User talk:Mztourist: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:58, 9 May 2020 editMarkH21 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,594 edits →Calling a WP:OWNERSHIP warning “vandalism”: section titleTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:59, 9 May 2020 edit undoMztourist (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users72,344 edits →Calling a WP:OWNERSHIP warning “vandalism”: rmv vandalismNext edit →
Line 122:		Line 122:
	== Your ] nomination of ]==		== Your ] nomination of ]==
	Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)		Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

	== Calling a ] warning “vandalism” ==

	If you still don’t recognize what ] is, and that attempts to shoo away shoo editors away from articles that you’ve extensively edited with statements like {{tq\| Why have you come to this page and decided that it needed your "improvements", when there are so many pages on WP that seriously need improvement?}} is ], then any further such behavior will require further intervention. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 08:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:59, 9 May 2020

Articles

Hello, Mztourist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can 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:

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

Other creations of Vietnamese Government media:

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:

Vietnam War socks

A few of the most-prolific Vietnam War sockers:

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

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Base photos

Articles to Afd

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

@Mztourist: Why are you sending all my articles to Afd. You know it is disruptive. scope_creep 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:scope_creep, I am not sending all your articles to AFD. After reading Ferdinand Feichtner, I read further on German cryptanalysis and identified another 6 pages that I don't believe satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER and so listed them. Nothing disruptive about it.Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Without discussion. I think it will need to have a look through your articles. scope_creep 07:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:scope_creep, that would be WP:REVENGE. I would note from looking at your Talk Page that several pages that you have worked on have been declined for lack of notability Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dude, all the stuff on my talk page, if you spent more than cursory second examining them are rejections from NPP queue that were moved into Afc draft to be check as they were non-notable. Non of them are my articles. I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family. scope_creep 07:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:scope_creep if you decide to go down that route these comments will be used against you. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough. We could discussed and then you could posted them, but your nasty roundabout ways are the limit for me. Two of these articles took more than two years worth of work to put together from research in various places including conversations with several German universities. scope_creep 07:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mostly due to you writing about American subject and have no clue about European subjects. scope_creep 07:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If they don't meet WP:GNG they don't belong here, those are the rules and you have been on WP long enough to know them.

Hi Mztourist, I wanted to clarify that my post(s) at ANI are not to accuse of bad faith in any way, but to highlight the unintended consequences of batch-noms at AfD. Technical articles like these are not obvious GNGs but require time and effort searching in odd places (books, databases etc.) to resolve one way or another. AfD can materially improve such technical articles that will rarely be touched otherwise, and/or decisively resolve whether they should be in WP.

However, a problem with batch-noms of such technical BLPs, is that there is a limited capacity for editor involvement in them at AfD. The Delete !votes can come quickly on a BLP with no obvious refs on a normal/standard search, and this is when the article creator's stress levels can rise exponentially (they feel overwhelmed and even victimised). As I alluded to at the ANI, one of our more valuable editors, Onel5969, packed it in last week in such a scenario. While I think some of these noms are potential Keeps, my issue was not that they could not individually be nom'ed to AfD, they most definitely could. I just wanted to clarify this to you, and note your great work on the project. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Britishfinance thank you for your message. The reason why I put them up for AFD simultaneously was because they were all bios of German WWII cryptologists that I felt lacked notability, that the relevant assessment criteria would be GNG and SOLDIER and all could be addressed simultaneously because the same assessment would generally apply to all of them. In relation to your comment that AFD doesn't allow for much editor involvement I don't agree as I think that the article creator and other interested parties have an adequate opportunity to present their case. I don't regard tagging an article as an effective means of soliciting comments as tagging usually attracts only a very limited response. Nevertheless in future I intend to first tag a page for notability and then if the issue isn't addressed with a week or so I will then proceed to AFD. FYI this is the approach I have adopted with Johann Friedrich Schultze (mathematician), the last bio of a German WWII cryptologist that I feel lacks notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GANs

Hi Mztourist.

Apologies again for taking so long to get through Battle of Huế's GAN. It turned out to need more work than I had anticipated, but mostly it was me not getting my act together.
I am glad that you like the result and consider that the process has improved the article - which is, after all, what it is about.
I don't know how the experience of the last two GAN's was for you, especially given your oft-expressed antipathy to the process. If you were happy with it - and I am certainly open to suggestions for tweaks to make it smoother - then I would be happy to work through your considerable back catalogue of high-quality articles looking to turn many of them into GAs. Say at one a month or so?
I know that I originally said that Mayaguez incident was ready for a GAN; but, every time I reread it I think that it has too much detail and so doesn't meet 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." We could work on that, but I foresee us both being dissatisfied, and it may be easier for you to withdraw that nomination and select another for your next GAN?

