User talk:Mztourist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:40, 11 February 2023

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Archives

1, 2, 3

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:

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

[9]

Vietnam War socks

A few of the most-prolific Vietnam War sockers:

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

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

WP:CITEVAR

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Mayhew Dodkins

[[Interaction Timeline]]

copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution

Base photos

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

Click on the crossed wrench and hammer symbol in the top right corner [10], 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

Source assessment table

Hi, next time give Template:source assess table a try. It's clear, objective and to the point, and avoids the trouble of having to create walls of text in the nomination or throughout the page. It also makes it harder for someone funny to just come in and make a poor but superficially plausible argument without looking the sources. Best regards, don't be discouraged by setbacks, and keep up your good work, Avilich (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avilich, will use that next time. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ban Me Thuot

The wrong internal link for Quang Duc was added on December 12, 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ban_Me_Thuot&diff=815007110&oldid=815006030 .

I'm afraid that if we don't have a correct classification or a correct link after Quang Duc, someone will add a wrong link again soon. It is very easy to add a new wiki link but very difficult to recognize in case it is wrong, 4 years past since the wrong link was there proved that. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my mistake, I will keep a watch for it in the future. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI 15 November 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&action=history

https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141118-043.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALightburst&type=revision&diff=1055384977&oldid=1055384668 Koch Marshall Trio & Guy King

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. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Declined. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help improve the article to quality B. Thanks you. Youngzx (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make amends

Hello. I am here to apologise for my on-wiki behaviour on your past ANI post in regard to Jamesallain85 (courtesy ping). While I still do not necessarily "side with you" per se (notwithstanding WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND) , I should have been more calm in my approach. I would also like to apologise for my proposed Arbitration case against you (insofar the fact that it is not posted), and thank you for respecting me when I asked you to stop a discussion thread so as to prevent it from going exceedingly off-topic. Sorry, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your apology. Mztourist (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not relible

In your discussion on the sources on Roy Rob McGregor you list IMBd as reliable. IMBd is considered for Wikipedia purposes to not be reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will change it. Mztourist (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davoren AfD

I see the ARS has arrived at this AfD. I didn't follow any of the drama board stuff closely, but weren't some of them banned from participating in AfD stuff? Intothat darkness 14:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothat Andrew was indeffed, LB was given a 6 month ban, but the rest are able to canvass freely as usual. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley reference used on Vietnam related articles

The Kelley reference used on several Vietnam related articles which I have edited uses a page numbering system where there are several sections in the book and each section starts numbering pages with page one. The citation style I used started with the section number and then the page number. Example: 2—103 means section 2, page 103. It is possible to have the same page number in several sections so that is the reason I chose that system that you have changed. So you know what I have done and why. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I have used Kelley as a reference on over 200 pages and constantly have Users change e.g. "page=5-107" to "pages=5-107" assuming that the reference is to multiple pages. Following a discussion at ANI where I have been criticized for the reference format I just went and changed it to "page=107". If I changed any of your pages I apologize. regards Mztourist (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would have been criticized for for stating the obvious. Some editors on here are just a little to picky for my taste. The Kelley reference is laid out the way it is laid out and is very usable that way. To cite it any other way is misleading a person that is checking a citation in my opinion. Keep up the good work on all things relating to the Vietnam War. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the method I used in the article Coast Guard Squadron One to call out the correct page reference. This would work on all articles where Kelley is cited. You wouldn't have to worry about which dash or hyphen was used. I personally think that {{hyphen}} looks ignorant. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge with the dash is it does look like a page range, especially if you're unfamiliar with the layout of the Kelley book (and I would strongly suspect most people are not familiar with it). I"d suggest using S or sec. to denote the fact that you're referencing a specific section and then add page numbers. Turabin recommends something similar to this for series publications, and it does eliminate the need to use hyphens or whatever. Using the example, it would read S2, 103. Intothat darkness 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 1968

