![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mztourist! I am Pharaoh of the Wizards and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Look at here, together we make the Vietnam War operations article to be the longest page ever in en.wiki. Carolingian (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, I think you pay too much attention on my work, just shut up and let it go. Have you ever written "show not tell" essay. So, the more specific, the much better. What is it wrong with you about the superfluous references? Even if they were there, they didn't hurt anything. So why the hell did you bother to remove them? Anyway, the more sources, the better too. Because there will be a lot of websites later will become broken links. So if this web page is deleted, we still have the other one. If you got a problem with that, then do not do anything about it.
What is the Battle of the Mang Yang Pass, huh? Have you read the source that I gave? There was battle and the Allies conducted a operation during the battle. So what? Why is the 24 Apr 65 entry there, hm? Again, you didn't read the source? It was that the Allies conducted an operation in Thua Thien and during that, they were attacked by the VC. That is what the source say. Do these answer your questions that waste my time?
Moreover, why don't you check these two: Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. They not only list the operations but also include many battles and insurgent ambush or skirmish. Carolingian (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you also added some unnecessary references just like I do, e.g: Operation Oh Jak Kyo I, Operation Wahiawa. So why the hell did you remove mine. I'm warning you, do not remove them again. Carolingian (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I complain because I don't need you to remove the references. In wikipedia, a sentence with a whole bunch of references is normal, so you should leave it. Carolingian (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the talk page of the article, someone is mentioning us. Carolingian (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I already told you. Are you sure that those references that you add will be there forever. What if later in the future, those websites will be deleted? In that case, the articles will have no references. That is why I add my own references. So if one is deleted, we still have the other one. Also, having a whole bunch of references for one information in wikipedia is a normal thing. And the reason that I didn't write the mentions about the books in right format is because I don't want to waste my time since there are a lot more to add. As you can see, the article is way too large now, when you click on "edit" and "save", it runs very very slow. Carolingian (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reasons to remove them are not always true. Because a lot of time that I add Fly Army along with a new information Such as this, see that, I add the reference because it has the information about the casualty of the communist (1400), but you still remove it. Ridiculous. So, it is either you are blind or your reason to remove is just an execuse. Carolingian (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Heckler & Koch MP7 and Heckler & Koch UMP. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding acronyms and abbreviations WP:MOS says this:
And while the both of us know what USN and USAF means, I think it is good style with regard to the general readership to write the names out in full length. As I said in my edit summary, only CIA seems to be prominent enough to be used in the abbreviated form. Especially readers from outside the USA may not know the terms USN or USAF. Also, the abbreviations for the armed forces can easily be left away as there is no mentioning of them later in the article. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Good work on Michelin Rubber Plantation so far! Sorry if I was a little premature on placing the {{unref'd}} template on the article, although I see you've already integrated some references, which is awesome. Keep it up! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on the new article! I bet it was a lot of hard work. However I will ask you not not to leave naked URLs on the page. It's very easy to cloak them as requird in the WP:MOS and WP:CITE. There are nearly 100 in the references section and it's too much for someone else to do it for you. --Kudpung (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I heard about him a while ago but also didn't get around to creating an article till now. Feel free to add anything. — jwillbur 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributionstoWikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The war never ended, there has been combat at varying levels of intensity almost consistantly between the two countries even after the armistace ended. Conflicts sometimes run for generations before they end, a good example to equate the Korean War with might be the Hundred Years War. There were combat instances before the so called DMZ war, and instances of combat imediately afterword. Just because the level of intesity of the conflict changes does not mean that the conflict ends and a new new one starts. All conflicts end with a peace treaty or the utter distruction of one of the belligerent sides. Neither of which has happened here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a citation in which the US State Department says the Armistice ended the Korean War. US State Department statement regarding "Korea: Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission" and the Armistice Agreement "which ended the Korean War." I intend to incorporate it into the different KW articles, but you are certainly welcome/encouraged to do so yourself. Oh, yes. I wonder how many people were counting the years in the Hundred Years War or Thirty Years' War as the wars wewnt along. "Yep, here we are at year 67 -- only 23 to go before this war, the Hundred Years War, is over!" Point is, perspective is an important part of editing and those who want to extend this-or-that war beyond an already defined time range are pushing POV. --S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was hasty but this is a major current event. There's no way this article is going away. If you merge it people will start another. --Andrewrutherford (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake. Thank you. __meco (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Opps. Meco was correct when he complained about this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelling_of_Yeonpyeong&diff=next&oldid=398409713 But NBD, I've apologized to him and I hope this fruitless ANI discussion can end.--S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Surely someone would have discussed about creating a 'Korean Conflict' article in the past? Remember, that the name redirects to the Korean War article, so it's quite possible someone did create one before, because if it gets merged then so does the name of the article. That probably means the editors rejected the idea for a seperate article, resulting in the merging.
