User talk:Johnvr4

Welcome!

Hello, Johnvr4, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

sorry about this. i cannot figure out why you are so intent on getting the "no books" thing in - but in any case you have no consensus on the talk page for that, but you keep inserting it. again, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation of the facts. The talk page quite clearly states that there is concensus but without the clarification I requested on what has concensus.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is really simple. You don't have consensus for the edit, but you keep making it. I posted to the noticeboard because you seem dedicated to getting it in, regardless of opposition. That is the definition of edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was determined by the quality of the arguments as all counter arguments lacked quality.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

As one of the participants you are not in a great place to assess the quality of arguments, are you. Look John, the right way to proceed when there are disagreements is WP:DR, not continually making the edit. I have no more to say here; you are probably going to be warned or maybe blocked. We can talk more after the EWN case is sorted. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was able to determine 2/3 of the concerns about my edits were completely made up with zero basis in reality. It is obvious that the other 3rd of the concerns lacked any support or reason. It wasn't that difficult of a determination to make. Why would it?Johnvr4 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Direct link with comments: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive331#User:Johnvr4_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Johnvr4 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

• John, I realize you have been alerted about this before, and it's not my intention to pester you. But since the earlier alert was in 2014, you might reasonably have forgotten it. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the reminder. For years several editors kept reinserting garbage from Chemtrail update personal website into that article repeatedly. [1]. I repeatedly called it vandalism.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There was even a warning from an editor user:Second Quantization who went out of his way to protect idiotic content of the conspiracy website source and prevented the only editor that recognized what was happening (Me) from fixing it while every other involved editor on that page at that time seemed hell bent on reinserting the dubious material they would not verify while saying I was simply edit warring.

Each editor on the noticeboard had the same opinion and also repeatedly called it edit warring while failing to recognize the root of the issue which was BS content from a conspiracy site. Vandalism may have been too strong a term as I misinterpreted intent rather than the result.

The fact is that the other involved editors absolutely won that "edit war" but they looked really bad doing it when I showed these editors had been reinserting that dubious content for many years. The comment here may be a bit WP:pointy but this explanation will continue each time and every time the issue is brought up because not one editor verified the source themselves and I was the one held accountable for their ineptitude. The archive will be always available for every involved editor to refer back to in hindsight if an editor takes issue with my synopsis. I had a faulty mouse when I typed the notice board responses. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Note

Johnvr, it seems that you have a longer term goal of getting the history of how the conspiracy developed into the article. Pounding away on this book thing in a way that is garnering no support, is digging yourself a big hole. It is useful to be strategic - don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That goal has it's own talk section and sandbox which you were kind enough to help me with. Please come back to the talk section on it.

"The book thing" was an edit that I felt was very highly unlikely to be challenged. It looks like I was wrong somehow but as of this edit, no one has explained how. If this is how my edits to only change a few words are going to be received, we may be in for a long policy-based discussion. It's obvious that we could all get a whole lot done towards improving the article with some constructive criticism and discussion and compromise. So, please stop fighting and come on out of your trench. This isn't a war. Let's talk about it sensibly. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Red Hat draft

I've made some notes about my reactions to your draft at my talkpage. Honestly the article doesn't hang together as it is; there are too many barely-related subjects in it (in my view, eg there's no need for a separate section about Japanese research involvement, merely one sentence in some relevant section.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The J-research was part of the link to Okinawa in the Korean War BW allegations. I had moved some of it to my sandbox2 and other parts to Allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War and condensed some more. You are correct in that it will need more condensing. Assertions that Red Hat chemicals came to Okinawa without the knowledge of Japan's policy makers was the initial purpose for the section after as with similar to the assertions about knowledge of US nukes. Harris tied that together with the subsequent US research leading to Project 112 and also with insects and crops. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to Operation Red Hat

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Operation Red Hat without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Red Cap

