed today, that you already created an article about him. I replaced your article with mine, which is more detailed, with photos, references etc. Could you please check it, if everything is ok, please? I'd like to find consensus. AntonyZ (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As I know, you have created some articles about Vietnam War operations and Army commanders. Do you plan to create these articles? It will be very usefull for the research of Vietnam War. I will create commanding officers of that operations. I am glad someone finally work on these chapter of Marine Corps history on regular basis. I appreciate your work!
Hi, I think Operation Kansas is largely covered by Battle of Hill 488 and a section of 1st Reconnaissance Battalion. I think I've looked at all the other operations in the US Marines in Vietnam series and decided that there really wasn't enough information there to justify creating pages for them. If you have other RS that provides more details on any of them then I'd be happy to create the pages. Meanwhile I've been working on Ernie Cheatham and if you have any more info that you can add there that would be good. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I will search my records for some photos and information on Cheatham. It will be good to coordinate our work, because I also plan to write following articles (Most of the I have a draft). Do you plan to work on these articles in near future?
Let me know please, so we can avoid the simultal work on it (as in the case of Herman Nickerson Jr.). Thank you so much AntonyZ (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
First off, let me apologize if this is not the right way to leave a message to you. Sadly, I am a newby at Wikipedia. I only created an account because I wanted to correct the coordinates for the Di An Basecamp. It looked easy, just update them and maybe later go back and add some documentation. Since I spent almost a year of my life (1967) at Di An, I know where it was and when I saw the coordinates were for an incorrect location, I wanted to correct them. In hindsight, I think maybe if I provide you some documentation, that it would be better for you to update.
Here are links to documentation that I used to obtain what I feel are the correct coordinates for the basecamp. Since the basecamp covered a large area, I thought the coordinates for the major crossroads close to the center of the basecamp would be the best ones to use. Maybe the coordinates for the 1st Inf Div Hqs would be better to use?
http://www.rjsmith.com/III_Corps_Saigon_West_To_Cambodia.html. On this map, on the vertical line between 6330-4 and 6330-1, there is a small circle with an arrow pointing to it. Hovering the curser over the arrow will bring up a small box with the words 'Di An AF' in it. Clicking the arrow will bring up a new window with this information in it: "Located at XT 909-055 in Bien Hoa province, III Corps. Tactical airfield with 2,800 foot laterite runway at 108 feet above sea level. Located very near Di An Base Camp (XT 905-055), the HQs of the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One)."
http://www.thebattleofkontum.com/extras/RVN.pdf Searching this document for Di An Basecamp will bring up some data including this: "Di An Base Camp 10.903222 106.739167 XT905055 (6330-4) aka Camp Di An. 1st ID HQ." This information matches the info in the popup window on Ray Smith's map. Searching for these coordinates on a current map places the 1st Inf Div Hqs just South and a bit West of the crossroad coordinates that I used when I tried to update. This is exactly where I remember the Hqs were in 1967.
https://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/reports/images.php?img=/maps/PDF/6330-4.pdf Using the coordinates for the Di An AF, XT909-055, will take you to about the middle of the map near the right edge. The runway is clearly visible and is in the location that I remember it in. Using the coordinates for the 1st Inf Div Hqs, XT905-055, will take you to a location just to the West of the runway. A little to the North is the crossroads which was the major crossroads in the basecamp.
I have other maps saved on my computer but they are mostly a repeat of the above information. Thanks for your help and consideration for changes on this.
Thanks obviously Kelley had it wrong (not an unusual occurrence), I will change it to 10.9 106.739. From Google Earth it looks like the PAVN still use it as they do many former US/ARVN bases. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If so, please put a note on the article's talk page to that effect, to help do-gooders like me avoid deleting PD text. Also, you'll need to format the text before adding it to the article, perhaps editing it in your user sandbox before copying it into the article. Edits you make to articles are immediately visible to readers all over the world. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. on the Hermes reference. I have unstable internet and so rip and then format. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Have you reviewed the structural place of a defense/military attache as part of a diplomatic corps lately? Also Defense Attache System. Ambassador is the lead for all U.S. personnel in country, in the absence of a military command.. eg, at United States Embassy, Saigon, during the evacuation, the DA was overruled by the Ambassador on evacuation details.. check the article. Buckshot06(talk)11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Now that that discussion/argument, which certainly got heated, on my side at least (forgive me please/AGF if I managed to imply that you were the only one getting worked up) has been settled, I've been able to remember that you're probably working from decades of real-world experience involved in the very subject; all I know of Vietnam comes from books (and meeting one veteran). Which one did you serve in - Korea or Vietnam? - with which service? Kind regards Buckshot06(talk)06:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask you some questions? What do you mean by MoS and they are just decorative shoulder sleeve insignia? Also, I don’t thinks all of them all the same and the one that are different has not been make yet, but anyway I just want a further explanation on deletion. Thanks. (Also sorry about all those mistakes on your talk page) Emperofvietilia☎✎14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I have just finished the tedious task of restoring the format of the citations you so arbitrarily changed. While you may not be aware of this, there is a WP guideline that later editors should copy the creating editor's citation style. Details are at WP:Citing sources, subsection 5.1.2. In this case, I am the creating editor, and I finished my draft of the article by fully citing it in a consistent and acceptable citation style, which should have been followed.
Please refrain from future arbitrary citation changes on any article I have created. It's a waste of both our time and energy for you to make these random changes, only for me to manually revert them.
Georgejdorner frankly your references were a mess, you didn't even provide citations for Ahern and Castle, I identified and completed them and then you went and deleted them again. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist Actually, a check of edit history shows that last time I worked on this article in February 2016, I left it with a complete set of consistent citations. If you found it changed for the worse by subsequent editors, your repair services are appreciated. Only the repair citations should have been in the original format.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Georgejdorner A check of the edit history shows that you left the citations like this: [14], I change the citations to inline refs on 31 October 2018 by this edit [15] and when you undid my inline refs on 20 August 2019 you didn't go back to your original citation format and managed to lose the Ahern: [16] and Castle [17] citations. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
In all this back and forth, you have evaded a polite request to conform to the WP protocol on not changing the form of cites. Why?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I made a simple request related to WP standards. You have turned into some sort of blame game to satisfy your inability to admit error. Your behavior borders on incivility. I no longer wish to deal with your immaturity. Please do not contact me again. All further communications from you will be ignored.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fall of Phnom Penh 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) 08:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); then follow the instructions about bypassing your cache, it should appear in the tools section of an article page (in the left hand margin). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why a personal question to you about the understanding of duplicate links belongs on the Hannah Arendt talk, as you say. - I believe that it's clutter there. Of course every article's qualitay can be improved, no need to tell me that there. Your edit was fine, - no need then to have any mention on her talk, imho. I am sorry that I didn't take the time to check myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments relating to a page belong on that article's page. It's not "clutter". Thank you for confirming my edit was fine. Are you related to Hannah Arendt? Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Sadly no relation. - My comment wasn't relating to her page, - it was only there that I noticed. - I know many users who misunderstand repeated links. Sorry, sorry, sorry that I didn't check myself that you are not one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The duplicate links tool seems fairly reliable and saves a lot of time compared to checking manually, but of course its always possible that links of Works could be picked up in error. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mayaguez incident 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) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. 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.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. on the Hermes reference. I have unstable internet and so rip and then format. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
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) 08:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
; see Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh 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) 11:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)