But what I wonder is are these article names, Korean Conflict, Korean maritime border incidents and Korean DMZ incidents all your own idea? I'm always under the impression that article names are used according to what the public (not only wiki editors) generally uses, and I've hardly heard of the term 'Korean Conflict'. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure of the rules and policies on wiki about what you plan to do. Before you take any action, I suggest you consult with someone who understands wiki's editing policy, or copy & paste what you posted on my talk page to the Korean War discussion. Perhaps someone there might clear things up as the Shelling of Yeonpyeong article may not have the attention of those committed to editing the Korean War article. Regards. Wolcott (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please consider Talk:Korean NLL Conflict#Introductory sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw your note about S&T Dynamics. You're an experienced editor, so my apologies if you already know that, but you can start in a user subpage, if you don't find it convenient to put up a complete article at the getgo. I know I like to start with some bare information that might not survive a deletion request, and work on it until it is ready for the main page, so I tend to start in a user subpage.--SPhilbrickT 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my deletion. Who says the design specs were stringent? What is the source for this? As noted in the article, the design specs were changed, the criteria may have been stringent when first issued, but were they still stringent when revised down? Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
From template:cn:
I was working on the basis of the closed discussion on the target talk-page. If you have any issues with the closure of the discussion, I would talk to the editor who made the closure, or flag it up for review (eg at ANI). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather than provide hints or guidance on moving the BSs, I simply did it. You, of course, can modify your user page as you see fit. And here is where some of the fun of Wikipedia-ing come into play -- you experiment and/or learn from other Wikipedians. Also, MZ, your talk and user page (duh -- this one) are yours. See WP:OWNTALK. Feel free to delete the stuff above that is old or nonsense, and be sure to delete old nonsense. --S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
S&T Daewoo had finished developing the K12 few months ago. In addition, Daewoo changed its serial number from XK12 to K12. I hope this link helps you: http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10028&pn=1&num=11126 Kadrun (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the image from Operation Frequent Wind for failing WP:NFCC #10c. Per WP:NFCC #10c, images require a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Also see this discussion. Group rationales such as were added recently to this image file are inappropriate.
Also, for the use you intended having a non-free image in a gallery is generally not acceptable, per WP:NFG. I concur the image is iconic, but a couple of sentences regarding is not much to support it in this particular article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me, who first created the page as Unit 684? There was no such official unit named as Unit 684 in Korea. Kadrun (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming you have read my comments on the talk page of "Bombing of Tan Son Nhat Airport" I believe I have made my position quite clear there, but I will make my point here again. I may have been wrong in changing the name of the article on Lima Site 85, but I used the best sources available to me with the best of attentions. If I had the book titles which you pointed out, then I would have used that as well but unfortunately I don't. You can dismiss Vietnamese sources as propaganda, but it is a far-cry from the Rambo-style shooting up of bad guys which usually characterized U.S. accounts of their battles in Vietnam. The book by Do Chi Ben tells of the preparations and steps taken by the VPA 41st Special Forces Battalion in their efforts to take Lima Site 85, and it included an assessment on the success and failure of their operations quite honestly. There was nothing "propaganda" about that. If you don't like what you read on the article, then please make an actual effort to contribute and cite the appropriate sources along the way and make it better, instead of dressing down Vietnamese version of events which makes my contribution seems worthless. After all, we were born with brains for a reason, I can easily dismiss U.S. version of events as rubbish in the same way you dismissed the Vietnamese version as propaganda. There are two sides to a story and the truth is usually somewhere in between, so let the audience decide for themselves because most of the time I don't even believe in the sources that I've used. But for now, my GA nomination of the article will stand.Canpark (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor pointed out an article is not a memorial. Therefore, this rule WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the section on U.S. missing personnel.Canpark (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've finished off the review of the Mayaguez incident - a couple of queries for you on the review page. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
To Mztourist, for his work on "Operation Eagle Pull". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You have stated the following:
Noreliable English language reference has been provided to show that this gun has completed development and entered service, accordingly it remains the XK12
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Message added 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dear Mztourist,
I am GB_ruleofgame@wiki from Korea.
I have recently found out that your phototgraphs in ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) were being incorrectly cited in a wiki section regarding the sinking of PCC-772 Cheonan and thought that you could have also mis-understood the fact.
The 'torpedo wreckage on display' in your photographs was a mockup. K-CIC(Criminal Investigations Command of Korea) had already replaced the real one with a mockup as of Dec. 2010.
Regards,
GB ruleofgame (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Photo collection of No.1 Torpedo blamed for the sinking of PCC-772 Cheonan
http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70131033874
I am the owner of this blog.
I also have a posting regarding this issue.
[1번 어뢰] 모형 - 고로케 또는 생크림 어뢰
http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70111058177
[Google Translated] http://translate.google.co.kr/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://blog.naver.com/ruleofgame/70111058177
GB ruleofgame (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought if you would compare the photographs, you would notice the difference between the real one and the mockup.
Anyway, here is the better explanation:
The Korean word '모형' in the description '북한산 CHT-02D 어뢰 추진동력장치 모형' written on the tag stand in front of the torpedo mockup means 'mockup' in English.