Why don't you split out Red Cap as a completely separate article? Happy New Year Buckshot06 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I may need to that at some point. I am not sure how it everything fits together with a solid distinction between Red Hat and Red CAP, alleged "Waterfall," and Project 112 given the descriptions in the limited sources available and I can't seem to find the actual published articles from Vietnam or in Sweden. I currently only have the transcript of interview and a final draft copy of the Marlowe article. Given the controversy over OP Tailwind which did briefly mention but did not address Cambodia allegations and also the DTC test (Project112) there is that the Project 112 name was still sort of classified during the Tailwind dispute (I still need to verify that), I am not sure how a stand-alone Red Cap article would go over at this point and it may be premature to move it. I'll need more help with the MOS but I've been doing some rearranging in the organization of the draft and hope that it will make a bit better sense when I'm done and the parts that obviously don't belong will stand out. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Beacham Theater shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Beetstra I already warned you about an edit war. You can't come back and warn me in revenge. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation, this is not revenge, this is WP:3RR, a bright line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You violated 3RR when I first warned you and 3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes. Clearly you are mistaken given the edit summaries of the entry and discussion on your page. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes That's simply incorrect. Could you please self-revert and work to find someone that agrees with your viewpoints about the links? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not violate 3RR, I removed once, you reverted, I reverted again. This was not a mistake, it was a reasoned removal in accordance with our policies and guidelines. That may be an edit war, it is not 3RR. You are now really at the verge of 3RR.

I suggest, per Ronz, that you revert yourself and then find consensus for the inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you counting my good faith efforts to change the actual links as Reverts for 3RR? Wasn't the sub-page that the links were pointing your concern? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping you will put aside the need to try to find ways around 3RR, and instead try to gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This was my mistake as 3RR does in fact include edits and reverts to different material in the count. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Beacham Theatre. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do not continue to reinsert material that has been challenged by multiple editors w/o talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnvr4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is excessive and the issue is currently under three separate discussions where I've asked that links not be modified until the discussion was over. Please at least unblock to continue those talk page discussions. *here:User talk:Beetstra #edit war at Beacham Theatre *here:ELN #Beacham Theatre *and now here:Talk:Beacham Theatre #In line external links There is not yet even consensus about which link or links the discussion is referring to! Now not one editor will even point to a specific link of concern to discuss. My questions and requests for clarification are being ignored. The fact is that the involved editor that I reverted refused to open a talk page section at the entry and has not explained a valid position or counter-argument for his deletions. He was engaged in his own edit war which I warned him about and he violated 3RR but that is no excuse for my own violation to correct what I thought and still think is a mistake and misunderstanding of the WP:EL policy. I was already refraining from more edits of the link materiel. My last revert was not at all related to the contested links. During the next 24 hours had I hoped to make the position obvious in further discussion. The absurd part is that the material I re-inserted is not even the same material being challenged as each link was modified to address the concerns as explained in the edit summaries! Only one or possible two of the links that the editor and others have now deleted has not been modified after the concerns were raised. The External links in the external links section that are being complained about and the links being deleted are not pointing to the same sub-page are not even to the same material as they previously were. There is no valid dispute about the updated links. These links are not controversial and comply with WP policy. The dispute was about the format of prior links and certain editors not understanding the well-established exceptions to those WP:EL policies Each link was modified per WP policy, it is justified and what was reinserted is not even the same materiel. There was no valid reason to delete the links in the first place as shown in in the edit summaries or discussions. Consensus is based on the validity of the argument rather than voting. Please consider the abnormal discussion processes that I had to use to understand and rectify such concerns and try to follow them as well as the content of the discussion in determining consensus or edit warring violations. It isn't super clear because it is now in three places and would take a lot of time to review and is very likely more than an administrator would want to deal with. Please understand this is not my fault and I was in the process of clarifying concerns when I was blocked. Now this is a catch-22 where I can't very clearly express that to other editors that I'm in discussion with or to an administrator trying to review it. Thank you for this consideration of this matter. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here. But if there is anymore re-adding challenged material w/o crystal clear consensus you will be blocked again, probably for more than 24 hrs. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point you seem unable to acknowledge that no one agrees with your perspective, and that consensus is unlikely to change. I suggest you move on, as your repeated dismissals of others' comments are difficult to see as good faith efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Put forth a quality argument. That is all. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I was in the process of removing my comment when you responded.

I didn't notice the closure at COIN, and don't want to be seen as piling on. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the apology. Can you please understand I am not intending to promote and am receptive to modification of each link or removal per policy concerns? There was a logical reason for each link and perhaps the policy was not well understood. Let's get this done and move on. We are arguing about BS. I self-reported to Coin to clear my name.

For the offline archives of material would the creation of a list work? Johnvr4 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not intending to promote I didn't intend to convey that interpretation. SOAP problems, at least those that don't result in a quick block/ban/etc, aren't about whether or not anyone is trying to promote anything but rather the difference between content that is encyclopedic in nature versus content that is "propaganda, advertising and showcasing". Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish. In this case, I'm not clear what source even verifies what related content there is in the article, so it's difficult to judge, but almost impossible to make a strong case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. The addition of the rollo art pic did not promote rollo. The replacement link for the whole piece did not promote anything either. That particular link does not verify anything. It is Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013) Dance dance revolution that verifies.

Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture is a companion to the cited source and provides reader with reliable info about the subject that can't otherwise be used in the article because of copyright.

Note: I am not trying to bypass WP:EL nor abandon my previous arguments with the suggestion to create a list. WP:LWA (WP:LWA#External link spamming) The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic.

My opinion and my previous editing was make the direct link to the rollo art pic as that would in my opinion gave the reader the most (but not all) the info with the least amount of clicks while still retaining all the links to the rest of Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture as compared to this link to the whole piece [2]. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to external links discussion: WP:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Beacham_Theatre (closed) Johnvr4 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Orlando's Summer of Love

An article that you have been involved in editing—Orlando's Summer of Love—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht, I've added a crap load of sources to review for notability. We probably do not need all of them at this time so I will leave it in your capable hands to whittle them down and merge/redirect if that is the correct path going forward. I also was not sure of the title. Thank you for your help. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Air defense interceptors/Genie

I've reviewed every source you propose for the paragraph below, and still cannot find any mention of air defence interceptors. Which of the four sources you cite has this wording?

In the event of mass air penetration by an enemy attacking Okinawa, air defense interceptors stood ready to scramble with nuclear warhead tipped missiles that were kept on alert status. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, thanks for the message. since i did not see it after a quick look, "Genie" was probably just a statement of fact but possible syn as it was a very simple process of elimination~the nukes that F-100 & F-106 carried.

"Interceptor is mentioned here (#16 on p.6-7). it would be "#4 CDI" in your message and I had just added it to the entry (probably just as you left your note). I also added some more support for other contested material which I hope is now sufficient. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with using that CDI source (apart from listing four refs, three of which don't support the sentence). 1) we're not certain that the base in question was Okinawa (which is why me and Hohum keep removing that other paragraph). 2) You've converted 'could carry nuclear-armed missiles' into *did* carry nuclear-armed missiles. The CDI source says that the interceptors 'could' carry nuclear-armed AAMs. Your phrasing in the article has always been along the lines of 'nuclear-armed interceptors *stood* ready for scrambling' -- implying that they *did* carry the weapons. You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to be certain about Okinawa as the section is titled suspected! and that is why I'll keep putting it back in...

I did not convert could to did. Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now.

Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!

"Alert" (armed, fueled, sitting on apron, with a pilot sitting in the seat or nearby) and the nuke bunkers and hangers for the alert interceptors are still at Naha airport. ::::Johnvr4 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources. Nothing says that nuclear-armed interceptors were sitting alert at Naha; that's why I talked about could vs did from the CDI source. I've gone as far as I can by finding the squadrons and the aircraft involved (16th and 82nd FISs) and putting a sentence in. 'Suspected' simply does not cut it on Wikipedia; if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be here.

What's your personal involvement with this? I'm intrigued; how do you know the hangers are still there - or were there in the first place? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone traveling to the Naha airport can see it of can look on goolge earth and see it in plain sight or they could use their device to verify Naha Air Base was the interceptor base back then and that the Japanese are still there on alert. Or to it could be used to look at one of the cited sources that says F-100 and nukes on Okinawa... Apparently you are the only one who cant do that. Still!

You've stated a few times that, "I have reviewed the sources" and that the support is not in there~ nonsense!

I've repeatedly warned you that you really must review those sources before making that assertion again. Your assertions now imply a certain lack credibility and your lack of competence with this material and reading the verifiable sources supporting it is painfully obvious.

I took out Naha but I could put it back and add Kadeda and South Korea too! I guess I'll just have to put those all quotes in here so other every other editor can see what happened with these totally false assertions and all those faulty edits based on them for the rest of forever. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"US military went on full alert deploying F-100 fighters armed with nuclear weapons from Kadena AB on Okinawa to Kunsan, South Korea as well as preparing for strikes against Mainland China from all bases."

"With this in mind, in 1954 the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972 (see accompanying stories)."

"1950s and 60s F-100 Super Sabre served as primary interceptor...could carry nuclear capable air-to-air missiles. Was carrying one on Jan 18, 1959 at one of four Pacific bases (&Okinawa etc.)....on a reveted hardstand...ground alert configuration...weapon on left wing"

"In 1954, the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972." Johnvr4 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these Johnvr4. Clearly 'interceptor' isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, which are not tied definitively to Okinawa, and substitute 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a temp edit to say I found 2 refs for found genie and will modify and update in morning. One ref is called "umbrella" I think Johnvr4 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC).

