User talk:Hohum

Thank you for your comment on the Peiper Talk page. I really appreciate it!

Would the same rationale apply here SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen - Source regarding the use of a division history by Otto Kumm. I have reliable sources that call these unit histories "tendentious" and Otto Kumm an "unreformed Nazi enthusiast." Who knows what he means by "crushing the partisans" and "bravery." Please let me know what you think.

Here are the sources in context:

• Memoirs and histories by former Waffen-SS generals and bulky 'official' unit histories (often in several volumes) were produced with the assistance from HIAG since the 1950s. They invariably portrayed Waffen-SS men as "idealists who fought honorably and well (and had nothing to do with the concentration camps)"^[1]; these works were clearly "tendentious."^[2] HIAG also underwrote the publication of works by right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen-SS.^[2]

• At least through the 1970s, Kumm remained "the ever unreformed Nazi enthusiast" according to researcher Danny S. Parker, who was given access to the previously closed HIAG archives.^[3] Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organization, HIAG was eventually disbanded in 1992.^[4]

Hi:

I have seen that you have reverted the input by HHubi. I totally agree with you, that guy thinks that Wikipedia is an ITU manual. However, I was thinking that his entry of ITU quotes could be added in a "Regulations" section (as I did in Radiosonde) which would stop further reverting. What do you think about that.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. I've referred the issue of his editing of telecoms/radio related articles to WT:TEL, since I don't have the expertise in the subject for the nuance that may be necessary in dealing with such a troublesome editor. (Hohum ^@) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I will put it toward the end. Pierre cb (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Royal Military Academy Sandhurst into Officer Candidate School. 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) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to go ahead and clean up this article: none of the sources listed are reliable; in addition, the credited vehicles are not cited. I know you've disagreed once, so I wanted to give you heads up to see if you wanted to improve the article before I proceed.

Per WP:MILMOS:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians.

The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited. At a minimum, the following all require direct citation:

• Numerical quantities or statistics

Please let me know! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly; thank you for taking an interest in improving the articles that you have been working on. It is welcome.

The web sources currently in use have bibliographies at the bottom of their pages, so they are tertiary, and the text they support is probably factual. I agree that it should more properly be cited directly to those sources, if you have them. If you don't have them, I advise against removing the text in the article just because of poor referencing. You should only remove information if you think it is *wrong*, not just because the sourcing is weak.

Short version - I suggest improving the referencing, rather than tearing out information because it has tertiary sourcing. (Hohum ^@) 15:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree. Per WP:MILMOS & WP:RS, these are unreliable and, secondly, tertiary sources. I find these numbers to be dubious – they could have been simply exaggerated in the heat of the battle or by the unit commander to mask mistakes, or could have been factually incorrect, whereas the unit reports destroying 'heavy tanks' while in fact these were T-34s. Without reliable sources, we simply do not know. If the articles do not have citations, then per various tags "the material may be challenged or removed." It does not say that it cannot or should not be removed. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) None of the sources used can be considered RS. They need to be replaced by citations from Schneider's Tigers in Combat, Tessin's Truppen und Verbände der Wehrmacht and Sledgehammers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, improve the sourcing. The numbers are likely supported by the reliable sources (Jentz, Schneider, etc.) at the bottom of the web pages currently used. (Hohum ^@) 14:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not have access to these sources; I'd rather interested editors improve the article once it's been cleaned up.

Would you guys mind if I copy paste this to the article's talk page, before I proceed? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Apols for my part in that hornet's nest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck here. I also tried to help but it was received slightly less enthusiastically than a dose of clap. Sadly, having tried to be nice I find that I have no stomach for further involvement - I hate rows on here - so I'm ducking out. If you continue to try to help I wish you luck with it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I quite literally never thought that the colorspace of the PNG would affect that, even though I damn well 'knew' it could have. Thanks for fixing that, and educating me a bit on what to do if I see that problem in the future. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this but can you have another look at the Cape Guardafui loc map you did please? I altered something in the picture captions and it altered the map, making it spill over the page margin and I can't put it right because I can't find what I did to it, even looking at previous versions of the page. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, and increased to 300px, which I think you might have been trying to do as well? (Hohum ^@) 18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it was 220, I was changing picture captions from center /center to {{center|caption}} and it changed something in the map formula but I don't know what.Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I just tried 220 and it went wrong again!Keith-264 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed again. The size needs to be specified the same in two places in that template. (Hohum ^@) 19:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Now the red box is in the wrong place....Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. (Hohum ^@) 16:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I still don't know what I did to it. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent map! Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, Some of the information in this map, namely the spread of lollardy's influence (the distinction between areas with a lollard presence before the death of Richard II and areas where lollardy spread in the 15th century), was made inaccessible to people with deuteranomaly (and possibly other kinds of "colour-blindness") by the change of blue areas to green (your edit on 20 May 2015). Could you please have another look some time? Thanks and best wishes --Frans Fowler (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've now adjusted the colours so that they are compatible with deuteranopia, protanopia and tritanopia - according to the filters for that purpose in Gimp. Hopefully that has worked. (Hohum ^@) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for trying, so quickly! The current version from the File history table is an improvement (but not as clear as the first one, with the blue). However, the big version now at the top of the file page (which looks to me like the version in the Lollardy article) doesn't seem any different from the previous one - Somerset and Wilts look like darker and lighter versions of the same colour. Is that just the database being slow somehow, or is there a mix-up? Cheers --Frans Fowler (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably a caching issue. Try C:Help:Purge (Hohum ^@) 17:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your help now that the article is queued for GAN. What do you think of another editor's sudden additions to the article, and changes to structure? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you've recovered it already.

On a separate note, the image of the B2 in the lead isn't very good resolution or colour accuracy. (Hohum ^@) 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I took a chance on it, and have at least explained myself. I'd be very glad if you could keep an eye. On the B2, I'd say it was easily a good enough image to be going along with, but as always, these things can be worked on. In the case of the B2, although this is a camouflage article, its colours are not terribly important as its stealth does not rely on its visual appearance: a curious but pertinent fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Howzit, Hohum.

As you were the first contributor to mark the section I wrote on the T-34's usage in the Angolan Civil War as being too granular, I would value your opinion on the revised section I am proposing here. This is roughly about the size of the section on the tank's Korean War deployments; however, I have been told it is still too detailed and needs to be axed to four or five sentences, or less than one paragraph.

What do you think? Has it been adequately condensed as is, or does it need more work?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not bad, but it needs to be condensed more. Things like how they were shipped aren't needed. Read the Korean war section and see how that concentrates its focus. (Hohum ^@) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to use ping here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. My intention is to templatize bare reference. In order to harvnb template wokrs, we need to convert literature to templates Citation or Cite book/journal. -- Bojan  Talk  19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BokicaK: It would make a lot more sense to do it the other way around. Prepare the citations, then adjust the references - that way, nothing is broken. (Hohum ^@) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with You, but I can't do it with plain search & replace. I just wanted to do half of this task. I hoped that others users will append Literature/Sources/Biobliography sections. -- Bojan  Talk  19:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to join in repairing the references but I'm useless with harvnb, sfn is the only one I'm any good at; would it help if I did some of the affected articles like that while you're plugging away on V-B? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Although well intentioned, I'm not convinced the original change was the best idea for a lot of the articles involved. (Hohum ^@) 20:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested. EyeTruth (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't work out how to keep (a) and (b) in one column. Pity it didn't occur to me to try colons. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Editorial POV-pushing, despite attempts by to persuade an editor to acknowledge the difference between an article conforming to the title and a Montgomery-bashing exercise.

Courtesy notification. Keith-264 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd inadvertently pasted the same citation twice about Mongolian Ost Battalion troops in Normandy. Thanks for the revert otherwise I wouldn't have caught that.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you left a comment on my talk page. Could you elaborate on ow my edit did not conform to the verifiability guidelines? I deleted a comment that was speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have left several links to wikipedia sourcing requirements on your talk page already. (Hohum ^@) 11:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Nice work on the WWI images. Thanks. If you feel like having a look at their sourcing that would be good. If you feel like weeding some of them out, even better. And from the last A class review:

"The images need boosting in size, each scrutinised on the basis of quality (res, etc), height, caption length, relationship to surrounding text and images, and critically, internal detail. The Br. Grand Fleet looks like a bad case of skin rash and pimples. Austrian troops: the relevance, the detail, is impossible to make out. The corpses: amazing pic, and hugely dramatic. Bigger, please. Initial actions: please see the MoS on text sandwiching! Please note the change in WP:IUP on image sizes, which has loosened up about forced size increases. Experiment with 230–250px?"