You can verify that here-> http://translate.google.co.kr/?hl=en&tab=wT#auto%7Cen%7C%EB%AA%A8%ED%98%95
The whole sentence means; 'A Mockup of the propulsion unit of North Korean CHT-02D Torpedo'
There are two of these mockups, one in War Museum in Seoul and another one in Korean Navy's 2nd Fleet Naval Base in Pyungtaek.
I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable with my wiki-talk. I didn't mean to, but I just wanted to make things correct in every detail.
I would like to thank you for your recognition to our nation's tragic incident.
So let put it this way: The US Marine lost 7 out of 8 it's chopper, 18 KIA and 41 WIA on a rescue operation in an island with no hostages, only 100 armed Khmer Rogue soldiers. Just by making that mistakes is already a loss.
And I only put the summary as "US Marines unable to rescue hostages, taking heavy casualties". Does the Marine be able to rescue them from their attack? Did they not lost 18 man? So what is wrong with that summary?. Also if I want to change the outcome, then why did I keep the "Successful release of SS Mayaguez crews"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
US Marines did not get the hostages out from the rescue operation, US Marines taking heavy casualties, US Marines landed upon an island with false intelligence. How about that? Another thing: Ever since you posted in my page, DID I ATTEMP TO EDIT THE OUTCOME AGAIN? So why I trying to talk, you're trying to threaten me? Yeah, bring it to the Admin, why should I be afraid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright, after reading the article again, I admit that I was wrong. The US Marines are indeed taking casualties, but in the end still able to secure the SS Mayaguez and it's crew. However, it's impossible to leave the summary like before, since it only describe the outcome, while the rescue operation that took the majority of the article was left ignored. Leaving it like this would likely to cause confusion to first-time readers, like me. So I suggest another summary edit: "First rescue attemp unable to extract the hostages, taking casualties". Would that be fine?
Also as you said, English is not my first language, and I still having difficulties using it. Also by bring up the largely ignored Vietnamese sources, I might have change the article a lot more than I thought. However I am not the fanboy that you thought I am. I respect the user making the article, and not intent to destroy their work. You can count on that. Zeraful (talk--Zeraful (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, should I consider this NPOV as well? Is this an attack on myself? All I do is add some Vietnamese (North Vietnamese, commies, whatever. Sources is still sources) perspective (which is based on real research), which doesn't affect the outcome of the article, so why shouldn't I be able to edit it?
Another thing: In the Battle of Dienbienphu article, I posted on the talk page about the fate of French Union POW 3 months ago. Did anyone care to look for it?
This is the Free Encyclopedia, not anyone's own. Zeraful(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
I did not use the term puppet/coward when referring to the ARVN/RVN, or deleting US/ARVN figures and replacing them with Vietnamese ones. Though the information these sources served may bought a dramatic change to the way most people think about the war. (For example, each PAVN/NLF battalions only having 220 troops at their prime (1975), and the total regular force (4 corps and 1 corp-size logistic task force) were only about 250,000-270,000)
And contrary to popular belief, most Vietnamese military researchers keep a neutral attitude in their work, as those research were intended to provide a clear picture of the situation, which might coming handy in the future. Unfortunately most of them doesn't always available, and even if they do, just to find a place where there's a book on sale or Internet sources which featuring them...Zeraful(talk)--Zeraful (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ktroop.com/useofarmor3.htm Here is an article about the use of armored forces in Vietnam, featuring several Vietnamese work after the warZeraful(talk)--Zeraful (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you added the photo File:Scene of Viet Cong terrorist bombing in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam., 1965.jpgtoUnited States Embassy, Saigon and indicated that it depicted the 1965 embassy bombing. I recently wrote an article (Barbara Robbins) about a victim of the bombing and used the photo and a question came up as to how we know that the photo depicts the embassy bombing, since it isn't in the image description. I know that you added the photo a long time ago, but do you happen to remember your source for concluding that the photo depicted the embassy bombing? Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If you get a chance, would you mind looking at this article? I've been doing some major work on it (although I'm not done with the battle section yet), and a second set of knowledgeable eyes would be a help. Thanks! Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You requested speedy deletion] of Dirty thirty (Vietnam). Geo Swan (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mztourist, can you please help to mediate in the edit war that is reigniting in the North Vietnam article please? The user Zeraful keeps imparting pro-communist POV and false POV content in the international relations section of the article, like insisting how South Vietnam was obliged to follow the terms of the 1954 Geneva Conventions but refused to do so, and that user kept refusing to accept that North Vietnam's Viet Cong forces were attempting to invade the South (which is the main reason why the Vietnam War occurred, and that user's definition of invasion actually applies to the Vietcong, but he/she kept denying it). I already developed a final compromise edit for that article to address Zeraful's concerns, but that user kept insisting that the edits go their way and satisfy all of their (mostly POV) demands, which cannot be achieved in a compromise edit, since all parties must make equal amounts of concessions in order to fulfill a satisfactory amount of demands. I would greatly appreciate your help and efforts in resolving this issue. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Nguyen1310 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's more explanation regarding Geneva. In 1954 a convention was held in Geneva, and an agreement was signed by North VN, P.R. China, France where Vietnam would be partitioned into communist North and democratic South temporarily until 1956, where elections will be held nationwide to create a new national government. However, the State of Vietnam (the predecessor state to South Vietnam) was only an observer at Geneva, and did not sign the agreement at all, so since the State of Vietnam didn't sign it, it was not bound by the agreement's terms and was not obligated to follow the agreement. As well, the State of Vietnam ceased to exist by 1955, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) was established, so France's signature in the Geneva Agreement was therefore rendered ineffective. And regarding the Vietcong, they and the North had the intent to invade and take over the South by force, which is why the Vietnam War occurred and why the North eventually invaded the South and merged it with the North until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Below is a copy of the statement i made earlier about the edit war that brewed with Zeraful last week on the same article:
Hi Mztourist, there's an ongoing problem happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs)
I hardly care enough to revert this edit. Nevertheless, my impression is that external links are generally intended for sources that would be referenced if the article became featured--not for partially related, self-published reminiscences.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed a PROD tag, not an AFD tag - my edit was 100% correct. Please be more careful in future. GiantSnowman 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Great work with the articles you've been creating recently on RNZAF squadrons! Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
For perseverance with Operation Frequent Wind. The article's come a huge way since it first started the GA process in 2011, and will, I'm certain, ultimately get there. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
Stop breaking the link I added to Mayaguez incident. I am linking the very first reference to U-Tapao in the Aftermath section. The article is 65K long. I am not required to read the entire article from the top. When I saw U-Tapao in that section, I scrolled backwards through well over 10K of article before I gave up looking for a link and went and made my own. I added the link because when I wanted to click that link it was not there. Randall Bart Talk 09:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You and him have set the tone for the Korean articles based on your own self-righteous right-wing dogma. So you were in the Marines in Korea. Big deal? Does a flea know what a dog's thinking when it's on its back? Of course not. Take for instance - your stand against the "war has not ended" line - don't like it do you? But the fact of the matter is the rest of the world - regardless of whether the US State Dept says it is over - consider the armistice to be a truce not a de facto conclusion to the end of the Korean War. But hey you're too American to know that, or that Sygmann Rhee refused to have the ROK sign so the US did it for South Korea by proxy. But again as an American, you're nationally not known to give one iota's consideration to the facts, or what the rest of the world thinks, or academia proves.
You and SRich are the reason why these Korean articles are now just simply an Americanized joke. A mouthpiece for your Republican/John McCain inspired BS that stinks so much of contradiction, hypocrisy and propaganda you're no better (if not worse as you do have choice) than the DPRK. You and SRich should take a good long look at yourselves. But you won't. The USA's policy towards Korea has always been about couched in domestic interest. For instance FDR refused to allow Koreans to govern themselves after the end of WWII, no self determination there, or be allowed to join the US-visa waver program until 2008 (Japan being the second in 1988). Yeah America sure loves the Koreans.
But you should know that living over there in the US military. Not that you'll be indoctrinated. You and SRich have to justify yourselves so you use Wikipedia to peddle your version of the lie to the world. Haha you're wasting a life, facts will always out so that everything you protect with a wilful ignorance to history or proper academic research will be gone, just like you. 86.160.111.44 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. You may not realise this but the speed of Mach 2.35 was reached by consensus with Bushranger and others based on data from the Austrian Airforce and BAE SYSTEMS. McSly has altered that several times without consensus and is therefore partaking in an edit war. The figure of Mach 2.35 has also been reached by independent consensus on German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon, which counts as a third opinion, see dispute resolution '3O'. I therefore maintain that it should stay as Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The dispute over the maximum speed of Eurofighter has now reached [[3]]. This may be of interest to you.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You are on 2RR over there, stop reverting, and also do not misrepresent sources like that again, they say the Viet Minh won, not French defeat as you changed it to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "First Indochina War". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your persistent work on now-GA Operation Frequent Wind and others. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for all your hard work on PAVN and its divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard M. Tachibana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard M. Tachibana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Do you know about WP:Did you know? I just came across your recently created article Russell L. Blaisdell and was wondering if you would want to nominate it at DYK. If you are still working on it, do carry on. I just thought to drop in in case you are unaware of such project. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Russell L. Blaisdell 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 11:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, lets try to discuss the issue if you want. I dont have been in that museum or in Vietnam, but of course that's not an argument that invalidates my position. Also, saying that "perhaps any political/history museum in Vietnam...are all propaganda perpetuating the Vietnamese Comunist party's version of Vietnamese history" is clearly not an argument, but a POV-driven statement. I could easily reply that by saying that most military museums around the world are propaganda perpetuating their country's version of history. I could understand & accept that you label as "Communist propaganda" some of its content (for example some of the photos), but labelling the whole museum as "Communist propaganda" is simply a breach of WP NPOV policy. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Mztourist. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
On17 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese SoldiersinPaju, South Korea, contains the graves of North Korean agents killed on espionage missions in the South? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Common knowledge is not a substitute for verifiability. Please discuss on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino nam (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 324th Division (Vietnam). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop reverting and attempt to obtain consensus for your edit(s) Tiderolls 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ifthis meets your definition of adult communication, you are in the wrong place. Tiderolls 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Tân Mỹ Base, Mztourist!