• "Contingency plans existed in 1967 for deployment of the Genie air-to-air missile to Japan. Although the Genie missile is dual-capable, the documents clearly identify the missiles that would be deployed under these contingencies as nuclear missiles. This represents the first association of nuclear-armed Genie missiles with Japanese deployment. The details of the contingencies under which the missiles would be deployed remain classified." This source talks all about alert status --even after 1972 in Japan!

• "The Genie in Wartime would carry a nuclear warhead... Forty-one Hoosier-based airmen are, knocking "enemy planes" out of the Skies above the Gulf of Mexico with explosive accuracy to prove they are defenders from sneak air attacks. The 41 career airmen, members of the 319th Interceptor Squadron F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Star Fighters and F-10O Super Sabers. Fliers of these planes came to the meet from such distant USAF bases as Naha AFB, Okinawa."

For "interceptor" please see interceptor aircraft, scrambling (military), Ground-controlled interception, North American F-100 Super Sabre, F-106, F-104, or 319th Fighter Interceptor Training Squadron all of which use the word interceptor without any of the qualms or issues you are having with using it.

I'm going to move this discussion to the subject talk page. Other editors are complaining that reverts are taking place without discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion Moved to Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparent POV

I write to give you the opportunity to clarify this edit. Why are you calling this source dubious when you youself introduced it and cited it repeatedly, previously? Why is the paragraph I summarised now suddenly dubious? What are you writing in your edit summary about Neither Confirm Nor Deny when the issue at hand is actually the reason for weapons withdrawal from Japan (and Taiwan and the Philippines)? Please avoid introducing an anti-United States Department of Defense point of view into the article; this is forbidden by our WP:FIVEPILLARS. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is good however it is your use of it to reach dubious conclusions that is concerning. Your conclusion about the Terrorists and Removed in 1972 is disputed by that source and others and my concern is already explained in the edit summary and at the talk page. The edit summary is: "source: "The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning"

It you want to edit that page, then you need to watch the talk page and participate in discussion there. As you well know, the section that addresses that particular editing is here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Faulty_edit_RS_vs._undue_weight

Quote:

"The paragraph you cite above, "With the reversion of Okinawa" etc forms para 6 of Kristensen's article. The very next para, para 7, begins "Although nuclear weapons were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s" which I believe substantiates the generally held belief at the time. Thus nuclear weapons were removed in 1972, it seems, though forces on Okinawa (possibly the 18 TFW) may have been held at some level of nuclear alert state for other reasons -- possibly ready to employ nuclear weapons which would have arrived during transition-to-war. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Perhaps they never left in 1972 or perhaps they were brought back after- I haven't looked for clarification. From Kristensen, some "were removed in 1972" and some were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s. [“Secret” 1965 Memo Reveals Plans to Keep U.S. Bases and Nuclear Weapons Options in Okinawa After Reversion] Johnvr4 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What anti-DoD position(s) are you accusing me of introducing exactly?

"If you think for one second that you are going to edit about controversial issues in Okinawa without presenting the majority and minority viewpoints in our sources then you are going to have much larger problems. So, I insist that you fully elaborate on your alleged concern and the appropriate WP:FIVEPILLARS policy that you believe is relevant to that concern! Johnvr4 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And concerns about vulnerability to terrorist attack were apparently a primary issue. Stop removing mention of that from the article!! Kristensen says this, and you've not introduced any other section of Kristensen that says he contradicts himself, or any other source that terrorist attacks were not a concern. This was clearly not all about sovereignty. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, again, a 1965 memo does not prove that weapons were retained on the island after 1972: you need a separate good source, and Kristensen examined all the available sources and concluded they were removed circa 1972!! Another source you found yourself said that Japan was asked to fund complete withdrawal of the weapons c.1972!! It's like saying that the U.S. plan to retain four large bases in Iraq c.2009-10 shows that the bases (Balad etc) were retained after OND finished, when in fact everything left the country!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I told you there might be contradictory reliable sources. Didn't I? And I have NO IDEA what your anti-DoD accusation entails but it sounds ridiculous on the face of it.