If you are already on to any of this and I am playing the role of the slow kid at the back of the class, apologies. In any case, thanks again for the good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For a huge amount of behind the scenes work, and specifically for kicking Razing of Friesoythe into shape, I am happy to award you this hard earned barnstar. You work makes Wikipedia a more pleasant place to visit. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot to say: "Thank you!". (Hohum ^@) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha. You are most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hohum. I saw your recent edits on M60 Machine Gun, and noticed you removed a reference from thefirearmblog.com on the grounds it was a blog, and thus not a reliable source. I agree that blogs are not reliable sources, but, as far as I can tell, thefirearmblog is actually a news site, and just happens to have blog as part of their name. There was a discussion on WikiProject Firearms (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive_9#Source_discussion) about reliable sources, and while not specifically mentioned, I believe that based on precedent favors the reliability of website in question. I recognize you're a much more experienced editor than I am, so a response would be very much appreciated, especially if I'm mistaken. Thanks! - Mr.1032 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Although it seems they do have staff writers, I'm not convinced that makes it a reliable source. Even if it did, it doesn't seem that the author of that contribution, "Miles" is a staff writer, or a recognised expert - he seems like an interested amateur. In short, it would be better to find a better source instead of arguing about that one. If you want to get more feedback, the reliable sources noticeboard would be the place to go. (Hohum ^@) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
A few minutes ago, I started to on Hazzard's article at User:Usernamekiran/Rutledge P. Hazzard. Would you be able to find a photo for him? Also, would you kindly tell me how do you find photos? Like you did with William K. James? Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look, and can't find a decent picture of him.

I usually try doing a reverse image search using the poor quality version, too see if there is a better one, using http://www.tineye.com and/or do google image searches using various combination of their name, rank, unit, etc. A seach for "general William K James" gave me a good result. You can also search inside the US national archive here: https://catalog.archives.gov/search (Hohum ^@) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did stumble upon some source material for him though

• https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-hazzard.html
• https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-lance.html

(Hohum ^@) 17:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
Before contacting you, I had managed to find these two images, I have uploaded them to commons now. File:Brigadier General Rutledge P. Hazzard (cropped).jpg, and File:Rutledge P. Hazzard.jpg

While I was searching, I also had come across the two sources you provided above. But they didnt open that day, and they didnt open today either. They always say the connection has timed out. Also, you should lookup {{pb}}, it is very handy. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again.
I just published the article Rutledge P. Hazzard :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
874		IS tank family (talk)	Add sources
6		Jekyll Island Museum (talk)	Add sources
780		Kliment Voroshilov tank (talk)	Add sources
280		Effects of the car on societies (talk)	Add sources
41		Battle of Stallupönen (talk)	Add sources
1,408		Panther tank (talk)	Add sources
71		COMANF (talk)	Cleanup
467		Panzer II (talk)	Cleanup
1,000		Mil Mi-8 (talk)	Cleanup
1,106		Main battle tank (talk)	Expand
26		4th Hussar Regiment (France) (talk)	Expand
356		Panzer 38(t) (talk)	Expand
265		9K32 Strela-2 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
181		Flame tank (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
572		Sherman Firefly (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,662		Pubic hair (talk)	Merge
306		Raufoss Mk 211 (talk)	Merge
1,782		Invasion of Normandy (talk)	Merge
17		Battle of Flirey (talk)	Wikify
11		35th Parachute Artillery Regiment (talk)	Wikify
133		Lend-Lease Sherman tanks (talk)	Wikify
4		El Salheya (talk)	Orphan
4		Harald Belker (talk)	Orphan
69		Sniper equipment (talk)	Orphan
38		Battle of Saguntum (talk)	Stub
13		CDC SCOPE (talk)	Stub
28		Sophia Loren: Her Own Story (talk)	Stub
16		West FM (talk)	Stub
410		SNAC (talk)	Stub
3		Ludwig von Henk (talk)	Stub

Close

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In your picture reverts, you wiped out the link I inserted!! Please put it back!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I did. (Hohum ^@) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to upload a file separately. Since only one non-free image per article is allowed, that would mean that the older image would be deleted. If that's a concern, I'd be happy to list it for discussion. Or I can just go ahead and replace the file in the article. Please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Where do you see the limit on non free images in an article to one? There is a "minimal number of items" clause er WP:NFC, but showing someone young, in military uniform, versus much older, as a civilian, especially when their features are very different, are different use cases. . (Hohum ^@) 11:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You changed several instances of cquote to quote in the Chain Home article, marking it "not a pull quote". What is a pull quote and why should one be used instead of the other? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Pull quote - A quote of something in the article itself. Template:Cquote has warning at the top "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text."

Block quote, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE - A long quote. "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template)"

(Hohum ^@) 12:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits on Vietnam War. Per your User page I have become exhausted wrestling pigs on various recent edits of Vietnam war related pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, the edit with the deletions I agree with but the problem remains that the article does not describe how the caps work. So to verify is your objection to the lack of citation or are you contesting the descriptions? The 1st portion I can provide a citation to, the second is Nathan Okum's work on the subject. This is the part that particularly concerns me. I don't have a better source than he provides but He is a noted expert in the field. Please let me know I have zero intention of edit warring.Tirronan (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be reliably sourced (Hohum ^@) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Given your revert here, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Photoshopped Images, Part Deux? I don't know if you would want to participate in the discussions, but if you don't, could you give me some advice on where to seek further guidance on the issue? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Why you deleted my text from Military section? Could you help me with transform my text to coherent with your opinion?--Swadim (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Genuine question; what is the purpose of the changes you've made to the images used in this article? I get the sandwiching thing (although it seems slightly unnecessary) but not why you've removed all the px/size things. Not objecting per se but I used specific sizes for a reason so I'm trying to understand why they've been changed. Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

To repect user preferences. per WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMGSIZE:

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices).

(Hohum ^@) 09:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to change image sizing on articles about Nazis and Nazi Germany generals to preference sizing. I have reviewed all of them that are on my watchlist, and I have to objection to any that I've seen so far. I;m hopeful that this will put the issue to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I've just been going through generals via Commanders of World War II. So far, most British and US generals have default sizes, but German ones have far more that are (slightly) smaller. Some of this may be because they are closer framed to the face, so don't need to be so big for recognition. (Hohum ^@) 11:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ho hum, hohum. I left you a message regarding your strange reversion of my request for a ref on Battle of Britain.Botteville (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I like your addition of the 4 sizes of spoons to the tablespoon etc. articles. But the addition made me realize there's no frame of reference in them. I'm wondering if you can find a similar photo, with something like a cube of sugar to clarify their sizes? PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think most people know how big a teaspoon is - however, to split hairs, it's actually a coffee spoon in the image, which may be slightly smaller. If I come across a spoon set image with something even more universally known for scale, I'll use that though. (Hohum ^@) 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I just put the word historians in instead since me adding other things in was not needed I see that now since the fist sentence covers what I was trying to sayJack90s15 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your improvements to New Albion. I have recently worked much on the article with very much of my effort expended by improving the citations. I was entirely unfamiliar with the OCLC notation and appreciate that you were so conscientious with your editing that you noticed something so small. If you are able to provide any further advice regarding the article, I am very interested in receiving it. I see your experience is deep, and my efforts at article writing include only four article creations with small edits to various others. So, I value your thoughts.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article and added info from a new source, a book by a reputable publisher, not the two online sources criticized in the earlier reversions. I do not accept that just because an author of history is characterized as a "revisionist," that he or she might not have something interesting to offer. I mentioned all along that the allegations of a British execution of Himmler were unproven.

