User talk:Mztourist

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:

Useful templates

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]]

https://sigma.toolforge.org/

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]

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]

As this is a voluntary project, I can't see where you have any right to ask for a "clear on the record answer" regarding what a user chooses to edit or not edit. If someone says they aren't interested in working on an article or topic, that's all that needs to be said. Intothat darkness 02:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting that another account chose to reply to my request. Can I ask what your specific interest in this subject is? Is this something you'd prefer not to disclose?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ConfusedAndAfraid you are clearly NOTHERE and I'm not interested in your trolling. You are banned from my Talk Page. If you post here again its straight to ANI. 60.35.189.104 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ConfusedAndAfraid was blocked for disuptive editting on 15 February 2023. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the above exchange was referenced in the initial decline of the user's unblock request. Intothat darkness 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intothat, yes I wanted to show the diffs and also highlight the earlier outing attempt. Thanks Mztourist (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't think that individual's coming back in any case (at least under that name). Intothat darkness 15:27, 20 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]

I've done a bit of checking, and can't find any clear lineage link between the 164th AG and the 164th TAOG. I suspect wires got crossed because they share the same numeric designation. Intothat darkness 13:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Intothatdarkness for looking. I've created the 164th Aviation Group. Gavbadger (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're both quite welcome. I might do some tidying at some point on the 1st Aviation Brigade as well...mainly with the cavalry squadrons. 1-9, for example, didn't come under brigade control as far as I can recall until the 1st Cav withdrew. Intothat darkness 21:45, 13 February 2023 (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 January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Spartan 3000

Hi, I enjoyed your contribution on 2nd Marine Division (South Korea). I'm South Korean. I really thank you. I think that military is your area of expertise.

Can I ask you a favor of you? I am under dispute about removal of Spartan 3000 on the List of military special forces units (Refer to [page page])

ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force (Spartan 3000) is a just Rapid Deployment Force, definitely not the Special Force Unit and currently, Spartan 3000 is discarded nickname. So I want to remove this unit on the list.

But only one user don't want to remove. His references are Western sources. But this user's Western sources have translation errors or jounalistic exaggerations and Western report mistook ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force for ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade

In the near future, I'll open a case on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you have a spare time, Please participate in discussion.

If you have any questions about South Korean military including 2nd Marine Brigade, Capital Mechanized Infantry Division, 9th Infantry Division (Republic of Korea) and South Korean forces in the Vietnam War. Please feel free to contact me. I have many references and I can help you.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

For your information

Flaws of 4 western sources

Firstly, South Korean sources about 'Spartan 3000' are published on 20 March 2016,

(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence - "according to the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap

(2) The Diplomat source (2016-03-24) - "The Diplomat source have a follow sentence - "a South Korean military official revealed to Yonhap News last Sunday."

But Below is the original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) published on 20 March 2016.

"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.

이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.

(Translation of gist: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division on 1 March 2016, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000')

Original sources from South Korean Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any terms - "Special Force Unit (특수부대)", "Special Operations (특수작전)",

But Telegraph and Diplomat source created terms "Special Force Unit (특수부대)" and Special Operations (특수작전)" in the article. They made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration.

(3) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence - "the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a“decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year."

(If this article is really about "Spartan 3000", How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (regiment-level) and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017

Most importantly, NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.

Therefore, NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000", actually NY Times source cited this Korean language source (4 September 2017).

송영무 "北지도부 참수작전 수행부대 12월1일 창설"

(Translations: Song Young-moo (송영무) said that Decapitation Unit for North Korean Heads will be formed on 1 December 2017)

In conclusion: NY Times source was about the ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit established by the end of the 2017.

(4) Nzherald (2017-09-13) - Nzherald source have a follow sentence - "according to UK newspaper the Telegraph" and "New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported" (NY Times source's reporter was also Choe Sang-Hun)"

This source is full of howlers. Reporter mistook the "Spartan 3000" (cited Telegraph source) for ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Kim Jong Un Decapitation Unit (cited NY Times source) then reporter blended the "Spartan 3000" and 3th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) together in the article.

Excerpt

Spartan 3000: South Korea's elite decapitation unit

New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported Seoul is using the unit to send a menacing message to Pyongyang.

He wrote it was rare for a government to announce a strategy to assassinate a head of state, but Seoul wants "to keep the North :on edge and nervous about the consequences of further developing its nuclear arsenal".