You can check the book History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Joint Chiefs of Staff and The War in Vietnam 1960–1968, part 3[11]. In p.145, it says: "The Administration promptly accepted General Westmoreland’s recommendations, with the stipulation that bombing in North Vietnam would be restricted to the region south of Vinh. President Thieu also gave his concurrence. On 26 January, the Joint Chiefs of Staff notified CINCPAC and CINCSAC of these exceptions to the 36-hour truce, which would begin at 1800H on 29 January in II, III, and IV Corps. The ceasefire began on schedule, but was short-lived. Soon after midnight on the 29th, enemy forces in southern I Corps and parts of II Corps, evidently acting prematurely due to a mix-up in orders, attacked key towns and installations. This action resolved the allies’ questions about the timing of the general offensive. At 10.00 hours on the 30th, Saigon time, President Thieu formally cancelled the truce throughout South Vietnam, and both the US and ARVN commands placed all their forces on full alert. The alert came too late, however, to recall thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers who had gone on leave for the holiday. Outside of I Corps, where the absentee rate was around 20 percent, most ARVN units were at about half strength when the truce was cancelled. Allied forces thus were partially off balance when the Communists began their nationwide attacks in the early hours of 31 January."Lienanhhippo (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wiltsie

Please revert the undiscussed gender changes to this ship article and any others you may have done. You're a very experienced and respected editor so I'm surprised you did this Lyndaship (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lyndaship I have explained my reasoning already on HMAS Hobart, so you shouldn't be surprised at all. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Francis G. Brink

On 4 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Francis G. Brink, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brigadier General Francis G. Brink, the first commander of Military Assistance Advisory Group Indochina, was found dead at the Pentagon with three bullet wounds in the chest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis G. Brink. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Francis G. Brink), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 23,537 views (1,961.46 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Shufly

I have had that article partially written in my sandbox for years. Thank you for getting after it and writing the page. I will work to help improve it in the near future. Cheers.Looper5920 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looper5920 thanks, I had put all the information about Shufly into the various squadron pages a while ago and so just consolidated those to make the Shufly page. Meanwhile I found a bunch of Shufly photos on Commons and consolidated those. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom mention

fyi, I mentioned you in the evidence section of the pending Conduct in deletion-related editing Arbcom case, in the context of an ANI closure summary that I cited, i.e. There is consensus that the mergers and/or redirects by Mztourist at issue here, which concern articles about people after whom ships were named, were appropriate. You were also mentioned on the Talk page of the case [12] by another editor. Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion going on in some talk page

Hey, there's an ongoing discussion going on at U.S. war crime talk page and you seem to be educated about this. I'm wondering what your thoughts are about this. Thanks! XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mz" digraph

Dear Mztourist, does the "Mz" prefix in your username indicate Mexico? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. The user works in Washington.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flat Top

You made huge edits to Operation Flat Top, removing all of the background that justified the extraordinary and unique ship conversion project in the first place. I have restored the content you deleted. Your edit summary supplied a link to "my discussion" that does not exist. Please use the article's Talk page to describe your concerns that justify removing all of the background information. This will allow multiple WP editors to discuss such a large edit that I believe negatively impacts the notability of the ship conversion project. Regards, — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you very much for cleaning up the article Royce Williams and putting it in military order. That is exactly what I was hoping someone would do, since I am not that familiar with military biography style myself. MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN you're welcome. It will be interesting to see how the MoH campaign plays out. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

I just saw the news coverage of the four recent recipients of the Medal of Honor, so naturally I checked to see if they were properly reflected on Wikipedia. I saw that you had already updated List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War to include them. Not only that, you'd started an article on one of them and contributed a lot to the other three articles. Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schazjmd thank you for the barnstar which is much appreciated. I read about Dennis Fujii a few years ago and so as soon as his MoH was announced was keen to create a page about him. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Carl C. Turner

Hello! Your submission of Carl C. Turner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Archie C. Kuntze

Hello! Your submission of Archie C. Kuntze at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Please advise if your QPQ has been completed, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 10:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Archie C. Kuntze

On 9 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archie C. Kuntze, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Captain Archie C. Kuntze, known as the "American Mayor of Saigon", was court-martialled for living "openly and notoriously in his official quarters" with his Taiwanese girfriend? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archie C. Kuntze. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Archie C. Kuntze), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,641 views (720.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

HMS Venerable (R63) & Otherships template

The purpose of the {{Other ships}} template is to link to "...other ships with the same name" - i.e. to the disambiguation pages - you replaced a link to the disambiguation page with a link to the same ship - i.e. definitely the wrong article for a diambiguation hatnote - although it is arguable whether the hatnote should just cover HMS Venerable as there are separate articles (HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) and ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2)) for the ship's service under those names. The articles on the Argentine and Netherlands service are linked immediately below in the lede - but if they do need to be hatnoted, they should be done in separate hatnotes (perhaps {{About}} or something similar) rather than saying that HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) is a different ship, which is what your edit suggests.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nigel Ish I don't see the sense in the other ships template which should only lead to a disambiguation page for other HMS Venerables, not other HNLMS Karel Doormans and other ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (which should have their own templates at the top of their respective pages). Nevertheless I have self-reverted Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MiG29VN

