User talk:Mr.Lovecraft

Hi Mr.Lovecraft! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! JarrahTree 11:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The MOS recommends against sections for short individual paragraphs; I'd suggest that you combine the headers for two sections or so to prevent all the section headers from making the main body feel very choppy. So maybe armament, sensors and fire control? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66done... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to edit-war to get your way, you will be reported for edit-warring. Please undo your revert and let the discussion play out. The expectation at WP:BRD is clear. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo, in this edit you "cut" rather than "copied" the example text: another time you request a move, please take care to leave the instructions intact for the next person. Thanks. I've fixed this. PamD 07:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Oh Im sorry thank you for fixing it... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Lovecraft! Your additions to United States Army during World War II have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for all your hard work on British Army during the Second World War. When you cite HMSO, like here, please check you know that you are using the correct spelling of Stationery, as that office is not Stationary! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered Ok thank you for the hint... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You're v v welcome! Thank you for the nice reply. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

you too have a merry x-mas and a happy new year... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page French invasion of Egypt and Syria, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Trafalgar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunlock. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{source-attribution}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa Ok thank you for the information... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit to England in the High Middle Ages you add {{sfn|Clark|1978|pp=45–47, 62–67}} and {{sfn|Chrimes|1965|pp=90–95}}. Unfortunately neither work is listed. This means that nobody can look the references up, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing sources it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@DuncanHill Oh I´m sorry. Thanks for the hint I´ve fixed it. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit - if you see a book that says that two columns of ships were 2 cables apart, it means "cable" as a measure of distance. A cable is/was a tenth of a nautical mile.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings @Mr.Lovecraft: if you do this it is better to add all the details of a work rather than parts of it. Worldcat [] is a good source for details of old books, the Library of Congress as well. If the book isn't used in the article it is best to put it in the Further reading section, you can add one if there isn't one in that article. I altered some of your additions like this so you can see what I mean. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Keith-264 Hello, you´re probably refering about my edits of the First World War right ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did them today. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I know there were too much references. I´m intending to remove every reference that is not used in the article and put in into the Bibliography of World War I article. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean to remove the further reading sections? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

If you mean delete than the answer is of course no. But as one already noticed there are too many references that are not used in the article. So why don´t move those references into the Bibliography of World War I article ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Lovecraft – I've just fixed a number of sfn no-target and duplicate-target errors that you introduced in World War I. I appreciate you taking the time to clean up the references in a relatively "crusty" article, but if you're going to edit articles with extensive use of {{sfn}} may I recommend this script? It highlights various issues with harv/sfn references, including footnotes that are missing sources, footnotes with multiple sources, and sources that aren't referred to. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing again following your improvements to Pilum this morning, which unfortunately also introduced a number of broken refs. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Lützen (1813), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Floßgraben.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Battle of Lützen (1813). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Also, you've added "Castelot 1971, pp. 454–455" and there's no such book in the bibliography. Please fix this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Battle of Loos, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.Lovecraft: While I welcome your interest in Great War articles, you make some obvious mistakes. May I suggest that you use the "Show preview" button before you press "Save", it often shows up mistakes and oversights that you can put right before saving. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

sorry my bad... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

We all start somewhere ;O).

These convert ISBNs into hyphenated ones. For OCLCs when books are too early for ISBNs

will find them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to German Army (1935–1945) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@DiannaaIt seems I did´t have paraphrased enough to avoid this. Is there a way to restore the removed parts so that I can rewrite them sufficiently so that there is no copyright infringement? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've sent you the removed paragraph via email. Sorry for the extra trouble. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa No problem at all. In fact its good that you drew my attention to this. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Please don't change the citation style - and particularly please don't edit war to try and force back your preferred version. Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change". Edit warring, or course, breaches WP:BRD and other guidelines and policies. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my "preferred" version. They were simply incomplete I´m not edit warring. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes, you were edit warring. You made an edit that was reverted: you then edit warred back to your preferred versions. It doesn't matter how you try and justify it, you edit warred. If you need further information in what constitutes edit warring and how to avoid it, WP:BRD is a useful page read.