The unit is due to be fully established by the end of the year,

(If this article is really about "Spartan 30000", How can ROKMC fully establish unit by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (regiment-level) and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017

according to the South Korean defence minister Song Young-moo said the unit could conduct cross-border raids, while re-tooled helicopters and aircraft could also enter North Korean territory at night.

(cited Korean source (4 September 2017): Song Young-moo (송영무) stated that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)

Footwiks (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Footwiks stop writing here, I'm getting tired of all the notifications I'm receiving. If this interests me I will look into it. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former Soviet military air bases in Tajikistan

Hello, Mztourist,

It would help if when you make mistakes like creating this page, instead of a page in Category space, you would tag it for speedy deletion, CSD G7. It wouldn't cause other editors to waste their time figuring out what to do with the page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to come back to it yesterday and tag it but got distracted. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to to comment on a subject that you're interested.

Hi, I know that you have some interests regarding the U.S. war crimes bombing and I would like you to comment on this matter. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_war_crimes#Bombings XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes article discussion/revert

Hi again, so far, we already have two recent users trying to disrupt the United States war crimes article by adding events that were clearly not illegal at the time, then engage in WP:EW when I revert them. Of those, one of them is Freoh, who adds back much of Volume2KWestOG's content on the basis that "independent" sources said so without regards to their legality/illegality under international law. Then when I revert his edit and told him to discuss in a talk page, he retaliated by adding in an article's header that says "This article is missing information about air bombings of civilian populations. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page" without actually discussing the issue on the talk page. Hope you can be active in the article more, because there's a lot of other stuff that I have to deal with and I can't deal with more than once. Thank you. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivist socker User:Orchomen, July 2023

If you were editing in good faith you'd be reverting my short desc edits as well as removing the single source tags. You're not though, which tells us everything you need to know about the level of good faith you're displaying claiming to be improving wikipedia by removing the single source tag from articles that solely rely on one source.. It's very entertaining. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orchomen/37.245.41.140 you have created over 80 socks, so you don't get to lecture me about OWN, NOTHERE or good faith. Go find something useful to do with your life. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lecture - it's a statement of fact. MI'm being constructive. You are not. You need to find something better to do with your life than removing maintenance tags you know to be correct to spite a sockpuppet! 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orchomen you destroyed your good faith and any rights here on WP back in 2016. The fact that you have come back to troll over 80 times now speaks to a certain psychosis. Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm endlessly entertained by your inability to actually respond to the matter in hand. Industrial strength deflection. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bored by your trolling and the fact that you obviously have nothing better to do with your life in the UAE. Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing better to do with your life" is the favourite refrain of editors like you who know they're in the wrong. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you clearly have a certain psychosis. Why do you keep coming back to WP when you have been banned indefinitely for your behaviour? Don't you see the hypocrisy of calling out Users for not following the rules of WP, when you have broken so many rules yourself since 2016? Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

again with the avoidance! Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're not right!

BTW, You can add WP:NPA to your reading list, it's pretty distasteful to accuse others of mental health issues. You probably should also read up on what psychosis actually is. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are psychotic to create 80 different socks since 2016. Mztourist (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please go and educate yourself about different mental health issues before throwing these terms around. We're not in a school playground. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noone asked you to come to my Talk page. Stalking me is just a continuation of your psychosis and consistent with your past behaviour. As you well know, a User's talk page is their own playground. If you're so bothered by being called psychotic then take me to ANI, but of course you won't. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one asked you to come to my Talk page and yet you did!