Elendil's Heir

Put your comments about articles on the article talk page. David Irving is utterly discredited, he is not an acceptable source. (Hohum ^@) 22:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, this is not Pictish - it's at least 500 years too early. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but what edit of mine are you talking about?? (Hohum ^@) 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!. I thought I had done the best to the picture but damaged Rostron's shoulder. Do you think it's a go for FP Candidate? Just your opinion will be welcomed :). A barnstar awaits you. --LLcentury (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I tried to undone the IPs contribution, as they are based on fringe theories but without sucess. The IP pretends to claim that the statements come from the book 'The Great Patriotic War of 1941-45' Vol. 2. (pdf link) but that's not true. (just check the cite to p. 358) Most of the statements in fact come 1:1 from this article: https://ukraina.ru/pobeda/20150507/1012991229.html written by Evgeny Spitsyn, a die-hard Stalin apologist and revisionist.

According to historian Irina Pavlova, Spitsyn’s article is "a symbol of present-day Russian historiography of World War II and a symbol of the return to the Stalinist interpretation" in the most extreme way. In it, the writer repeats "all the myths about Stalin as the main peacemaker and supporter of collective security in the 1930s." link: http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/05/08/moscow-completely-restores-and-promotes-stalinist-conception-of-ww2-pavlova-says-euromaidan-press/ 2A02:1206:4589:3F40:D1B8:DBF3:4E0E:9001 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please say this on the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

but have you tried explaining your edit? This might be better discussed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied at RFPP. (Hohum ^@) 17:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Just a heads up. The images you've replaced at George Washington's political evolution were specifically selected because their licensing met the standards expected at A Class review. The images you replaced them with, while better quality, do not have appropriate licensing. That will be an issue if the article is ever (re)submitted to the higher quality review fora. Factotem (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you think is wrong with the licensing of each of the images I have used? (Hohum ^@) 11:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawrence_Washington.jpg lacks a US PD tag

Corrected.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_able_doctor,_or_America_swallowing_the_bitter_draught_(NYPL_Hades-248165-425086).jpg license is author's life plus 100 years, but does not say anywhere who the author was, and PD in the US because it was published before 1924, but provides no info about when it was first published. Factotem (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Source says it was published 1774, which is in the date field, so, whether the author is known or unknown, they have been dead for 100 years, so PD. (Hohum ^@) 12:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking/cleaning up/replacing the photo of Gaulois. It's fuckin' beautiful, man!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for telling me. I probably overlooked it given that most of the section is unsourced anyway. Fixed. Creador de Mundos (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source. It could do with page numbers too. (Hohum ^@) 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hohum,

Thanks for creating List of commando units! I edit here too, under the username Domdeparis and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Hi I have asked for help reviewing this article here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Help_request_for_reviewing_List_of_commando_units

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Domdeparis}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dom from Paris (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What "clarification needed]" for you? I think you're wrong in your assessment. You are seriously mistaken when you say that now in Russia there is "the return to the Stalinist interpretation". This is complete nonsense. Refer to the newspaper "euromaidan" about Russia - nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.126.42 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker. Some of the content you have added is incomprehensible, incoherent, not valid English sentences, they convey no meaning, and are babble. Usually, it is possible for me to fix bad grammar, but it's impossible to figure out what was intended. It is also unclear what part is quotation from a source, and what is isn't. I also find it hard to believe that a quotation from a reliable source would be so incoherent. I have told you this countless times, but you keep re-adding it without discussing it on the talk page of the article, where this should be. (Hohum ^@) 18:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also If you can't see what is incoherent, you simply shouldn't be adding it in the first place. (Hohum ^@) 18:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have never said anything even close to "the return to the Stalinist interpretation". Where are you getting this utter fiction from? (Hohum ^@) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, please excuse me, I was wrong, it was not written by you (Rjensen wrote).

My English is not native, of course, I can only apologize for the mistakes. I do not impose my opinion, I only write in addition to others, if it affects the theme of Russia and Russian history. I think that this should not be completely indifferent for you or others. For example, to know that the historian Boris Sokolov is actually a very odious figure in Russia and his opinion is not typical for Russian historians. I repeat, in any case, I do not seek to impose my opinion to anyone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.126.42 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Panther tank copyright problem.

I checked the already used book on that page, and I quoted from the same books. So what is the problem?Szolnok95 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You used exactly the phrasing from the source. That is copyright infringement. (Hohum ^@) 18:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So I should write the same but with my own words and cite the source? Szolnok95 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but please read WP:CUTPASTE, and only add information from sources once you fully understand it. (Hohum ^@) 23:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hohum,

if able, could you help crop/recolor this image please; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EvelynKeyes.jpg It would be much appreciated. Thank you!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hohum; May I ask for your help cropping/brightening this piece please; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JAneWyman.jpg Thank you and enjoy the weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hohum, If possible, may I request you too help crop this latest pic for me please: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EARLHolliman.jpg It's good for brightness, as you'll see it just needs some cropping from the top and perhaps a little too the left side (I'll let you be the judge of the latter once you see it). Thank you for help and have a nice day.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your actions. If you can't understand something, it's not an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article. I will delete any other replies here. (Hohum ^@) 16:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The premised fact is that "brain gain" over "brain drain" ratios are antithetical and contingent. Wherefore, the lingo of using only "brain drain" alone within the primary Section is misleading to readers. The mutually exclusive net gain premise is a subsequent and inverse positional shift for both nations. Inasmuch, any respective receiving nation's gain is also the originating nation's loss. This is the essence of the concept.

The proportional inverse net loss to the preceding nation was the dependent variable of Operation Paperclip. This primary covert strategy of international policy gained political traction in the 20th century. It represents fundamental comparative advantages extracted from competitive disadvantages through diplomacy over war. Let me know your position before I undo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcanfield (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Akunanzuzo yokuba nezixhumanisi ezimbili esihlokweni esisodwa, kuyadukisa ngokwengeziwe ukwenza lokho. Nginesiqiniseko sokuthi udlala nje, futhi uzongena kulowo moya okwamanje, kodwa maduze ngizolahlekelwa ukubekezela, ngilahle noma yikuphi ukucabanga kokholo oluhle, futhi ngibandakanye nezenzo zokuphatha. Ngikweluleka ukuthi ungalubeki kabusha ushintsho lwakho. Ujabulele usuku lwakho. (Hohum ^@) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Isithandwa esikhulu sokuxhumana: Omunye wethu akakuqondi lokho engikubhalile. Yimi? Jdcanfield

Please explain your edits at Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy... you might consider using an edit summary. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of edit summaries. Mostly removing broken wiki coding, making sort work correctly for all dates. (Hohum ^@) 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

...at Talk:Cold War. I am keen to standardize the references and repair all of them. I am willing to do all the heavy lifting. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk)

Please be more careful when making bulk search/replacements. Changing manned mission to Mars to crewed mission to Mars broke links to human mission to Mars. (Hohum ^@) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that; when I was making the link, I was thinking that if that target didn't exist, it should be created, but I forgot to check when I was saving the page. I just made a redirect from there in case anyone else links to it, but thanks for changing "crewed" to "human"; it sounds more natural. And thanks for your watchfulness on this article. -- Beland (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. There is some lists, I mean about List of marines and naval infantry forces and List of paratrooper forces, in lead of both of that articles is said to there are "several" countries but for me seems to there is 60+ countries, and several is often used when something is just a few or a little more then a few so maybe can be said to there is many or something like that. When I saw it for the first time it confused me a little I must to say, so it can also confuse people who read etc. 93.87.128.87 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It has multiple meanings, like most words - in this case, I think they mean "various", or the very indistinct "some". (Hohum ^@) 19:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe more better to put "various". For me was confusing. Also I checked Webster and it is said "in common use, several is often more than a couple and a few, though it is sometimes the same as both and occasionally more than a few" 93.87.128.87 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what this was about. When I don't have an opinion on something, it's usually cause for zero posts, not three vaguely insulting ones. I'm sorry if I've caught you at a bad moment or something. Anyway, I just wondered what prompted that. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(Firstly, kudos to you for laying the olive branch.)

It's not *no* opinion. I'm pretty sure it was specific and clear. The issue being discussed is a waste of time. Not only yours, which is, of course, yours to waste - but of other editors (which is theirs to waste as well). However, waste is waste - time better spent doing something else.

