User talk:Mztourist

Articles

Hello, Mztourist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deletion of non WP:RS Vietnam War articles

Vietnam War pages deleted due to non-notability or non WP:RS:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 7 May 1968 based on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106#Is the shooting down of 1 aircraft during the Vietnam war notable? Does it deserve GA status?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 June 1968
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao based on this story: [1]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To based on this story [2]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ban Dong
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hill 723
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là based on this story: [3]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương based on these stories: [4] and [5]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy from this site: [6]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination)

Other creations of Vietnamese Government media:

• [7] Claim that a 19 year old VC planted a bomb that destroyed a US 707 at Honolulu Airport on 25 March 1963

Commentary on Vietnamese media:

• Why Vietnam Isn’t Talking About 1968
• Revisiting Vietnam 50 Years After the Tet Offensive
• [8]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derman tragedy

Vietnam War socks

A few of the most-prolific Vietnam War sockers:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anhhunghanquoc/Archive

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Base photos

To load: https://www.fold3.com/browse/252/hURf3JqG67LylqUiI7WZwWhVkRMTSqFFu

Click on the crossed wrench and hammer symbol in the top right corner [9], then click on 'download' in the panel that appears when you click the symbol. The entire page download gives you the image with the border, while select a region allows you to crop.

https://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15141coll5/search/searchterm/Vietnam%20Trip%20Briefings%20by%20OCE%20Liaison%20Officer/field/all/mode/exact/conn/and/order/title/page/146

Articles to Afd

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Scope creep Revenge and disruptive editing

@Mztourist: 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, Onel5969, 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)

@Gog the Mild: 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)

@Gog the Mild: 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Editor doesn't care about MOS edits, but reverts them on the basis of being "unnecessary changes"

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06 and User talk:El C#ANI

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request removal of my administrator status (Buckshot06)

Courtesy note

Hi - I'm just dropping you a note to inform you that I have accepted an unblock request on behalf of Scope creep, 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. GirthSummit _(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)

Boing! said Zebedee 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

On 28 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John A. Heintges, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 7th Infantry Regiment captured Hitler's Berghof on 4 May 1945, its commander, Colonel John A. Heintges, took Hermann Göring's 1941 Mercedes-Benz 540K Cabriolet B for his personal use? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John A. Heintges. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John A. Heintges), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Operation Frequent Wind

Thank you for quality articles such as Operation Frequent Wind, Fall of Phnom Penh, Operation Starlite, Battle of Xuân Lộc and John A. Heintges, for more than ten years of service, - user praised for diligence and perseverance, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

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

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your efforts in editing the article 1967 in the Vietnam War. Your contribution has improved the article extensively. Keep up the good work! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cuprum17, that's much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit of 10:21, 1 July 2020 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)

Deb noted thanks. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle In ictu oculi commented at Talk:Võ Nguyên Giáp#Requested move 7 August 2020, but as you didn't bother linking your proposed mass move on Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu#Requested move 13 August 2020 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: [10] 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 [you] wouldn't do it so transparently 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 {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, what exactly was your intention with ItsPugle are there any other Vietnamese name moves you have proposed that we should all be aware of (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 {{ping|ItsPugle}} 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 {{ping|ItsPugle}} 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#Requested move 7 August 2020, but as you didn't bother linking your proposed mass move on Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thiệu#Requested move 13 August 2020 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 {{ping|ItsPugle}} 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). Snow ^{let's rap} 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. Snow ^{let's rap} 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)

Wikipedia: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: [[11]] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. *ss (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:*ss 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? *ss (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. *ss (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#Notability_Military_Biography 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

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

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, Lettler^{hello • 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 Cuprum17, 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. ƏXPLICIT 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)

Roxy the dog, 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)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: ). 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: ). 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)