It is your own playground, but mixing metaphors like that doesn't mean you get a pass on WP:NPA as well you know. 37.245.41.140 (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply warning other Users that you are a sockpuppet and, as I have said repeatedly, as a sock you have no rights on WP. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, be careful. You can't say things like this here. But I've blocked the IP address for 6 months anyway. Deb (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb thank you for blocking the IP. What do you mean by "You can't say things like this here"? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you can't call people psychotic, unless you have hard evidence. You could get blocked yourself for that. Just give them enough rope and let them hang themselves. Deb (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating over 80 socks since 2016 is hard evidence of recidivism, which is a form of psychosis, so I think that's proven. Its frustrating that we have trolls like this wasting our valuable time all because of a system that allows unregistered Users to edit while the process to identify and expel them is slow and burdensome on those of us who are trying to create something useful here. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb predictably Orchomen has immediately returned with a new IP 2.48.73.173 making the same edits: [13], [14], [15]. Can you please block that IP address also. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, someone else did that while I was out. I wonder if it would be more useful to protect the pages that are most at risk from this person. If you want to give me a list, send it by e-mail rather than listing them here. Deb (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb User:Orchomen is back with a new sock, the imaginatively named User:Baseros, appreciate it if you could block and I will email you that list but is it going to be very long. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baseros/User:Orchomen you were banned in 2016. Every time you edit pages using new account or IP socks you will be found and banned again. Its too late for you to contribute anything to WP so stop trying. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that ban discussion, that was hilarious. I don't think I've ever been unable to edit WP for more than a minute. I've certainly created more properly sourced articles than you have since then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.58.129.244 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name one properly sourced article that you ever created. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no. I take the Fifth! 2.48.53.188 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I'm working my way through these articles. However, some of them do need better sourcing. Maybe you could work on that a bit? I wouldn't know where to start. Deb (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm on vacation soon so it will have to wait until after that. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, so never then. 5.38.23.235 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb/Sro23 another day another new IP sock 5.38.23.235 for Orchomen, appreciate it if you could block and protect the attacked pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please block User:Mztourism. Mztourist (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sro23, very tiresome. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your view would be appreciated here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Iranian_military_aviation#Title_of_the_article Dreddmoto (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic notification

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:FDW777 I am an experienced User, why are you sending me formulaic notifications? Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer I simply file an enforcement request over your restoration of content accusing a living person of murder when they've never been arrested for the offence, never mind charged or convicted? FDW777 (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Mztourist (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want something important to tell you

Hey remember me? I've been working on this a while back and now I want to email you because my work is too long for me to post here. Do you mind if I email you? Hope you respond to my replies. Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XXzoonamiXX just tell me here. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Larson Article

Hello! I am new to the platform and was wondering if the Matt Larson article that was deleted had any redeemable traits? I am quite interested in military articles, and Matt Larson's impact on the army is quite large. I am wondering if his impact should not just be viewed from the context of martial artists but also from the context of his impact on the US Army. Would a revised article with a substantial reduction in self-serving/glorifying references be possible in your mind? Water1968 (talk)

I have no idea who Matt Larson was/is nor the history of his page. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 please explain why you have decided to "both sides" this and block me. I followed WP:BRD, I raised this on the Talk Page, the other User insisted on pushing their viewpoint and so I eventually took it to the edit warring noticeboard. Treating me the same as an SPA pushing their viewpoint is grossly unfair and also its not gonna acheive anything, they will insist on their position and I will insist that the result is See Aftermath as set out in the policy. Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will insist that the result is See Aftermath as set out in the policy. I'm not sure what "policy" you're referring to, but your statement only confirms the legitimacy of my blocking you. Every time the other user reverted, you reverted. The fact that you're an experienced user and they are a SPA makes it worse; you should know better. And it's even more disappointing that you don't understand why you were blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 The "policy" which I set out on the Talk page which you apparently didn't read. Saying I "should know better" is extremely irritating to hear, almost as irritating as the fact that an SPA comes and vandalises a page, ignores all rules and my attempt to explain the policy and warn them and then I find myself given the same block. Experienced users should be treated better than SPA vandals, but apparently not. Mztourist (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. Now you're attacking the other user; there's no vandalism here. And I see no policy you cited in the discussion. Nothing you did exempts you from the policy of edit-warring. I hope you learn something from this, but based on your comments, it seems unlikely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother reading the Infobox policy??? How about you learn something and consider whether its reasonable that an SPA can impose their opinion on a page and get away with it? Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 was recalled in June 2025 for repeatedly making bad blocks: Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23

Hugh Spencer Daniel

I object to your removal of the Hugh Spencer Daniel wiki page. You merged it into the USS Daniel page and deleted all the detail. That sucks. His history is important. Please restore the page.

Tim Daniel 207.194.98.156 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2024 (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 July and September 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Please

... when informing a user that you requested arbitration, could you sign? ... perhaps also not use an abbreviation (RFA) that is better known for something else? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks, I thought the template was enough. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. What I don't understand is expecting anything good coming from arbcom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, we'll see. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is from the receiving end as you may know ;) - I found it kafkaesque and kept singing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a word on Tony's talk page, but I think this has blown out of proportion.