I can't see any likely positive outcome to wikipedia articles from the discussion. We reflect what reliable sources use. If sources use he/she/it/they, that's what we use. This principle has been hashed and rehashed many times.

What does it matter if across articles we are consistent or inconsistent in pronoun use between ships, airships, bicycles or cows? Why would they need to be? What's the harm/benefit? Things aren't consistent in reality. As a comparison, we had endless battles about British English vs American English use in articles - common sense eventually resolved this to - unless there is a string national tie, it doesn't matter - choose one consistently within the article, and use that. Pronoun use should be handled in a similar way - follow the style used in the majority of sources used for the article. Then get back to concentrating on improving actual article *content*. (Hohum ^@) 23:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And kudos to you for accepting it in the spirit it was meant. Oh, I got what you meant. I essentially asked a question at a venue set aside for this sort of discussion for opinions about this encyclopedic matter, and you responded, essentially, that it was silly even to ask the question. By my terms it is definitionally important (else I would not have asked the question); it is, as you say, my time to waste, and this was a proper venue for asking such a question. So I (perhaps unintentionally snarkily) pointed out that this is (in terms of the conversation) tantamount to saying you have no opinion.

I do sympathise; I found myself reading something earlier today about Trump's impeachment process. People were getting very exercised about Trump vs Obama and the upcoming election. I am not American and view the entire US political scene very cynically. I was sorely tempted to get in there and tell the participants that it was a waste of their time, bandwidth and electrons, and that they should endeavour to develop more productive interests, that all politicians are liars and crooks, and that we would all be dead in 100 years so who cares? I did not; I clicked on something else and moved away silently. That you did not do similarly tells me that you are not completely disinterested in the topic.

If you were Emperor of Wikipedia and the choice was up to you, would you really say "go with the sources"? We don't do that currently of course; if we went with the usage of contemporary sources we would call Nelson Mandela a "criminal terrorist", George Washington an "insurgent traitor" and Martin Luther King a "Negro activist". Without checking those articles I am confident we do not do so. We write about them the way modern sources do. The words we choose to describe things are important. The "she for ships" (and perhaps airships too? Hovercraft?) is not quite at that level, but cumulatively I believe almost as important. You're right that it's been discussed previously. It's ok that we sometimes discuss things more than once. Clearly I don't believe it's a complete waste of time. But the real problem was that my question did not relate to the wider MoS discussion; I merely mentioned it as background. My question was more about how the heck this specialised usage that the ship people seem to find important has gotten spread onto airships, which aren't ships. Like, was there a discussion that agreed this? Anyway, sorry to waste even more of your time. Best regards, --The Huhsz (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Washington, Mandela and King examples seem inaccurate. If you use the best reliable sources (i.e. the mass of seminal works on those people by historians and biographers), it's unlikely you'll get the results you suggest.

So, yes, reflect what reliable sources show. It's a cornerstone of wikipedia. WP:PILLARS, WP:RS WP:BESTSOURCES.

If the best sources about anything (e.g. airships) stopped being written, then, although those sources may seem seem to have archaic language to you, it's the most up to date available. Although, I'll bet there are some decent modern books on airships (and I'd bet they tend to use she).

Ref Trump. It seems to me, that after a very careful inspection of the evidence, they will ponder its weight, and then vote along party lines. (Hohum ^@) 18:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help fixing up the page, your expertise made all the difference. All my best Aeengath (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Hohum:, you recently reverted an edit I made on the short description of the Lakh article, without providing any explanation. Would you mind letting me know why you did that? The existing short description - 100,000 - 1,00,000 in Indian numbering, seems confusing to me, and I would say it is confusing for most English-speakers as not only does it look like "1,000,000" (1,00,000 being an unfamiliar number), but it doesn't seem to add anything useful to the description. werewolf (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the comma separation used by the numbering system that uses Lakh, so it is entirely appropriate, and also clearly explained. (Hohum ^@) 23:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Hohum:, your revert was not explained. Generally it is preferred that when doing a revert, one provide an explanation. I understand the role the comma plays in the Indian numbering system as well as in this instance, and I am in no way disputing it. What I am saying, and as I explained in my previous message, is that I don't think it it necessary to add the Indian notation in the short description as it is potentially confusing to someone merely reading this short bit rather than delving into the article, where the unusual (for non-Indians) notation is explained. werewolf (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edit was also not explained. I clearly think it is useful, please take this to article talk if you want to gain consensus for your edit. (Hohum ^@) 13:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to move the main part about Bernie Madoff's expected death into a new section (or wherever) please do. But a short sentence in the lead makes sense. Birthdays and death dates are nearly universal in bios. It will be big news when it happens, and note that he is claiming this, not some nut job. In short, I'll revert your reversion: it's important material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Or, you could just follow the requirements of WP:LEAD yourself. (Hohum ^@) 15:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me about "Weeks 2004". What is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Weeks, Albert L. (2004), "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, ISBN 978-0-7391-0736-2 - per the bibliography. (Hohum ^@) 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. It's nice to communicate with people who are ready to help. I will now know about quoting. Thank you also for prompting to read this book. A bit even funny, that the only (!!!!!) the "historian" whom he quotes is Sokolov. Here's superhistory!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your removal of the text as strange. Many visitors (not even Russian) pointed out your strange editing practice. For example, in the subject "lend-lease". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Take it up in the relevant article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've heard that from you before. I repeat, even not Russians see your strange practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

here is the original phrase from the Portuguese Wikipedia (the place where i found it) Prisioneiros alemães na Noruega teriam sido obrigados a limpar campos minados. Quando a "limpeza" terminou, 392 estavam feridos e 275 morreram. (German prisoners in Norway would have been forced to clear minefields. When the "cleanup" ended, 392 were injured and 275 died.)but now i noticed,the guy who put the Source in the original one,put a german war crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC) apparently,the book is about the Scorch campaign made by the germans in norway,but nothing about the Mine fields189.35.35.204 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring and take it up on the talk page of the article to gain consensus for your edit. Please read, and abide by WP:BRD, and revert your contested edit now. YOU are responsible for any edits you make, whether translated or not. You have now said it was Norwegian, British, and then Germans were responsible - you clearly don;t have the source and are blindly copying. (Hohum ^@) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello you are the 2 person I saw on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II&action=history It appears to be the same person as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castelnuovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montese seems to me like it. This person appears to be making up World War II hoaxes, as for one page they made. The only source is to a food website. The first thing that comes up in Spanish is (Las 15 mejores comidas callejeras de Guatemala) The 15 best street foods in Guatemala? Does not seem like a reliable source for a World War II battle.Now they admitted it was a food page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Castelnuovo&diff=947785827&oldid=947740377.Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It Appears the person needs help as they asked me on my page, so I'm going to try and help them the best I can.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, perhaps you could add some perspective to the discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Not global? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

i see you removed a image from it,and i understand why, the Description of the Image was Kinda bad, what ACTUALLY happened is that, the japanese soldiers Looted the Shop the propaganda said they we're buying stuff from, and it was published by a japanese Journal as a propaganda, to say to the Chinese people something like this: "HEY! we arent bad, we are helping your economy, and we clearly didnt Looted this place" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

and,yes i think it should get a better Description, so it wont get confused as an Shopping Advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

When you revert and say the template "broke" you should add a post to the talk page saying what happened. Please explain your revert as your change left the template in this state:

This article appears to contradict the article dog.

This article appears to contradict the article dog.

--Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Linking to the other article broke. You can see this by looking at example usage in the history of the template page.

This article appears to contradict the article Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary.

changed to

This article appears to contradict the another article.

Possibly you fixed it for inter-wiki articles, but broke it for intra-wiki?

(Hohum ^@) 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Love

Fixed. Better next time if it isn't a huge glaring error, to use the talk page, as reverting can cause even worse problems. --Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicely done.

"This article appears to contradict French the article dog. " is rather clumsy though

One of these phrasings might make more sense.

"This article appears to contradict the French article dog. "

"This article appears to contradict the article fr:dog."