Hi, there are various IP accounts that make disruptive edits to Vietnam War pages that both you and I have dealt with before. One of the IPs was banned in October for 2 months for disruptive edits on Vietnam war casualties and other pages. The IPs are clearly one user but I suspect they are also the same user behind Cucthanh who was banned last month as a sockpuppet of an old user MiG29VN. Some of the IPs are 103.3.255.99, 2001:EE0:4A63:6670:45A3:8FC4:2F77:BDEF, 113.160.158.12, 2001:EE0:4A61:5D30:9401:AC78:E87F:F468, 117.5.147.200, 27.73.73.44 and 27.3.144.184. They are all fixated on casualties, including Easter Offensive: 1 and 2. Both edit summaries have the same poor grammar. They also make edits regarding the Vietnamese government's official figures: 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are plenty of other similarities. Karsdorp85 (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karsdorp85 thanks for the heads up. Its all incredibly tiresome, but I'm sure that we can take them down. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of different IP ranges is relentless. I also noticed even more IP ranges at Battle of Khe Sanh that could be the same user:118.107.72.17 and 213.45.205.134. This edit also comes across as suspicious. Thanks. Karsdorp85 (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite interesting that any editing from Vietnamese IPs is treated as suspicious by you, while you are clearly a full time (9-5) US editor, who primarily curates articles on the conflict which your country inflicted on theirs. Do you care to comment on that fact?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ConfusedAndAfraid MiG29VN and those Vietnamese IPs are Vietnamese propaganda trolls. You know nothing about me. All of my additions are based on WP:RS. Why are you even here on WP? You haven't created any pages, you've made minimal contributions other than on Talk pages. If you're WP:NOTHERE then get lost. Mztourist (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm glad you brought up the creation of pages. Since you take a strong interest in US history in South East Asia, I wondered if you'd be able to help me document Operation Paper, a CIA operation in Myanmar, which would help to provide some context for the subsequent conflicts in Indochina. It was why I started editing on Wikipedia, because after reading about it, I found that it wasn't on this encyclopaedia. ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of interest. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting statement given the amount of hours you have spent writing and changing articles about the USA's role in this region. May I ask for a clear on the record answer as to why you're avoiding this subject?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

164th Aviation Group

Hello,

Do you have any evidence the 164th Aviation Group is linked to the current 164th Theater Airfield Operations Group?

According to 1st Aviation Brigade#Formation and Vietnam service it does but no reference is given. According to 164th TAOG History on Army.mil the 164 TAOG links back to the 284th Aviation Company (Air Traffic Control).

Gavbadger (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this lineage should have followed the unit in Korea and not the 164th TAOG. Granted the info there is somewhat outdated (1996), but it does come after the 1995 date included on the 1st Aviation Brigade page. Intothat darkness 22:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any lineage information on the unit. Will let you know if I find something. regards Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and pulled the information from the article. It can always be re-added if other sources are located. Intothat darkness 13:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 215: / Line 215: @@
 ::::Actually I'm glad you brought up the creation of pages. Since you take a strong interest in US history in South East Asia, I wondered if you'd be able to help me document [[Draft:Operation Paper|Operation Paper]], a CIA operation in Myanmar, which would help to provide some context for the subsequent conflicts in Indochina. It was why I started editing on Wikipedia, because after reading about it, I found that it wasn't on this encyclopaedia. [[User:ConfusedAndAfraid|ConfusedAndAfraid]] ([[User talk:ConfusedAndAfraid|talk]]) 01:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 :::::Not my area of interest. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist#top|talk]]) 04:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
+::::::This is a very interesting statement given the amount of hours you have spent writing and changing articles about the USA's role in this region. May I ask for a clear on the record answer as to why you're avoiding this subject?[[User:ConfusedAndAfraid|ConfusedAndAfraid]] ([[User talk:ConfusedAndAfraid|talk]]) 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 == 164th Aviation Group  ==