Obviously, administrators are not perfect and sometimes the behaviour is egregiously bad or out of touch enough to warrant a desysop. I set up the "Conflict interest of management" Arbcom case a few months back, and while it wasn't my explicit intention, it did result in advanced permissions being removed.

However, I don't think this is one of those situations, and this isn't worth worrying about. The community doesn't appear to have a consensus on what to do with user pages that aren't directly to do with improving Wikipedia - for example, consider Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump which, even though consensus at the MfD seemed to be trending to "keep", I decided to delete per IAR for a quiet life.

The problem I think you're having is you come across as being abrasive when disagreement breaks out, and that escalates things. This is what I meant when I mentioned the recent 3RR block - you attacked Bbb23 in retaliation, while they were trying to tell you to simply not behave in a way that got you blocked. Sometimes, the best cause of action is to say nothing at all. In the case of Battle of Chosin Reservoir I would have said "what a stupid thing to argue about" and walked away, finding another article to edit.

Anyway, now the case is at Arbcom, we'll see what happens next. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request closed

Hi Mztourist. In the request for arbitration that you filed, the Arbitration Committee has enacted a motion in lieu of a full case:

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

As such, the case request is now removed. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § h-Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71-20241107232700

Sadly competency was also a question, given the number of issues that have been found in many of the articles he's created or edited. And any attempt to correct those problems (including copyvio, misuse of sources, and so on) is always met with walls of text from him proclaiming his contributions to the project while not addressing any of the issues raised. At least he does tend to back off if pushed hard enough, but it's always more of a struggle than it should be.Intothat darkness 16:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't think he was helped by some pretty bizarre advice throughout the case, either. SerialNumber54129 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Battle of Yultong page

As a Filipino I would like to thank you a lot as a fellow editor for your good samaritan efforts against misinformation and vandalism. These efforts mean a lot to the entire Philippine nation, as this myth of unsupported numbers (40,000) have long been prevalent in social media and even in some official government (including the AFP on Twitter/X). But it is time that the past is given light Delirium333 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IP vandalism is incredibly annoying. Mztourist (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request regarding an unblock decision

Hi Mztourist, just in case the ping might not work – your opinion would be welcome at User_talk:Skornezy#November_2024. Thanks in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I saw your involvement in the discussion at ANI and thought you could use one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GeogSage! Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm not thrilled with how that whole thing went and am sorry for getting others caught in crossfire. Unrelated, looking at your page I believe you have expertise that could benefit two pages I have on my radar and like conceptually, but feel need a lot of TLC. If you ever have any time, Pace count beads and Military geography both need some love in terms of sources and content. If you aren't interested, no harm. Military geography in particular is one I am collecting some material for, but I can't pull from my experience like on the main geography page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian–Vietnamese War

There is a pro-communist account from Vietnam that vandalized this article by claiming that Vietnam won this war. This war took place from 1978 to 1989 as the article reflects. It is true that the Vietnamese army overthrew the Khmer Rouge governement in Phnom Penh in early 1979, but they still had to stay to help their weak ally fight against the remnants of the Khmer Rouge who were still widely recognized internationally and were helped by two other political organizations. Vietnam had never defeated the Khmer Rouge and had to withdraw its troops because of economic difficulties and a desire to escape international isolation, leading to peace treaty and restoration of Cambodian constitutional monarchy and multi-party rule. The withdrawal of Vietnamese troops broke Cambodia's political deadlock. Saying Vietnam won this war is wrong historically. What do you think? 2402:800:F830:DC62:9723:2BCD:3AF5:408A (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hi Mztourist,

This is to let you know that File:T-7A Red Hawk over Edwards Air Force Base.jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 2, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-07-02. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk is an American–Swedish transonic advanced jet trainer produced by Boeing with Saab. In September 2018, the United States Air Force (USAF) selected it for the T-X program to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon as the service's advanced jet trainer. It is named the Red Hawk as a tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen, who painted their airplane's tails bright red, and to the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, the first aircraft flown in combat by the 99th Fighter Squadron, the U.S. Army Air Force's first black fighter squadron. Its first flight took place in June 2023, and the first aircraft was delivered to the USAF in September 2023. This air-to-air photograph shows a T-7 Red Hawk on a test flight over Edwards Air Force Base in November 2023.