(Hohum ^@) 14:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That was a silly mistake of mine. I moved the "the" to a more logical position in the code, and moved it after the language name instead of before. Fixed as well. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

General George S. Patton wearing his 4-star service cap.jpg is a photoshopped image of File:Pattonphoto.jpg

which he is wearing 3 stars. Neovu79 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll mark up the photoshopped one so it's clearer that it shouldn't be used. (Hohum ^@) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to mention that you're the one who uploaded it as well, lol. Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop deleting content because you have sourcing issues....Please use the subjects talk page first...Thank You Robjwev (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have sourcing issues. The text you keep re-adding does. Please abide by WP:BRD instead of edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 19:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You deleted my edit to the Sherman tank page because it was unreferenced. But I the table I added was cited to a ballistics report. Can I please put my edit back? Blamazon (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The text you added is unsupported by the reference. The table itself is out of place in the section you added it, but might work in the "Gun development" section where the weaker high explosive shell is already discussed. (Hohum ^@) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are fine. Actually I am new here. You seem like an experienced person in Wikipedia. Can you please explain how things work here??😄😄 অগ্নিশিখা (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply at MILHIST talk a while back. I stubbed this. The term is clearly notable (it is discussed in a number of Polish-language sources) but I can't find anything substantial in English... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hohum,

Thankyou for your recent contributions to the pitched battle article. I am new to editing and greatly appreciate the support. I was also wondering if an infobox would be a useful addition somewhere in the article? I am not sure what infoboxes would be of use in the Military History Wikiproject or if any would be useful in the article. Any Assistance in this regard is greatly appreciated. Cheers.

Hi. I can't think of an appropriate/useful infobox in this case. By the way, you can sign your talk page entries with ~~~~ (Hohum ^@) 09:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to write my name in Japanese from English and also the letters of the alphabet, do you have any idea for the best way for this? for example when I google translate a name or a letter, it kind of screws me over with different meanings and such, all I wanted was to write my name and letters in a different language, but don't really know how. I am asking you this only because I saw you post on translations article, just hoping you could maybe have the answer, thankyou friend! EzeeWiki (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? (Hohum ^@) 08:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah along those lines, but i would also like to translate single letters, is that possible? thankyou! EzeeWiki (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible with Japanese. Translation relies on a whole word's meaning having an equivalent word/symbol in the other language. Transliteration tends to be phonetic for Japanese to English - using letter patterns to represent what the spoken Japanese sounds like. I don't think there is a relevant letter by letter way of transliterating from English to Japanese. It's hardly my area of expertise though. There may be translation forums on the web somewhere that may be able to help. (Hohum ^@) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

what is the difference between translations regarding spelling and pronouncing the name/letter? EzeeWiki (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, sorry. (Hohum ^@) 08:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hohum, I wanted to ask your take on the use of anti-vax tags in BLP articles. I noticed you added to a number of people recently. I'm a bit concerned since I think we need to be careful with anti-vax activist vs someone who has say questioned the safety of the current COVID vaccinations or have at some point discussed anti-vax topics but don't push the material (disclaimer, 100% vaccinated here including COVID). I think the label has two critical parts. First is activist. Tucker Carlson has questioned the safety of the COVID vaccine but not vaccines in general and unlike say Jenny McCarthy or JFK jr he hasn't made that a special message he pushes or tries to engage in. When looking at the BLP articles if there is little mention or only minor mention of their anti-vax work then I think the tag shouldn't be used since it has a strong, negative BLP implication. As an example, it looks appropriate on Nick Catone and Jamel_Holley's pages but I think it's questionable on Frank Winterstein's page since the vaccine material is very limited. It's not clear to me how it would apply to Kenneth Copeland since it appears he has come out generally for vaccines based on the article text. Benjamin Grant Mitchell's page says nothing about vaccines. I know the use of categories on BLP pages has come up several times recently. I wanted to get your thoughts since you added these tags. Thanks. Springee (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ref Tucker Carlson, from the article.

"in 2021 he repeatedly aired segments casting doubt on masks^[1][2] and vaccines."^[3][4]

Even if it is only one (or possibly several/all COVID vaccines), he's been outspoken. Anti-vaccine activist seems entirely appropriate in this case. I will check the others. Although I think the Benjamin Grant Mitchell page I noticed that the mention of anti vaccine / conspiracy theories had no source, so removed per BLP, and removed the category. (Hohum ^@) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Frank Winterstein:

"Frank is also active in the anti-vaccination activist movement."^[1]

This seems pretty conclusive that he is an anti-vaccine activist. (Hohum ^@) 15:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland - I didn't add him to a category. I did a wikifix to a block quote. (Hohum ^@) 15:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that covers the entries that you've mentioned. I'm happy to discuss more though. (Hohum ^@) 15:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I looked at some of your recent edits but obviously too quickly (hence I didn't want to make changes without asking first). So looking at both Carlson and Winterstein, I don't think the tag should apply to either person. Carlson has mentioned concerns about the COVID vaccine more than once but that is a specific case, not a general stance against vaccines. We shouldn't use a specific case to apply a generalized tag (in my view). The Winterstein tag is still questionable on two grounds. First, if so little of his article is about anti-vax then he probably isn't notable for any anti-vax activism and thus shouldn't be tagged. More importantly, the source for the claim is an Instagram photo and thus would fail RS for the claim in question. I might raise this as a general BLPN question. If I do I will ping you here but not cite your edits. My intent isn't to make a stink about good faith edits, rather to try to figure out when these tags should be used. I think in previous cases (for other tag types) they were limited to cases where a person is well known for their efforts in a particular area, not just because they publicly expressed skepticism or similar at some point. Springee (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion about Carlson, I don't think you have to disagree with all vaccines to be anti-vaccine - especially when it's so clearly at odds with evidence. For Winterstein, I reject the idea that to be in a category you have to be a notable example - however, I do agree the sourcing is insufficient, so the text, reference, and category should be removed. (Hohum ^@) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hallo. You have reverted an edit I made to Military moments after I made it, reverting the introduction to the article to the previous falacious text. This requires correcting, as per the edit I had made with references. Aodhdubh (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Per my edit comment. "The lead should not contain unique content. It should summarize existing article body text".

MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article... Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

I hope this explains the issue to you. (Hohum ^@) 09:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use intimidating tactics on me by accusing me of edit waring when I think it is you that is engaged in an edit war. I did a single revert and asked that you take it to the talk page before you reverted my edit. You did not do so, you just reverted me a second time and tried to intimidate me by sending me a long threatening message about how I could be banned even if I didn't revert a third time. I've never seen that happen. Not every change to a page needs discussion on the talk pages. I think reverts should be justified and you have made no attempt to do so. I made a bold edit to the page as wiki endorses, and explained my edit. you reverted it without comment. I reverted it and said I stood by my reasons and asked that it go to the talk page before reverting it again. You did not do so. Again you reverted with no explanation. It is you that is engaged in an edit war, not me. Make your case on the talk page as to why you think the Gloster should be included. If everyone blindly reverted every change on Wikipedia and hid behind edit war rules no article could be changed. You have given no reasons for your reverts. That is edit war by definition. You wrote to me; " Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.", yet you didn't take your own advice, you reverted for a second time. Please stop edit waring and then bullying and threatening me with sanctions. I'm the one that first suggested taking it to the talk page and you have not done so. That makes you the problem. I believe I'd be justified given that you haven't explained your reverts to just wait out the 24-hour rule and revert it again as I have already explained my reasons, whereas you have not. Take it to the talk page. We can work this out but I will not be bullied Jackhammer111 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted you *once*, and given a reason. You are clearly edit warring with multiple editors. *You* have made the bold edit to the stable version of the page, it has been reverted. It is up to you do discuss and gain consensus for the change. Take it to the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joachim Peiper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If I want to write about an ongoing discussion about the World War II article and proposed edits that is different from the one described here, am I in the correct section? If not I apologize. I was wondering what you thought about the different opinions regarding evaluating sources on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and subsequent invasions of Poland. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

My main comment would be: Instead of providing clear, reliable sources which give unequivocal support for a position, there is now a verbose argument about one source and some hand waving about being able to find sources that support whatever position you want. It doesn't seem particularly constructive. (Hohum ^@) 18:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There's dispute about far more than one source, but the most verbose arguments concern one source. Thank you for your input. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your edit summary, and I was wondering if you would be willing to tell me whether you have ever read all of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

From the other conversations I've had recently, it appears that all editors are aware of BRD, but very, very few have ever read it – Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but we cite things that someone else cited at us. Editors who have read it seem to be surprised by its advice, from the first sentence (which declares BRD to be optional), to its instructions (like "Talk with one or at most two partners at once", which is in bold-face type), all the way down to the end, when it says that it doesn't work in all situations and recommends many policy-compliant alternatives. I've written up what they seem to be expecting at Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. It's really quite different. I am curious whether your experience of BRD is like, well, just about everyone else's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read it carefully. It is a useful method, and works well. Interpreting optional, as "never use" doesn't seem to be sensible. Getting consensus for edits, and not edit warring are clear requirements of wikipedia, and BRD (as well as other content dispute resolution methods) helps us achieve that. (Hohum ^@) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that optional is different from never use. However, it does seem strange to see the occasional editor (not you) insist that BRD absolutely must be followed, when the very first sentence says that it's optional.