Wikipedia editor Lstanley1979 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice work - thank you for contributing.
To reply, leave a comment on Lstanley1979's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Our new editor has responded very nicely to the guidance and service-award I've provided. Please forgive me for redacting a portion of your comment. If you feel it is helpful to say the newbie is edit warring, you can revert and I will not touch it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
She got a warning for DMZ before, but blanked the page. Her last edit got her the level 4 warning, and I've been checking for recent edits. (Given the lapse of time since first signing up, I think she's let someone have access to her account. ) – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can you please help to keep an eye out on the Hue Massacre article, there was recently an reattempted additionoffringe, denialist, Communist POV content, that was previously removed per editor consensus under numerous article talk sections. Thanks Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)
You wrote: "The 2 references provided apparently state that China claims Vietnamese losses were 57,000" - So, WHERE IS THIS NUMBER in these source? I only found "30,000" in this source.
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=1I4HOcmE4XQC&pg=PA2&dq=china+estimate+vietnam+loss+30,000+killed&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=QXkiU5iYIs7joASamoCwAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=china%20estimate%20vietnam%20loss%2030%2C000%20killed&f=falseThandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
And remember, "losses" = kiled + wounded + captured (not only "killed")Thandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed the image from those articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. I agree the imaqe is iconic. That an image is iconic does not grant it special status to be used liberally. It must still adhere to our WP:NFCC policy which stresses the minimization of non-free images. This image as used in Vietnam War is not mentioned in the prose of the article where it existed. This image as used in Operation Frequent Wind was redundant to its use at 22 Gia Long Street. In both cases, there are links to appropriate articles where the image is used and discussed. I am reverting your restorations of this image. If you wish to restore them, I strongly recommend you commence a discussion of the issue at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I guess you are one of the people who keep the Mayaguez article tidy. I noticed, that the links in section Declassified sources are dead. And - on the talk page some people ask to provide a map - i could create one, if desired.
Thanks for your attention and all the best
Wikirictor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Eurofighter Typhoon. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mztourist_reported_by_User:Z07x10_.28Result:_.29Z07x10 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And the edit warring complaint was declined: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Z07x10 (Result: Declined) Mztourist (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You are unbelievable, you are edit warring my comments on the RFC page. Remove all your comments or I go straight to the edit warring noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Z07x10 was site banned on 20 June 2015: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Z07x10 indef block or topic ban request and consensus Mztourist (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. At the above RfC I've gone through and done some section management per typical RfCs (and like the last one we had on this issue at that page). I placed your support for a non-free image under the Snow Rise section, but I'm unsure if this tracks with your intent or not. Please feel free to modify your support if you feel the need. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. I've removed the tag. Thank you for notifying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalassaxeno (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits, they're the best on that article for ages. Do you have a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js? If you do you can install a script to find duplicate wikilinks, which can save a lot of work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings MZ, took a few dupes out but double checked first. We got some "links to disambiguation pages" notices last week though, another pitfall of having lots of places with the same name. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I thought some of my flag usage might've been excessive. I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed, since most US operations in Laos were covert and thus executed through subordinate agencies with plausible deniability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, MZ! I see you've been working on some of these articles. I set a lot of them up a year ago or so, and have a minor ongoing interest in them. I'm providing some information from my memory that might be useful to you. (See HERE for details about the articles I worked on.
Please be careful about renaming squadrons in an effort to standardize things. The Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons is pretty much the standard work on these squadrons, and is the source of most of the information in the articles. The people at DANAS have put a LOT of effort into naming the squadrons. Because of the varied lineages of squadrons, this is an extremely hard thing to do properly. The scheme they came up with is a bit unwieldy to outsiders, but it works pretty well overall. I remember expending a lot of effort on "names" when I set these articles up. There is a lot of temptation to rename some of them in an effort to make things simpler and/or more standard. What I remember from long ago is that this is a very difficult task to do properly. I think that for the most part I ended up keeping them named as they were in DANAS. There were a lot of reasons to rename them, and also a lot of reasons not to do that. In the end, the latter reasons won out. If you are interested, I may be able to find the discussions that took place about the renaming, or remember some more about it.