Photograph credit: Bryce Bennett

Recently featured:

Distruption at List of massacres in Vietnam

Hi Mztourist, I'm alerting you to disruption on List of massacres in Vietnam where a Vietnamese IP user is trying over and over to remove PAVN/VC massacres. In their latest edit, they deceptively removed Đức Dục massacre and Thạnh Mỹ massacre. These are the two articles where you have stopped recent and persistent attempts to water down the massacre with unsourced and POV changes. The IPs on those two articles and the list article are all clearly operated by the same individual. Just thought the list article should have more eyes. I think these should should be protected due to stop the persistent disruption. 86.187.227.165 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thạnh Mỹ massacre

What do you think about the recent IP addresses editing this article in a pro-communist direction. I had to revert several edits. 222.254.0.241 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we need to verify the information this person provides. Now I don't know if it's true or not. 222.254.0.241 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Easter Offensive too. I hope you will be more active in patrolling articles related to Vietnamese history since 1945. This is a topic that is easily attacked by accounts or IPs that are pro-Vietnamese government, I have been busy lately so I have not been able to access Wikipedia often. Thanks! 222.254.0.241 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A pro-communist IP address came back in the article Thạnh Mỹ massacre, also there is a pro-communist account editing in Operation Léa. I think both are puppets of Sotavino (talk · contribs). 59.153.220.130 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-communist IP address returned to this article. 171.253.241.77 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam

I think you can help me improve this article. I think it has duplicate links, grammatical errors, and is missing a lot of information. 222.254.0.241 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article North Vietnam too. I think we need to review both of these articles to improve them. 222.254.0.241 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam here includes the State of Vietnam as mentioned in the article South Vietnam, but the State of Vietnam was founded in 1949, not 1954, so I think we need to edit the infobox in this article to correct the year of its founding. Look at the article North Vietnam, it says North Vietnam was founded in 1945 even though Vietnam was not divided at that time. 2402:9D80:857:B420:717C:8D4A:1F4D:8AC4 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do it yourself. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Aerospace Museum moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Jeju Aerospace Museum. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. John B123 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John B123 It exists, Google it, move it back to main space. Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not whether it exists or not, but that it was entirely unreferenced. Please see WP:V. --John B123 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on WP for 15+ years, I know about WP:V. A museum with a website and dozens of photos on Commons doesn't require the same level of referencing as other pages. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been on WP for 11 years and only made 200k edits, so bow to your greater experience. Please help a relative newcomer by linking to the policy/guideline for a museum with a website and dozens of photos on Commons that supercedes WP:V's All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. --John B123 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đồng Hới

I think I'm gonna tap out here man. Today was my first real experience with dealing with people who colossally miss the forest for the trees (got reported for being your sock puppet engaged in an edit war). We are definitely aligned that whatever IP man is proposing is certainly original research on their end. I think that's the point that needs to get hammered home. I just think I have the patience to deal with this kind of environment so I'm gonna tag you in here from here on out. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does get tiring countering all these Vietnamese propaganda IPs. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'd love to try and stick around but it really seems most people miss the forest for the trees. I just don't see any value in trying to articulate myself when people revert to "but have you considered X policy" and completely dismiss what you say out of hand without applying any brain power. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tet Offensive

A pro-communist leftist IP address from Vietnam (Sotavino) has returned to vandalize the article by distorting the results of this campaign. 2401:D800:DD75:A5CD:D7AC:211A:4AF:6058 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, those edits were just reverted. 2402:800:3A00:CCCD:F5F1:846:ABF:E54B (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Massacres page protection

Hi, is it possible for the various articles about PAVN/VC massacres to be protected permanently or for long periods?

As you're aware, someone using Vietnamese based IPs has been relentlessly targeting the following pages with unsourced POV pushing:

You reverted this person many times in recent months. I reverted them a couple times including earlier today on the latter three listed pages. It's clearly the same person targeting all these articles and they will continue despite being reverted so many times including over a dozen times two months just on the Thạnh Mỹ page. That article was protected in August but only for a two weeks and they just started again after protection ended. I think it would be much better if these pages were protected for much longer periods to finally stop this repetitive and relentless disruption. Regards 82.132.232.186 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as long as anyone can edit, even from an IP, these propagandists will continue their disinformation. Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. They are just relentless. I just reverted them again on the Thạnh Mỹ massacre page. 82.132.234.12 (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Mztourist 🎉