I'm very curious about this subject, so I hope you don't mind me continuing to ask questions. Why did you recommend BRD in this particular case, rather than WP:EPTALK or WP:AVOIDEDITWAR (which are the relevant policies)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The BRD page, in my opinion is clearer, and covers the points raised at both of those pages. (Hohum ^@) 09:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

BRD also tells editors that an undiscussed bold edit is a good way to respond to an existing dispute on the talk page. Do you routinely jump into a contentious subject area by making a bold edit, in the hope that someone will revert you, per BRD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to:

Two factions are engaged in an edit war and a bold edit is made as a compromise or middle ground.
A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert. Engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party.

I don't often do that, but have, successfully, on occasion. Bold edits aren't inherently intended to be reverted, and this advice makes that clear. (Hohum ^@) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think that's practical advice for a relatively new editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. (Hohum ^@) 09:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd advise a newcomer to talk first, rather than trying to intervene directly in an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there!

I removed that tag/template because there are over 50+ references on it. When would you say it is valid for removal then if not now? Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 14:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The number of references isn't the issue, it's that significant sections still have no references. (Hohum ^@) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition, you seem to have been removing maintenance templates on many articles based on the date of the template, irrespective of whether the template is still relevant. Please stop doing this, and review the ones you have already done. (Hohum ^@) 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe you may have a point on some others, I'll review, but the Bullet one from 2009 I feel it would be time to at least update the template, it has become much more thoroughly cited, and also I'd say that while it is not "complete" (no article is after all), the tag in my view on that one is no longer necessary. That said, I'll leave it to you to decide to remove it or not. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hohum! I'm confused why you added italic titles to some German tank entries - like this one. Is there a reason? Schierbecker (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

nb4 MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says not to use italics in proper names. Schierbecker (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A model of tank is not a proper name as it is a class. (Hohum ^@) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct. Thank you. Sorry to bother! Schierbecker (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:Hohum Hello At the moment I´m revising the german article of St.-Vincent-class battleship. So while i did some research i´ve found on this Article the following sentence: They (the guns) had a reputation for "drooping at the muzzle". So i was woundering whether you could help me understanding what drooping at the muzzle means Greetings from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure. I suggest you ask at WT:MILHIST, there are some naval experts there. (Hohum ^@) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, thank-you for your interest and locating the enhanced images of the two paintings - the detail in these works is all the more extraordinary. I will in time re-jig the first section without losing any information and incorporate the literary see other links into one of the later paragraphs. Rstory (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Which paintings? The gallery images on Benjamin Hick - you're welcome. (Hohum ^@) 18:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you add {{linkrot}} to Oilskin just after I removed it?

The page has no WP:Bare URLs. It has some refs that need formatting, but no WP:Bare URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

They might as well be bare links, given the lack of extra information provided, which would be used to track down their replacements if they were dead. Which I now notice, three are.

I'll admit some sloppiness on my part though... The page came up on my watchlist as having been edited, but I saw it was by you, and as you make good edits, I didn't even consider that I'd disagree... I just went to have a look to see why a page I'd not normally have on my wishlist was there, and to remove it; when I got there I noticed pretty bare URLs, and added the tag back not realising that's what you just removed.. and didn't, as I should have, checked the links, and tried to fix them, or mark them as dead

Fridays. (Hohum ^@) 19:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

But for future reference, please note the definition at WP:Bare URLs: "is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page".

These ref were hideously formatted, but they were not bare, because they did have accompanying info, in the shape of a rough title of the linked page.

Similarly, a ref <ref>http://example.com/foo Foo page<ref> is not bare. Ugly and crude, but not actually bare. So the ref-filing tools such as citation bot and WP:Reflinks won't touch it.

Tagging pages as having bare URLs when they don't have any is unhelpful to those of us who work on the tedious task of cleaning up WP:Bare URLs. The tools we use don't handle malformatted refs, so a mistagged page just becomes a wasted visit for a human or a bot. (That's one of the reasons why I run a regular AWB job to remove redundant {{Linkrot}} tags. I caught that page on a run today after fixing a typo in my regex which meant that my runs had not been processing some of the redirects to {{Cleanup bare URLs}}, including lower case {{linkrot}}.)

In cases like that one, please use {{Cleanup|reason}}.

Thanks again, and sorry if this comes across as growly.

Best wishes BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't considering that it would break automation. (Hohum ^@) 20:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The nowraps must not be removed. It is what's providing for proper layout of the tables. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. People with lower resolution screens NEED the contents to wrap, the main bulk of text in the right hand colums becomes unworkable without the earlier columns being able to compress. (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Then the rightmost column must be somehow made wider (not using % as that makes por poor layout on big screens). Many tables are meant to be scrolled on narrow devices. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The rightmost column can't make itself wider if other columns refuse to wordrap due to nowrap tags. (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The nowraps are there to avoid ugly layout. The tables need to be wider than the screen on narrow devices (but not setting a fixed width on the table, as that means big screens cannot be fully utilized). Trigenibinion (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I got it, what is needed is min-width on the last column. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe adding % works for big screens if all the columns except the last one are fitted with max-width, I've never done this. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the sniper rifle table using min and max widths, and without nowraps. It can be tuned if reuired, but I think it balances not wrapping some columns, and providing enough space for the main text content. Please consider, tune, discuss, rather than simply reverting it. (Hohum ^@) 18:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I now show the alternative just adding min-width (in em) to the nowraps. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is just as bad as it was, and completely misses the point. (Hohum ^@) 18:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not as bad, the last column now has a reasonable width. If some of the other columns seem too wide, one has to play with the nowraps (and aligning parts of country names), not just delete them. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is just as bad, as it uses pointless nowraps which waste space when space is limited. It is MUCH simpler to maintain a page with a few carefully chosen min and max widths, than with hundreds of nowrap tags. HELP:TABLE even says to avoid nowrap CSS (which is what the tag does). Let the table code do its job. The huge amount of wasted width due to a couple of long names of weapons, countries or ammunition makes reading the main text very unwieldy. (Hohum ^@) 18:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just narrowing the name column. Using column width is not good enough for nice layout. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I now show how to deal with long country names. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The instructions don't say that one must avoid the nowrap template, rather class=nowrap. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The template is simply a wrapper for the CSS. (Hohum ^@) 20:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not simply class on the table or a column. It is applied to a span, it is similar to using a few non-breaking spaces. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I added max-width to almost all tables mostly according to photo height, feel free to decrease it where the notes are too wide to read on a phone comfortably. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Just a friendly reminder about user page categorization.

I have noticed a the user page above is appearing in regular content categories. See for example Category:Ukrainian military-related lists under E.

Usually this is remedied by either placing a colon in front each like this:

[[:Category:Ukrainian military-related lists]])

or by bracketing all category declarations with:

{{Draft categories|1=
...
}}

Either will disable the category function.

See WP:DRAFTNOCAT, WP:USERNOCAT and Template:Draft categories for additional information.

Thank you! --DB1729 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attack on the Gommecourt Salient, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celcius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Got more info on missiles being supplied to Ukraine from Denmark, Lloyd Austin SecDec confirmed and the US is supplying training to 20 Ukrainians on usage. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Get lost you snide little man.Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC) and keep your snide little remarks and any comments of yours off my page.