I see that somebody or somebot has "found" a copyright violation in one of the articles, and used that as justification for removing it. This has happened before, too. What tends to happen is that some site or publication copies stuff from DANAS. The bot finds that copied site, but doesn't look at its original material in DANAS. They surmise that the copied material is the original, and they flag the Wikipedia stuff as a copyvio. This was a real pain for a while, until the bot's masters figured out what was going on. As I remember it from long ago, 100% of the alleged copyvios were not copyvios at all, but mistakes by a bot. DANAS is a work of the U.S. Government, and is therefore not subject to copyright laws. Lou Sander (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou for your hard work reestablishing this article. However, in line with WP:AGFC and the previous history of this article, we have to be *extremely* careful about sourcing for the recreated sections. I note that the first two substantive sections only have a single reference at this point; please make sure they are referenced quickly (within 3 weeks) or I will have to be rather brutal about stripping out and rev-deleting the material. Sorry to have to be so harsh about this. Happy to clarify if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Da Nang International Airport into Da Nang Air Base. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
upright=
rather than specifying pixels, because it works better for smaller handheld devices, and because it does not override user preferences if they have a preset preferred image size that works well on their display. MOS:IMGSIZE — Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)The common person would have no clue those units are 101st Airborne. You are deleting "information" from articles.Don Brunett (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
Hello Mztourist. Thank you for splitting the VF-84 page. They always should have been treated at separate squadrons, for the simple reason that they are separated squadrons.
A similar situation is VF-17 and VF-61, both of which now redirect to VF-103. VF-103 has no lineage from the original Jolly Rogers. 103 should have its own page, limited to 103; VF-17/61 should also have their own page. As it was most famous under the VF-17 designation, that should probably be the article title. I've not done a split before; is that something you can help with? Thanks, and best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mztourist, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 17:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been noticing your work on this article. It looks pretty good. Some time ago I did some work on it, too, and wrote a bunch of new articles on some of the squadrons. My main interest at the time was in boosting the number of articles I'd started. See THIS and THIS for some tables that I found very useful at the time.
I learned a lot back then, but of course some of what I knew is now pretty stale. I do retain an interest in the subject, however, and if I can help in any way, just ask. One thing that has happened is that the online DANAS material has moved. I put references to the new locations in the External links section of the DANAS article, but haven't had time or inspiration to update them elsewhere. The new situation is more complicated than the old one, so updating might be a pretty big challenge. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work. Normally the country flag would not be inserted into the infobox, especially where there's a military flag as well. US is not normally linked. And many editors would query why your date formats are international dmy rather than US mdy. Are you sure? Tony (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've posted a new article: List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons. Its Talk page tells where it came from. The links to squadron articles haven't been updated since 2014, so your new additions aren't in there. Since I'm familiar with the tables and their formats, I'll look into adding your squadrons myself. Feel free to do it on your own if you'd like. Lou Sander (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindness. I'm very busy now with real life. If you can, please give me until July 18 to do VPB-200toVPB-216. If they are not done by then, feel free to do them. Right now, go ahead and do the active squadrons yourself, as I'm not up to date on them. I'll get my other articles elsewhere. ;-)
BTW, a worthwhile project would be to go to all the articles in List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons and add a "See also" to that page. I'll probably start it one day, but if you have an appetite for such things, feel free to start it yourself. If you do, please keep some sort of record of your progress, so others can pick up where you left off. Lou Sander (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I have had these pics left to right for a reason. As part of Alternating left and right per format on VP:PIC. Also want to keep pic during chronological period. Please keep them like this, please. Thanks, also good job with copy edits on the pages. Reb1981 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. With my good wishes! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
I think this the symbolic picture of the fall of Saigon. The current imagine describes the US' activites, not of Vietnam's ones. The current picture is not symbolic because it describes the evacuation of Americans, not the fall of Saigon regime. The new one really described the fall of Saigon regime.