Hey @Mztourist. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 16 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026 ahead.:) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Assassination of Park Chung Hee. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ...Really? grapesurgeon (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist you really should know better than that; really petty and inappropriate grapesurgeon (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You really should do the work yourself rather than engage in subjective drive-by tagging. Mztourist (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tags exist for a reason. I'm not doing anything wrong. If you disagree we can get a 3O or do an RFC to establish that there is indeed a problem; I'm very confident others will agree. In the meantime, if you keep edit warring this it will be ANI. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree so you should follow WP:BRD and start an RFC. Funny how you have time to argue policy, but can't be bothered doing the work to address an issue that only you see. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long article and fixing it takes time. Starting a discussion that I'll only need to participate in a few times because consensus will probably be easy to achieve doesn't take long at all. Btw your behavior in all this has been grossly inappropriate; why act like this? You've been here for so long you really should know better. Nothing I said or did prompted this grapesurgeon (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then start now and make the effort rather than lazily tagging and expecting other people to do the work. I have been here for so long I'm tired of users like you who don't do the work, but love to argue over rules and policy.Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about no? How about we resolve this at ANI because you've started doing personal attacks? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

love to argue over rules and policy there would have been no argument at all if you hadn't started this. I despise arguing and avoid it like the plague. I already explained why I did what I did, it is an expected part of the website function. If you find that overwhelming and have a need to insult others over it, that's on you. Grow thicker skin and stop attacking others for using the website normally. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started it? Look at your actions dude. Coming to my Talk Page to insult and argue with me. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you started it. [16] Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Do the work You see nothing wrong with talking to others like this? This was from you first, not prompted by me.

I'll wait on building a stronger case for ANI. It's not just to me, your behavior has been getting more aggressive lately, it's only a matter of time until a temporary block happens.

Why are you doing this lol. Just do the basics of not being rude to others and all of this would be avoided grapesurgeon (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the BOOMERANG Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Be specific, what would it even be for lol grapesurgeon (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grapesurgeon, if I might interject - when you are accusing someone else of being rude, adding 'lol' in your comment doesn't really help your case. Rather than arguing back and forth, why don't you head over to the talk page of that article and explain what it is about the tone that you find unencyclopedic? Either fix it yourself (in which case the tag isn't needed) or, if you want someone else to fix it, explain what you think is wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I recognise you put something in an edit summary, but this reads like a story or murder mystery; too narrative and dramatic sounding doesn't really help other editors, for two reasons. First, in order to find that comment, any future editor wondering wondering why the tag is there is going to have to trawl through the history to find it. Second, you're not giving any examples of the type of writing you object to, or pointing to particular problematic sections. Explaining on the article talk page would be a lot more productive than having this discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "lol" is coming after a well established pattern of them being rude and doubling down on it. Is it slightly less than ideal that I'm responding to that now? Yes, but why are you not calling them out at all for it?

I'll make a post on that article's talk page. Again, not calling Mztourist out at all? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better still, you could just do the work. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.

@Girth Summit You're ok with above behavior? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as expected, here to argue, not work. Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in a sense, yeah, I'm here on your talk page to call out your behavior. Calling you out doesn't require much effort. I already explained why I'm not fixing the issue myself.

Your personal attacks about me supposedly being lazy are so baldfacedly horribly behaved. I spend my day programming, mentally exhausted. I don't have the capacity to handle this article. You want to insult me some more about that? grapesurgeon (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly OK with any of this - I see two productive editors wasting time snarking at each other instead of actually discussing the issue at hand. To answer your question I think you're asking, it's not clear to me that Mztourist has been any ruder to you than you have to them. If the amount of effort that has been spent on this discussion had been applied to the article, we'd have a better article. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why I didn't put effort there. I will continue not to. Calling out bad behavior I can do when my brain is otherwise spent. Editing is harder.

There's a worse side here and playing zero tolerance principal and acting like both are equally bad. I guess punching people first is fine per you, both sides equally bad. Good lesson to learn from all this grapesurgeon (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued comments here just reinforce everything I said earlier. You're too lazy to do the work yourself, but have plenty of time to come here and argue. Well I'll save your energy for you. You are banned from my Talk Page, don't post here again except any mandatory notices. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mztourist repeated insults. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with no action. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]