I have been nothing but civil, and used boilerplate messages to advise you of your behaviour. (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You really snide and passive aggressive. That you seek to "advise" me is condescending patronising rubbish and you know it. If you want delete this but never refer or talk to me again or I'll be reporting you for harassment.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Micro armour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GHQ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If we want to tinker with these we also need to check up that no links are messed up (shame the Wiki system isn't quite flexible enough to do this automatically, perhaps? Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hohum! Back in August 2020 you cleaned up File:COMZ boundaries November 1944 - January 1945.jpg and added colour. I was wondering if you could do the same for File:Communications Zone boundaries April 1945.png? If you can, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at NLAW shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (BobNesh ^@) 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

One edit doesn't constitute an edit war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your repeated removal of the WikiProject Astronomy template, I would like you to understand that Astronomy as a category includes archeoastronomy. Ergo, it can include topics such as Cosmic Hunt, which is specifically categorized under Category:Astronomical myths, a sub-topic of Astronomy. Unless you are part of that WikiProject, I would ask you to forebear removal of our project templates. Thank you. I plan to revert your undo unless you can demonstrate why you think this position is invalid. Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't archeoastronomy either. The burden is on you to prove the categorization is correct. (Hohum ^@) 00:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You are making a completely incorrect assumption. WikiProject Astronomy covers more than just the science, but also the history, practitioners, works of astronomical fiction, and even false beliefs and mythology. I did not include the Category:Astronomical myths on the article; I am basing the WikiProject on the prior assignment of that category as well as certain context specific statement. The category was placed there by the original author @Geogene:. It is appropriate to apply the WikiProject template on that basis. Praemonitus (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::There seems to be a very blurry line between archeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy, so I withdraw my objection. (Hohum ^@) 00:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnoastronomy is a redirect to the archeoastronomy article. Either way it is categorized under the Category:Astronomy tree. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You added some very clear pics.

Would you please crop the frames off them and put them back. Also, you might have some suitable alternatives for other pics which are low res or discoloured. They don't have to be the same subject, just illustrate the same section in an appropriate way. Amandajm (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hohum. I was curious why you removed two photos from this topic on Dec 5 2022? Bobbobarebob (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the FAMAS article? The Century Arms section is small, and only a very few were imported. There is already an image of the version to provide illustration for the section, and two more showing stampings is WP:UNDUE. (Hohum ^@) 11:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of undue. I venture to say those researching something so rare would like to see concrete proof of what a specimen would look like. Further the undue argument as written is more about majority and minority viewpoints in a discussion, i.e "preventing the tail from wagging the dog". Those images prove the subject exists in a concrete manner. It isn't a controversial subject where majority opinion is the driving force.

Or is your point that three photographs are undue because they provide more detail than you believe should proportionately exist for a small subset of the manufactured items? I would think researchers would welcome the opportunity to see a known example as a control for future comparison. I would ask you ask the greater community if they see value in the photo's as provided as the pictures you removed are relevant to the discussion. Bobbobarebob (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The latter. Encyclopaedias aren't for in-depth research about every detail of a subject, and in this case, a small subset of a subject. (Hohum ^@) 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You reversion of the comment about the Forked Tailed devil is inappropriate. This is the first VERIFIED mention of this. There are no earlier sources. if you have on you should cite it. it is also not supported by any cotemporary Luftwaffe texts. You are repeating propaganda as is clearly shown by the LIFE article. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 09:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Crete. One thing: it would be nice if you included comments on your edits. --Macrakis (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel your removal of my discipline section from woodworking may have been in haste. While, yes, the list I added was in the "see also" section, I feel listing out major disciplines would be best within the body of the article. The "see also" section has many things which are not general disciplines such as history, glue types and specific styles of ornamentation.

The general disciplines should be removed from the "see also" section and given a prominent spot within the article. This list should obviously be more comprehensive than I laid out, but should probably avoid having too great a minutia such as getting into every regional form or item specialisation.

I would do this myself, but I felt I should get you onboard with this rather than start an editing war. Magjozs (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If anything, I'd suggest a "Discipline" subsection within "See also" which just links to the disciplines.

Having them as a prominent spot in the article would probably need a reliable source categorising the various elements as disciplines within woodwork.

Discussion about this on the article talk page, and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Craft (since the specific Woodworking WikiProject seems inactive) may attract useful comments. (Hohum ^@) 17:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I may implemnt something like this in the future. I will think on this a while. Magjozs (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Arcane (TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ภץאคгöร 17:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You are being disruptive by not following WP:BRD when changing a stable edit in the face of disagreement. (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

BRD is optional, you are changing content while claiming that it is the stable version, and it is clear that you didn't even read the article and my edit summary. ภץאคгöร 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a change to the stable content. (Hohum ^@) 17:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to check the thinking behind your edit to Error: {{Ship}} invalid control parameter: 4 (help). The book in question appears to cover exactly the subject of the article (plus a bit more – the career in US service). It seems to bring together much of the latest knowledge of the history of the Belgrano and is written by someone who already has an acclaimed book on the Falklands War. Do you know something that I don't? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A brand new book by an self published author is not a suitable choice. The "acclaimed book" on the Falklands war was roundly rejected for use as a source here too. (Hohum ^@) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any link to discussions that dismissed the earlier book? What I see here is a historical event for which there is no clear story on, just to pick one example, the number of casualties in the original Argentine invasion. The official records are closed for a long time, yet the actual participants are still (largely) available to give their story. (Of course, in good faith, the participants of an action may have a different account from reality.) Incidentally, you are presumably aware of the reason for the later book being self-published. I agree that is normally an indicator of non-RS status. I just have a degree of hesitation in dismissing the book about the Belgrano just on that indicator. So this is my instincts going against my normal requirement for a source to be a top quality RS. Perhaps we need to wait for some serious reviews. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

here (Hohum ^@) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wouldn't be around to collect on the bet, but I reckon it would be worth 50p on the still-closed records justifying some of the books' content. That, of course, does not get anything over the bar for an RS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering if your name happened to be Max and if so it would be hilarious. If so I'd like to you to know that Russia is still not part of Europe Talpedia 08:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Many years ago I used Max as a name in an online game, but I don't get the reference, so I'm probably not the person you're thinking of. (Hohum ^@) 16:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah no problem. I had a friend at primary school with similar interests to your own who moved all the way across the country, and I was myself an avid user of the refrain "hohum" for a while so thought I might have got them from him (and by putative guess you) Talpedia 01:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hot chocolate effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you explain why your removed my failed-verification tag? The statement is "first documented...in 1980" and my edit-summary was "Ref states that others had previously noticed it, citing multiple refs from the preceding decade and earlier". Something can't be described as "first", especially without qualification and in wikipedia's voice, based on a primary source, if that source says others were even earlier. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I removed the claim that had the source that failed verification at the same time? (Hohum ^@) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the diff, and didn't double check after my change. Mea culpa. (Hohum ^@) 17:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Self reverted to your edit. (Hohum ^@) 17:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick recheck and resolution! I don't have an opinion on the inclusion of the other person's name there (v-fail either way). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hohum. I appreciated your past image work on the AGS article. Do you have any time to look at this image? I want to make it the new lede image on M8 Armored Gun System. There's distracting map of the U.S border states on the bottom that I couldn't easily crop out. There's also some weird artifacting going on with the shadows on the left side of the gun mantlet and the right antenna. I don't have access to Photoshop anymore. Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up as best(?) as I can. (Hohum ^@) 13:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Schierbecker (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I went through all the pages linked to the letters reference template and adjusted the handful that were, mostly erroneously, using the template with citations to page numbers in the 1981 edition. The vast majority of references are to letter, rather than page, numbers. As such, updating this template to use the revised edition will allow letter # citations from either the older or revised edition to be used accurately... rather than having two separate, largely overlapping, citation sources. --CBD 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Crossposted to Template talk:ME-ref/Letters to centralise any discussion. (Hohum ^@) 15:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, I have some photos of the King Tiger at the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection. I wonder if you would be interested in editing those? I will eventually get around to it myself if you can't. that There are some 200 pieces there and I took the rare opportunity to take photos of most of them last April. Schierbecker (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, please list the links to the specific images you want me to look at here. (Hohum ^@) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Email sent. Please let me know if the links don't work. Schierbecker (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I meant upload and license the ones you want here on commons and then link them. (Hohum ^@) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