Understand that I am not disputing that Kristensen talks about terrorists. But, Kristensen later offers more information about "terrorist threat" and you apparently stopped reading the source too early. Per my edit summary(S), I (for now) am disputing your interpretation of what Kritensen is saying about terrorists versus the reason for removal. There is no doubt Kristensen mentions terrorists and that guards weren't set up for them. The interpretation I got from that source was that the threat was related to the neither confirm nor deny policy which itself was related to plausibly deniable to all nations including the host country to allow transit even after reversion which itself was related to nukes in Japan in the 1950s (J-sovereignty). The US would rely on secret agreements they already had in their possession. Like I explained, we need to explore this further and talk about it -But please let's do it on the article's talk page. (*note: The nuke removal and the gas removal were negotiated at same time, Japan was made to pay. Some Gas was stolen from a depot in Okinawa).

That is my concern, previously expressed- repeatedly, your removal of tags and reinsertion of the material without a new look at the source as I requested or further discussion (again) is edit warring. Lets move the conversation to the talk page and explore it there. I thought we made good effort yesterday. Please don't ruin it. I suggest proposing edits and expressing your concerns clearly.

I think we'll get a lot more done by discussing proposed edits. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a place for this material if you choose to pursue it. Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction# Terrorism_and_Japan Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you've read the valuable advice BrownHairedGirl wrote at her talkpage. Your writing is non-neutral and based on OR (PRIMARYSOURCES), and your conduct is frankly somewhat worse than bad. When you are fighting to keep allegations in a section amply stuffed of U.S. military misjudgement and errors, which speak for themselves, you're too close to the subject. If I could offer some advice, I'd step away from the computer, avoid editing for 48 hours, and consider whether you need to make your undoubtedly worthy contributions where you can write polemics (because there's lots of value in polemics on U.S. military misbehaviour, and you do live in a democracy. You might just change opinions, or, if you're very lucky, policy).

But if you wish to continue on this site, you need to take very serious account of her numbered advice, especially point 1 - which reflects how many times I have referred you to WP:OWN. Otherwise, though it might not be me (I'm frankly sick of trying to shepherd you) you will face administrator intervention again at some point, because what you're writing and how you're writing it breaches our rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it and thanked her. Perhaps you should read it again because you have utter confuse IS with WAS. User:BrownhairedGirl wrote of the original article deletion and conduct from 2013 when I was a rookie editor and did not understand a lot of policies (including the RSN). She stated that read nothing but the initial deletion and made no comment on the draft or anything of sort about new edits that you are blatantly mis-representing here. You sir are not only fighting over your POV, you are edit warring over highly dubious content because you continue to refuse to address my concerns just as you have with the issue I brought forth just above. Frankly I am tired the behavior too. Tired is not even the word for it. Make sure you address the my concern if you put that terrorist material back in the main space. I will take you to task over it.

Closed. Moving to Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands Johnvr4 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only are you displaying a clear POV, but you just appear to have shown a significant problem understanding the subject (or source). I wrote a paragraph about the removal of the weapons from Okinawa, according to Kristensen, being in the early 1970s partially because of their vulnerability to terrorist attack. You removed the section with the edit summary about terrorist concerns actually being the source for the NCND policy. But what you seem to have failed to grasp is that the NCND discussion took place in 1958!! and, as Kristensen said, only over twenty years later did U.S. officials begin to feel that the terrorist threat was so high in East Asia that it became a factor in removing the weapons from Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Anything you write trying to link two events so tangentially related, over twenty years apart, will have to be much more strongly sourced that misreading of Kristensen!! Doing so off Kristensen only is forbidden under WP:SYNTH!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice from User:BrownHairedGirl

BHG was trying to give you advice about making a comeback after having made serious mistakes. All of her words are very good advice for you *now*, because you're still trying to make a comeback into the mainspace, but you are building articles mostly off WP:OR (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES), and people, like Hohum, keep deleting sections of your inserts for irrelevancy or other reasons. So

• begins*
• But if I (BHG) was in your position of having screwed up really really badly and trying to make a comeback, then there are four thing I would do:
• Stop worrying about whether other editors are behaving perfectly, and instead try to make my own conduct the best it could be, esp in relation to WP:OWNership.
  • This is amply valid because you're threatening me against inserting material about terrorist concerns which contradicts your POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reassess all my contribs against the consensus at that AFD. The consensus there was clear about a set of serious problems ... so I'd be trying to ensure that my work now respects that multiple pillars of that consensus, in particular the concern that en.wp was being to publish a paper which was original research, non-neutral and full of sourcing errors
• Break my remaining contribs to the topic down into smaller chunks, to make them easier for others to assess.
• Actively seek wider input into the discussions about what to do with them, from WikiProjects and/or from dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g. WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC)
• quote ends*

Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid. User:Nick-D, would you disagree? I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page, but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)