People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam Lieutenant Captain Bùi Quang Thận planted Viet Cong's flag on the roof of the Presidential Palace at 11:30 am on April 30th, 1975 that is the symbol of the war ends an the fall of Saigon regime
I think we should change the pictureHonglienhoa (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You have blanked the page. If you are right deletion would be better.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Accroding to Vienamese resouces, NVA is the winner
https://www.vietmaz.com/2012/08/the-victory-statue-of-thuong-duc/
http://english.quangnam.gov.vn/CMSPages/BaiViet/Default.aspx?IDBaiViet=3900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonnytaffoc (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we shoul set both sides claimed victoryTonnytaffoc (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS because they match all requirements of WP:RSTonnytaffoc (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all I applaud your bold edit of removing article content from the Long Binh Ward article to a separate article about Long Binh Post. This makes perfect sense. However, you have changed the citation style used in the Long Binh Jail article. There are several "references" used in your version that are not cited in the article at all. The only correction on the Kelley citation error was a correction of the page number, which I did. I also corrected the spelling of Kolb that was used in on citation. Please consider my citation style I used previously before making changes and discuss. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think VC had a victory because the damage it receiving (28 deaths) is lower than the damage received by US and ARVN (18 deaths and 20 air planes destroyed), 20 air planes destroyed is much higher than 10 manHaohaomyy (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for chipping in your two cents on the Cecil Harris article. I definitely have some more work to do on that, but in the meanwhile with my work schedule it'll be less arduous to do smaller edits to pages with readily-available material, rather than re-writing and revisiting a great number of sources. Do you think it a worthwhile endeavor to add box score information—tonnage sunk, planes destroyed or damaged in the air or on the ground, etc.—to the various squadron pages that make up the network of DANAS pages you've worked on? I have Fold3 access so those figures are readily available. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI since I know you worked extensively on the DANAS articles, NHHC's Fighter Squadron Lineage URL changed at some point recently and is bound to be broken on all the squadron pages you've worked on. I don't know if you know how to bot fix it, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention anyway. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
See here. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding accusations, disruption of discussion. The thread is Personal attacks and accusations. The discussion is about you preventing a constructive discussion on the Eurofighter talk page and commenting on things other than the discussion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dino nam (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dino nam (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Castor. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Mztourist, an ANI has already been filed about your edit-warring against consensus on this article [8]. If you persist, you will be reported to administrators and very likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And in response to Softlavender's edit warring complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Both warned) we were told that "So long as the RfC is still running, clear consensus has not been achieved. The argument about 'current majority' would allow widespread edit warring during most RfCs, which is not a thing we want encourage..." Mztourist (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
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. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit [9] again. There are no earlier appearances of the name of the airbase in page 289, which is used as a source.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that page for me. Hankyurae had cited numerous suspeicious and dubious accounts including ridiculous claims about bombers and poison gas being used, not to mention that it was strange that the two PF Battalions just watched as a company of Koreans wiped out their own people. Woo1693 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
MZ - I think you know a lot about Vietnam. I came across this proposal, and wanted to bring it to your attention, just in case it is of interest to you: Talk:Cao_Bằng#Requested_move_1_March_2017 If not, please just ignore this. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no requirement that sources be in English. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to explain exactly why you decided to remove the reference to the Battle of Bong Trang and replace it with Operation Amarillo. The intent of the author was to write about one of the first major battles of the 1st Battalion in Vietnam not the operation. If your intent is to cover the entire operation then you have a lot more writing to do and while you are at it you will have to do it for all the other battles and operations mentioned. I am sure that you must have been with the 2d Infantry in Vietnam and want to get your store told but if that's the case I suggest you write a book. As an FYI I did serve with the 2d Infantry in Vietnam and was there when the mentioned battles for both battalions occurred perhaps we would connect and share notes. One more thing, I am the regiments historian, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4303:3D80:F092:A75B:F462:A73A (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I will have to tell my comrades in arms that were in the battle that it's name doesn't mean anything because certain individuals like yourself are of the opinion that it doesn't. Shame on you! I never said I owned the page, don't know where you got that from. Most of the material on the page has been copied from another source and putting little spins doesn't help it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4303:3D80:F092:A75B:F462:A73A (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to change the tone of the paragraph on Donlon, the first MofH recipient for Vietnam, but got a bit carried away. Thanks. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Man, this joke is not funny. Can you restore of what was removed from the article and fix the infobox please? I can't do it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Second Korean War requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
pure WP:CRYSTAL and subject is best covered at Korean conflict
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second Korean War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Korean War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
...that you need a refresher course on WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Please read these and conform your editing to them in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to your Stoffey (2008) reference for these victories, but the painted record in the USS Midway hangar deck indicates that VF-161 shot down MiG-19s, not MiG-17s, on 18 May 1972 (img here: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yOus4zDzJaw/V4xxFPDjZ9I/AAAAAAAA0KM/T8z6ObaDV1UDKRLES8Z3mS7ELKr-ZGBHgCLcB/s1600/DSCN8996.JPG). The same is reported at http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/shootdowns.html. Bobby Longpocket (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