How about just these? File:Tiger_II_cutaway_U.S._Army_Armor_and_Cavalry_Collection-4.jpg (RAW) File:Tiger II cutaway U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection-3.jpg () File:Tiger II cutaway U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection-2.jpg () File:Panzer III Ausf. F U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection.jpg () File:Panther II US Army Armor & Cavalry Collection.jpg ()

If there's anything else in that folder I sent you interests you, let me know. I will upload it. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the Pz III, but the rest have challenging colour issues. (Hohum ^@) 22:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Schierbecker (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum Hey, I'm requesting a bit of help at the "Battle of Kursk" page, where an IP editor is edit warring and repeatedly undoing an edit despite it having a source and being supported. Reaper1945 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth asking for a relevant page protection, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. (Hohum ^@) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just did that. IPs are just disregarding the sources and one claims there's no proof while the other says it shouldn't be there because Krivosheyev didn't state it in his book, despite historians acknowledging he severely understated casualties. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hohum, I wonder if you could take a look at this photo? File:M114A1 Armored Cavalry Platoon 2.54th Infantry, 4th AD Grafenwohr.jpg Maybe it could be an FP? Schierbecker (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it, but it may be too grainy / posterized. I'm not the arbiter though. It doesn't hurt to suggest it for FP review. (Hohum ^@) 21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Posted. We'll see. Schierbecker (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hohum - on my talk page, you said Your changes to these tables is causing body text to crash into them, because the table margins are incorrectly set. This happens in Edge, Chrome, Firefox, etc.

Thanks for checking these tables whose formats are not a problem on the Chrome devices I use. They are also not novel, as I copied the format from existing articles with long histories of unchanged format.

See mango, raspberry, lemon and cassava edited today. I have had no negative feedback on table formatting from other editors recently visiting these pages. Your review would be helpful, thanks.

Cheers! Zefr (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Not many people are going to complain because it doesn't make the table or text unreadable, but it does make it messy. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, when I fixed a dozen or more of these many months ago, I didn't get any feedback either. Most edits don't unless they are egregious. (Hohum ^@) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The change to the mango table is less pleasing and makes no difference to the text alignment on two Chromebook PCs I use. Zefr (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked on Chrome on an Android tablet. Indeed, the table has a sensible margin there with your style. However, I assure you, body text crashes into it on all the browsers I've tried on Windows. (Hohum ^@) 19:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you comment on why your left- or right-alignment within the table does not cause text crashing when my centered alignment does on your devices? These production tables should occupy as little space as possible, so I make them

style="float:right; clear:right; width:14em; text-align:center; margin-right:1em;"

Maybe one of the float or clear parameters is the problem for text alignment on your devices. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

class="wikidata floatright" is the main standardised fix - it means there is no need for float or margin style statements.

The text alignment within the cells of the table aren't a main issue... but words are generally better formatted left (especially to align flags), and numbers to the right. (Hohum ^@) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For re-colorizing File:80-G-K-14448 USS Dauntless (PG-61).jpg. Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Any idea which Camouflage Measure that is? (Hohum ^@) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like MS32. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OddHerring (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Making a single revert in each article is not edit warring. Please abide by community norms. I suggest WP:BRD applies. (Hohum ^@) 18:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you are removing a certain phrase from a new article "Future Ready Combat Vehicle". I do not understand the reason you want would do that. In the citation it is said that Arjun MkIII variant will be developed under the Future Main Battle Tank programme and hence both are the same. It is also stated that they are parallel projects and not conflicting ones. So what is wrong with it? I want to sort the problem out here. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The source does not say that. it says "The worry is that DRDO will push an Arjun Mark-III under the the FMBT programme." This is an expression of a worry that it might happen, not a confirmation that it has. (Hohum ^@) 17:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Overall, it means FMBT is the overall programme and Arjun MkIII is the product that is to be developed under the programme. They are basically the same thing. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it means that someone is worrying that DRSO will put the MK.III into the programme in the future. (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to touch this article while you are working on it, but if you could put a priority on getting rid of the undefined references (Bouchard 1998, Verbruggen 1997, Stevenson 1907, and Hamilton 2000) that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the Runciman citations because that was just syntax issues. The others, I don't have any insight into fixing at the moment. (Hohum ^@) 18:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Usually this occurs when someone has lifted text from another article. They are supposed to note this in the comment, but IP editor 73.63.158.100 did not do this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sabre Jet 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/Sabre Jet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hohum -- you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system) which is at AFD right now but has received no comments in 5 days. I'm trying to get editors who have been active on other similar SAM articles to chime in. Best, ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I know you have expressed POV concerns about that article in the past....I have been asked to try to come up with a list of POV issues (which I am going to try to do by Monday). If you have any suggestions now: let me know...so I can include. Feel free to tweak my list after I post.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert, please? If I look at the last revision of mine prior to the revert, the references all appear to be intact. Indeed I've copied said revision to User:Thumperward/bob and it appears fine there as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I explained on the article talk page, and that is where you should be taking this up. (Hohum ^@) 00:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to add one to my user page cause it looks cool Yakima, Washington (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. (Hohum ^@) 15:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much Electrical cat (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your various exchanges of

→

around Wikipedia. The painting seems just fine in places where it's used, and the main advantage of the 19th century engraving vs. the 18th century painting is that it could be printed effectively in a book. Here on a website, we can easily include a full-color image of a painting. In the future, please try to use descriptive edit summaries when making changes.

Thanks for uploading a better scan of the engraving to Commons though. –jacobolus (t) 18:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

IMO the engraving gave a clearer representation of the subject than the very poor quality image of the painting. YMMV. (Hohum ^@) 18:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The image is used as a thumbnail, so what it looks like at full resolution isn't too important. It would be nice if we had a better image of the painting (or the painting from which the engraving was made, which I think was a different one — not sure) but it looks like the relevant museums where they are hosted haven't made any available online. Aside: There's a black-and-white photograph of this painting at http://www.digiporta.net/index.php?id=863999909 –jacobolus (t) 19:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I find myself clicking on many images to see the full version, so I can see what the person looked like. I don't know how widespread that behaviour is though. I did search for some time for a better photo of the painting but came up blank too. (Hohum ^@) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You may also enjoy:

–jacobolus (t) 21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have got into a bad habit. (Hohum ^@) 21:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katharine Wright Haskell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factotum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The change under "See also" of using plain links [[]] to using the {{lwc}} template introduced an error: Script warning: SOVIETUNION ("Soviet Union") is not a recognized country in ISO 3166-1 (Module:ISO 3166). It appears to be just the S-300 and S-400 links that are doing it, and those articles have the same error/warning. I have not had the time to bisect the edits on those pages to find when the error was introduced. I don't even know if the error is in those articles or if it is a problem in the ISO 3166 Module. Modules are dark magic to me. I will start topics on the S-300 and S-400 talk pages about this to see if anyone else knows. The S-300VM article is the first place I noticed it and was able to track down the change that triggered it, so I thought I would let you know. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The error is only on the preview as far as I can see. "lwc" does its best to show the shortest version of a country name, some states can't parsed so are probably showing this error in preview. (Hohum ^@) 16:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, I see you've done a substantial amount of work to File:Carte Skagerrak-Kattegat2.png, which is very useful in several articles. I do note however that the original source was labled in French and some of those French lables have survived. Assuming you have some sort of master file for it, would you be able at some point be able to revise it for better consistancy?

1. Jutland is correct in English but it would be Jylland in Danish
2. Fionie is French; it would be Funen in English or Fyn in Danish
3. Sjælland is correct in Danish but it would be Zealand in English
4. Should you choose to standardise on Danish names in Denmark, Copenhagen would be København.
5. Halland is correct in English but it would be Hallands län in Swedish
6. Scanie is French; it would be Skåne län in Swedish and either Skåne or the more-historic Scania in English
7. The regions of Norway should be suffixed -et, eg Vestlandet
8. And, at an extreme degree of pedantry that I include mostly as insulation against being criticised later on for leaving it out, the city of Århus adopted that spelling in 1948 but switched back to Aarhus in 2011. I have no opinion on which you use.

Thanks very much! XAM2175 ^(T) 22:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)