2. The citations are, as they stand, complete and acceptable to current Wikipedia standards. You should not change from the current format to the sfn format without an express consensus on the article's talk page. I've already linked WP:CITEVAR, so perhaps that's the place to make a start.

Oh, and don't threaten long-standing editors in future and certainly don't accuse them of vandalism when they are doing nothing of the sort (false accusations can lead to blocks); WP:VANDALISM gives the definition of the term for on-Wiki activity, and as Nikkimaria's edit summaries pointed you to the relevant policy, it's difficult for anyone to justify the name calling. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Bailey, Mark. (1996) "Population and Economic Resources," in Given-Wilson (ed) 1996. No name of series, no publisher, no isbn.

Barnes, Carl F. (2005) "A Note on Villard de Honnecourt and Metal," in Bork (ed) 2005., no name of seriesn o publisher, no isbn

Bayley, J. (2009) "Medieval Precious Metal Refining: Archaeology and Contemporary Texts Compared," in Martinon-Torres and Rehren (eds) 2009., no name of series, no publisher no isbn

Bolton, J. K. (2007) "English Economy in the Early Thirteenth Century," in Church (ed) 2007. No name of series no publisher no isbn

How can this be complete ?

And when it comes to shortend footnotes/inline citations how will you identify the right author within the text if there a two with the same name? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is something of a straw man. You are, of course, free to add those details to the individual items in the bibliography. What you are not free to do is to change the overall formatting of the citations or the references. - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You think Im distracting ? Im fine with any citation style there is as long as it is complete. My sole intention was to complete the references so as to identify them correctly. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit here left a partial ref, but I can't figure out what it is supposed to be. Could you take another look and fix it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tel_el_Khuweilfe&diff=next&oldid=1251878821

This is confirmed by the 8th Light Horse Regiment's War Diary, which states that when the 7th Mounted Brigade was relieved by the 1st Light Horse Brigade, the 8th Light Horse Regiment was detached from the 7th Mounted Brigade. The light horsemen remained in place, coming under the command of the 1st Light Horse Brigade. [8th Light Horse Regiment War Diary November, 1917]</ref>

Thanks, --Lexiconaut (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Good work at Assassination of Henry IV - The9Man Talk 18:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@The9Man cheers... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Navy during the First World War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Jackson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Lovecraft. Thank you for your work on Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. Another editor, Hawkeye7, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I have corrected a couple of typos. Please double-check.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hawkeye7}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at Royal Air Force in World War II and Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars - I'm sure there are more, which I haven't seen yet.
Could I make 2 suggestions? Firstly as per MOS:DATETIES, articles about British subjects should use Day/Month/Year (dmy) format (Even the US military are now using that, as MOS:MILFORMAT).
Secondly, there are some common US/UK spelling differences - in military articles Defense (US) > Defence (UK). Armor (US) > Armour (UK) and Maneuvers (US) > Manoeuvres (UK) are probably the most common. Depending on your computer, you may be able to change to UK English when editing articles about UK or British Commonwealth subjects, which will highlight any misuses. I have corrected the dates and the three listed spellings in the two articles linked above.
Best wishes, and thanks again for your edits, please don't let these suggestions put you off. - Arjayay (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArjayayHello, and thanks for your advice, in fact i had no idea that there is a difference in the date format between UK and the US... Greetings Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld Thanks for the invitation but I'm not sure if I can actually collect any theoretical winnings since I live in Germany... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The equivalent would be bought on the amazon.de site if you won anything. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SMS Rover have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see you are fleshing out the description of each piece of armour. I'd ask that the first sentence is always the bare bones description and function, before diving into more detail. (Hohum ^@) 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@HohumHello, ok I will make it so.... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)