Regards

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog thanks for your message and for taking the time to do the recent GA reviews, both pages are improved as a result. Obviously I don't agree that Mayaguez incident goes into unnecessary detail and so agree that its better for you not to do the GA review, however I would like it to remain a GAN and see if someone else picks it up. In terms of future GANs I'm open to the idea, but no pages particularly come to mind as they're often deficient in terms of photos and/or RS. I'll take a look back through and see if any seem suitable or if there are any that you identify then I'm happy to look into them. Thanks and best regards Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Re Mayaguez, I didn't think that you would. Yeah, another reviewer may well have a different view. Unfortunately, I have already opened the review in my name, so I have tweaked the talk page to reopen it for another reviewer to pick up.

If you have an article which you feel is GA standard bar a lack of images I would be happy to work with you pre- and/or post-GAN to see if we could resolve that.

Without really trying I found several possibles. Battle of Kham Duc looks nearly there; maybe a bit of trimming, but on a skim nearly GA class. Or Operation Lancaster II? Or Operation Pipestone Canyon?

Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog. Battle of Kham Duc is already a GA. I don't think Operation Lancaster II meets GA because its largely single sourced, however Operation Pipestone Canyon may be suitable. Some other possibilities are: Operation Starlite, Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy and Battle of Xuân Lộc. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Good points. Re the other five, yep; they all look GANable on a quick skim. (Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy: I have doubts over cites 5-9 being RS.) If you wanted to post one of Operation Starlite, Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base or Battle of Xuân Lộc and ping me, I would be happy to pick it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, I've deleted cites 5-9 from Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy (they predated some later RS). Let's start with that one.Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the quick and painless GA review of Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, do you feel like staying in Saigon and looking at Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base next? I've just expanded the background and just need to add a few refs. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Nominate it and ping me and I'll reserve it, although it is likely to be a few days before I can do substantial work on it. Gog the Mild (talk)

@Gog the Mild: nominated thanks. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I've noticed a couple of your SPI reports where you've notified the users concerned "I have opened an SPI here..." with no explanation of what an SPI might be, its significance, or how to respond. The template messages {{Socksuspectnotice}} or {{uw-socksuspect}} do a lot of the heavy lift for you, and using Twinkle saves you even more work while ensuring all the options are considered.

In cases which lack evidence, the less confrontational template {{uw-agf-sock}} can be surprisingly effective in getting the user to mend their ways or, counter-intuitively, to generate more conclusive evidence. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted, thanks I will use those in future. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

South Vietnam lead changes

It is not a big change. Just technical literature edits. No content change at all. Just shortening the information to make it neat. No one yet talk about the issue in the talk page. I cannot discuss with ghosts. You seems like the only one, what do you not agree at?Twainkinky (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Twainkinky is a sock puppet of User:Albertpda and it has been blocked indefinitely.

Your GA nomination of Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base

The article Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Starlite

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Starlite you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayaguez incident

The article Mayaguez incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mayaguez incident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cửa Việt

Mztourist Cửa Việt không phải là một con sông, nó chỉ là miệng một con sông đổ vào biển, hay được gọi là cửa biển. Đôi khi vài thông tin có thể tìm thấy ghi là "cửa sông Cửa Việt", nó là cụm từ ghép lại bởi "cửa sông + Cửa Việt", chứ không có nghĩa là "cửa + sông Cửa Việt". Trong nhiều thói quen dùng đôi khi nó chỉ sông Thạch Hãn nhưng đó không phải tên gọi chính thức. Bạn có thể tham khảo Tổng quan về Quảng Trị (đây là trang website của 1 cơ quan chính quyền thuộc tỉnh Quảng Trị) với nội dung được trích dẫn: "Nhánh sông chính là Thạch Hãn bắt nguồn từ các dãy núi lớn Động Sa Mui, Động Voi Mẹp (nhánh Rào Quán) và động Ba Lê, động Dang (nhánh Đakrông). Sông Thạch Hãn đổ ra biển ở Cửa Việt." Bạn đã được cấp quyền tự đánh dấu tuần tra, cẩn thận, đừng tự gây mất uy tín của bạn. Đông Minh (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak Vietnamese. Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You can use Google Translate. Đông Minh (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Đông Minh reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Your GA nomination of Operation Starlite

The article Operation Starlite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Starlite for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Xuân Lộc

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Xuân Lộc you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)