IfUser:Fustos wants to continue disrupting the project with problem edits, edit-warring, violating policies & guidelines, insulting people and kicking editors off his talk page when they are trying to help him and discuss issues, (as is required), then he'll likely find himself blocked, sooner than later. He doesn't seem to get how things work here (and he quickly forgot that I was the one that welcomed him here to the project in the first place with a 'welcome' template on his talk page that was full of helpful info that he obviously hasn't read). At this point, all we can try to do is attempt to discuss his edits on the various involved article talk pages (he can't kick us off those), and hopefully he'll follow the rules here and be more cooperative and discuss edits, instead of edit-warring and refusing to engage. Cheers - theWOLFchild 11:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a 'heads-up', but once he says you're not welcome on his talk page, you can longer post comments there. No matter how benign or well-intended, it's not allowed. You're better off posting on a related article talk page, or even your own talk page, and pinging him ( {{Reply to|User}} ). You should probably remove your comment, don't give him ammo, or yourself rope. However, an exception to this is posting notices for things like AN/I, 3RRNB, warning & notice templates, etc. I know you're trying to help, but some people can't be helped. Cheers - theWOLFchild 18:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Fustos is clearly an uncooperative and uncommunicative user who causes more disruption than benefit to this project. If you want to start an AN/I seeking administrative review of his behavior, and perhaps have him blocked, or sanctioned, or both, you have my support. Start putting together diffs to make your case and let me know when you're ready, and I'll contribute as well. He's not here to build an encyclopaedia, he's here to decorate his favorite pages. The rudeness and belligerence has gone on long enough, so it's to put an end to this nonsense. Lemme know... - theWOLFchild 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I just responded to your unanswered 2016 comment about the chaotic list of aircraft at the museum. Just wanted to add that I would be willing to help you fix it. Busaccsb (talk)
Thought you might find this useful. Cheers - theWOLFchild 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You have created a page for "John Laurence" on Wikipedia. I have corrected a number of errors and inaccurate descriptions that you have repeatedly deleted. For example, you wrote "A Sau" to describe the A Shau Valley where several battles were fought between US forces and the North Vietnamese Army in 1967-68. I am a member of Mr. Laurence's family and can verify with him the accuracy of the edits I have made. You seem determined to disparage his work and good character for no apparent reason other than what seems to be your personal bias. Onward&Upward (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
From an 850 page book that you may have read quickly, you chose two episodes--both negative--to illustrate your new page about the author, John Laurence. One is your personal description that "large quantities of marijuana" were consumed by him at Frankie's House, and the other is about what you describe as "outrage" over a broadcast interview with a Marine helicopter squadron commander about shooting South Vietnamese troops. Should we not conclude from this that you are biased against the author? When it comes to the editing of the page on "John Laurence," you posted recently, you act like a Wikipedia tyrant. Are you familiar with the Wiki Guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomersOnward&Upward (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away. Judging from your posts in previous edit wars, you are highly arrogant and disputatious. You are also right wing, politically. You appear to be an amateur military historian who has created a new short biography of John Laurence, the former television correspondent for CBS News, ABC News, PBS and several publications including Esquire Magazine, the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review and others. Mr. Laurence has long been regarded by most of his colleagues as "the best television correspondent of the Vietnam War."[1] His coverage of the war received every award for broadcast journalism, and also the George Polk Memorial Award (1970) of the Overseas Press Club of America for "best reporting in any medium requiring exceptional courage and enterprise abroad."[2] You based the bulk of your information on references from Laurence's prize-winning memoir of the Vietnam War, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story" (2002) which is 864 pages in length. From that comprehensive history of Mr. Laurence's reporting of the war, you chose only two anecdotes (out of scores covered in the book) to include on the new page: a report on the killing of allied soldiers by U.S. Marines during a battle in the A Shau Valley (1966) and the recreational use of marijuana by Mr. Laurence and a few of his young colleagues in Saigon (1965-66). You seem to apologize for the Marines for shooting their allies by your choice of language. They "had to" kill them, you wrote. You also characterized the report on the killings as having caused "outrage" when it was broadcast without specifying that the only outrage was in hierarchy of the U.S. military. When I deleted the word "outrage," you left it for a few edits and then, days later, put it back in. The Saigon social gatherings you described as having consumed "large quantities of marijuana" to give the impression that Mr. Laurence was a drug addict, which he was not. Both references seem to me to be an attempt to denigrate the reputation of Mr. Laurence, who is still alive, and, by extention, his book. Every major U.S. newspaper that reviewed the book gave it highly favorable marks.[3] Attempts to edit out those references have met with anger and hostility here on your talk page, and continued accusations of my alleged attempts to "sanitise" the history. You use references whose emphasis on "outrage" and marijuana use are, in my opinion, open to debate. Nowhere in his book does Mr. Laurence use the terms "outrage" to apply to the reaction to the allies being killed story, or "large quantities of marijuana" being consumed in Saigon. In your choice of language and editing, you appear to be an apologist for the military--a pro-military writer and interpreter of military events--in short, a hawk. While I have been reading Wikileaks since 2008, I am new to editing at this level. I am trying to learn the intricacies of referencing and editing correctly and in doing so have made many mistakes. It is not easy to learn. To these, you have responded with impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults. It has become now what might be considered an "edit war." I wish to end it. I have been adding, bit by bit, more relevant information about Mr. Laurence to the new page in an effort to provide a better history of his professional life. The fact that I am a relative does not make me biased or partial. Have you not known families that did not get along? But you have been hostile to much of this. You act like a tyrant, with no sympathy for a newcomer to editing on Wikipedia or another point of view about Mr. Laurence's reporting of the Vietnam War. To suggest, as you do in your post to me about there being a difference between Wikipedia and Wikileaks, shows that your sarcasm knows no limits. Onward&Upward (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Onward&Upward has replied to your complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard/incident page.
{{Replying to Administrators' noticeboard/incident post}}
Onward&Upward (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you going to delete the references to awards of the Silver Star at the Battle of Ia Drang article too? - glasperlenspiel (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stringcatt
I note that you edited 612th Tactical Fighter Squadron to change [[Biggs Air Force Base]] to [[Biggs Army Airfield|Biggs Air Force Base]]. I believe the original form is preferred, see WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |