User talk:Hohum


User Page	User Talk	Sandbox	Library	Awards

Extended content

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TUSC token efc0a7bf6ec3cc1f4aa101a747676869

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Convoy PQ17

Hi Hohum, thanks a lot for your assessment and link-edits in the PQ17 article! Much appreciated! reuv ^T 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

You've made some fine edits to the Yom Kippur War. Just thought you should know.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your "de-weasel" revision in connection with the lead and suggested, on the Yom Kippur discussion page, that your version be re-instituted. I have serious problems with this article all of which I noted on the discussion page here here and here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-90 References

For what it's worth, the uvz.ru snapshot in the Web Archive link on the page is the official site for Uralvagonzavod, the manufacturer of the T-90. Their page appears to be poorly maintained, though (hence the need for the Web Archive version, I suppose). - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks a lot for cleaning up File:SMS Bayern sinking2.jpg. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the work you did on it. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you see any other articles where the images could do with some work, point me at them. (Hohum ^@) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hohum. I came across this image a minute ago for an article I'm going to improve. Is there any way to clean up the blotches in the center? There's also this one, which I just tracked down and uploaded a minute ago. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, as best as I can. (Hohum ^@) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Hohum, both look much better! Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hohum, if you don't mind, can you clean up three images I just uploaded? They're File:SMS Lothringen.png, File:SMS Kaiser Barbarossa.png, and File:SMS Preussen.png. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve the second two, but the first one is very awkward - the pattern is wavy and irregular - which my methods don't work well with. Do you scan these yourself? Does the original have patterns, or is the scanning process creating them? (Hohum ^@) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing what you could. I got them from here through Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:O class battlecruiser.jpg

That's a neat trick, removing the scanning artifacts. How do you do that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few ways.

Simply blurring the areas where there are patterns.
If the patterns are regular, using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) plugin in your favourite graphics app Tutorial for Gimp.
I'm also trying out the "Wavelet decompose" method: Plugin for Gimp.

(Hohum ^@) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think I am going to scan in a couple pictures today or tomorrow and try out that second method. Many thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second one doesn't work anymore, as the link to download the FFT is broken. I'll be trying the third method in about an hour. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

newer FFT link (Hohum ^@) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, this is why my brother says I am a noob with computers. I can't figure out how to get the plug-ins to work. I've moved them to the plug-in photo, but if I click on them from there it tells me that a file is missing... Any idea what I am doing wrong? Sorry for all the trouble. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I installed it ages ago, so I may have led you astray. Drop fourier.exe from fourier-0.4.0_bin_win32.zip into your GIMP plugins directory; which is probably C:\Program Files\GIMP-2.0\lib\gimp\2.0\plug-ins. start GIMP. The following menu options should be available.

Filters/Generic/FFT Forward
Filters/Generic/FFT Inverse

Plugin site

I just updated to this version (since it turned out mine was old and buggy) - and it worked.

Tutorial: GIMP/Remove_Coherent_Noise (Ignore the installation instructions there, it's for the older version) (Hohum ^@) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see the filters now. The problem is that they are grayed out and I can't find a way to get them un-grayed. I've uploaded one of the photos I would like to do this too here; could you take a look and see if you can do it? And (if possible) tell me what in the world I am doing wrong? Many thanks and my apologies again for all the trouble. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What version of Gimp are you using, what operating system?~~ I see the problem. FFT can't work on indexed images. tif is an indexed format. Go to Image - Mode, and choose Greyscale or RGB. Work on the image, and then re save it as whatever format you want. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that did the trick. :-) Thank you very much for all of your help! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you are scanning the images yourself, the best thing to do by far is to scan with settings that don't cause patterns (typically the highest resolution possible - and then scale the image down in post processing.) (Hohum ^@) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned them with the Microsoft Scanning Wizard, using the grayscale setting (as opposed to RGD or black and white). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the Microsoft scanning wizard at all. Look for options to increase the resolution as much as possible (higher DPI) - or see if there is scanning software provided by the scanner manufacturer. What scanner do you have? (Hohum ^@) 18:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the default thing that pops up when you plug in the scanner. The scanner I'm using is in my university's library; when I go up there in a couple hours (I'm going to look up some New York Times microfilms), I'll take note of what it is. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a Custom settings button at some point, choose the highest DPI possible - the image can be scaled down to a reasonable size later - but this should avoid scanning artefacts. (Hohum ^@) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never made it to the library—went to a Maori dancing show instead. :-) I'll get there at some point tomorrow and try it. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your above-and-beyond help with enabling me to use GIMP's fourier plug-in, I award you this barnstar. Thank you! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit on the High-Low System

Thanks for the great editing that makes the article read "so much" better. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert method

Generally using tools designed for fighting vandalism to revert edits in content disputes is frowned upon. Use of such tools can actually be revoked. You didn't do a large rollback and Twinkle is not only for vandalism from what I understand so it wasn't anymore than a reminder from me. You could have just used the normal revert function and it makes it more of a pain for other editors when they have to double check to see if rollback was used or not. Do expect to catch trouble from other editors if you are not careful. And: "Before you start using Twinkle you really should read its documentation to familiarize yourself with some of the possibilities and functions of Twinkle. There are multitudes of options that you can configure to change some of the default behaviours of Twinkle. Never forget that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk having your access to use the Twinkle revoked or your being blocked." - Wikipedia:Twinkle

Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is policy, says "anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faithed changes in content disputes.". I hope that clears it up for you and that you will desist from such use in the future. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking that down. I don't believe that I used the tool in a way that gave the impression that the reversion was reverting vandalism - i.e. the edit comment was to the effect that the reversion returned an infobox summary phrase to something that was supported by the main text - and I didn't add any kind of warning or message to the talk page of the user I reverted. However, I suppose that the issue is that the TW tag appended to the edit makes it seem like an anti vandalism edit? (Hohum ^@) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is having misleading edit summaries. Tools like Twinkle are not supposed to be used in content disputes. Period. I didn't make up that policy, but it is what it is. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the TW tag, I don't see how it is possible to see the difference. I was hoping to understand the policy. Blind obedience is not the typical wikipedia way. I'll see if I can get clarity in a relevant venue.(Hohum ^@) 01:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Don't use Twinkle to undo good faith changes? which may be of interest. (Hohum ^@) 14:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for doing that. So far it seems that editors believe the prohibition is indeed due to edit summaries. If that ends up being the consensus, the policy should be reworded to reflect that. To me it seems best to change it to something like "If using automated tools, an edit summary that describes the change as undoing a good-faith edit must be used". Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary in Arjun(Tank) article

Thank you for bringing the edit summary to my attention, i had not noticed it before but i will make sure to fill it in after any future edits. Thank you--Nuclearram (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kursk

Hello Hohum. Consider this a friendly warning. Please do not post false lies in your edit summaries again like you did here. That was NOT vandalism. The next time I see you making false edits again, I will report you to ANI for your distruptive edits. User:Igor Piryazev is Russian, therefore English is not his mother tongue. Please show some human compassion when interacting with all users, including him. He is trying his best and doesn't deserve to be treated poorly by you on the Battle of Kursk talk page. Also please learn to be more tolerant and do try to show some human kindness the next time around. Thank you. Caden ^cool 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please report me now so you get a clue on what the repeated editing behaviour that I was reverting is actually called. He had been told several times that the edits he was making had unusable references, yet repeatedly re-introduced them.

Alternatively, you could refrain from making baseless threats. (Hohum ^@) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, thankyou for prompting me to take an interest in that page again, where I noted that the same user reintroduced the same unreliably sourced information again, which I have reverted. (Hohum ^@) 22:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong. He was not vandalizing but your edit can be called vandalism. Like I told you, he is not English. Please show some human compassion. Try practicing tolerance and explain to him how reliable sources work. Try to show some type of human kindness. All you've done is shown him that you can be very cold. Caden ^cool 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to him, clearly, repeatedly, and politely, over several days, by multiple editors, what level of reliability is required. If his grasp of english is so low as to not understand what he has been told, he shouldn't be editing here. If he is ignoring it, which seems far more likely, he shouldn't be editing here. I'm not here to make friends with editors who are disruptive.

If you are going to accuse me of vandalism, please do so officially, or retract your accusation. (Hohum ^@) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's you who shouldn't be editing here. Until you learn to show some human compassion towards others, I see no point in you being here. Caden ^cool 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While human compassion has a great place to play in the world at large, and even a little on wikipedia, this is a project devoted to producing a high quality repository of information, which has requirements for inclusion.

Ironically, you come here and threaten without reason, and don't have the conviction to either carry out your threats, nor the decency to retract them or apologise. Apparently, neither do you appear to notice the many times Igor has been informed, civilly, and clearly, what he is doing wrong. (Hohum ^@) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LCA Help

Dear Hohum, thanks for taking an interest in the LCA article. It may be obvious to you, but I haven't really bothered to read the rules around here - I've just been copying style patterns from other pages. Question for you: I've been using the navy time 0000 to 2359 thinking that the LCA is a navy subject. Is military time 00:00 really the only acceptable? Or is this a blending of spheres? Thanks again.AmesJussellR (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most users of wikipedia are non military. The idea is no provide consistency of style, and clarity so that it's understandable and accessible to the widest audience. This is what the Wikipedia Manual of Style is all about. In fact, probably the first instance of the 24-hour clock notation should have a link to the article on it - which does mention military notation without the colon.

The MOS is only a guideline, as opposed to a policy, and I don't think anyone would have kittens if the article used pure military notation, but it might come into play if the article is checked for WP:GA or WP:FA status. Although using "am" and "pm" notation might make the article even more accessible to users, I think the 24-hour clock notation gives it some flavour.

By the way, do you know if the times in the article are local, or Zulu? (Hohum ^@) 02:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, if a few more currently uncited paragraphs had reliable references, the article would likely pass a B class review, if it was put forward. (Hohum ^@) 03:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Piryazev

Thanks to you User:Igor Piryazev has quit Wikipedia. Running off new editors who want to help build an enclyopedia is not the way we work around here. I understand you were trying to enforce policy on reliable sources but you did so in a negative way. The way you hounded him with your iceberg responses (sorry but I call it as I see it WP:SPADE) was uncalled for. The poor guy is Russian and wanted to help build articles with Russian historians/Soviet sources. I tried asking you many times to show compassion but you failed to do so and in the process drove him off the project. Please change your ways at communication before you alienate more vulerable new users, especially those who's first language is not English. Caden ^cool 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that he has quit. He has failed to follow a core requirement of wikipedia for many weeks despite being asked to follow simple instruction on how to do it, and even given examples. If this has led the to quit instead of simply complying - which is trivially easy to do, then I don't think they had much of a future for his editing anyway. I'm sorry that I'm not just handing out hugs, per your wishes about compassion, but yours haven't convinced him to comply either.

I see no reason to describe him as a "poor guy" or "vulnerable". If his language skills aren't good enough to understand requirements, he shouldn't be editing.

My history on wikipedia stands for itself. I am happy to help people who are willing to learn. Igor was unwilling to follow the rules after many weeks of being shown how to. (Hohum ^@) 16:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting stuff

the other user replied to samsonov. Is it possible that you send him this greeting stuff to his talk. Dont know who to do.Blablaaa (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your chance

Hohum [[1]] is your chance to get rid of me :D Blablaaa (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowed photo

Hello again Hohum! Is there anything that can be done to this photo to clear up the ugly yellow tint? Many thanks, Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've greyscaled it and cleaned it up. (Hohum ^@) 23:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I've added it to Rivadavia-class battleship and ARA Rivadavia. :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defamatory comments

i made none, nothing i said was slanderous or libelous but i guess it was a vialation of civility however your removal of my post and reasons for it are slanderous and outright censorship. i hope you enjoy your hollow shallow life94.168.210.205 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "YOU RACIST CUNT" qualifies as defamation. diff. I didn't edit your post, that was someone else. (Hohum ^@) 01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Derrick medals.jpg

Wow! How did you do that? That's REMARKABLY better. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Perspective Tool in GIMP. (Hohum ^@) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! Good job. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)

Nice job. Dapi89 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoPI

Hi, brief thanks for keeping an eye on this article - I hadn't thought of the image move. I'd like to chat about something off the record - please email me, MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Deleted File

User Communicat has posted File:Disgraced.jpg [2]. The picture is identical to the recently deleted , except Communicat now claims the picture is “copyrighted and unlicensed” instead of his previous claim that the picture is copyright of Stan Winer.[3]. In discussion of Communicat’s post of , User Petri Krohn [4] provided a link showing the picture is being used by the International Institute of Social History. [[5] This would seem to indicate the picture is copyright of that organization as opposed to either of Communicat’s claims about the copyright of the picture. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's claiming "fair use", which holds some water since there doesn't seem to be a free image of the subject available. (Hohum ^@) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for fix

Many thanks for fixing refs syntax, WW2 aftermath main article. Communicat (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

User Hohum, I have installed a fresh Window XP, and hope that nothing wrong again. If anything annoying happens again, please let me know. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 01:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#military history POV-bias and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Communicat (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War II opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War

If you want to suggest an improved caption, please feel free to do so. I'm walking away from the article for a few days after another PA. In passing by the way I was really confused by what you wanted to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS changed my user name. Justin aka Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I walked away for a bit too. Inventive name choice. You had the previous one for a long time didn't you? (Hohum ^@) 00:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was born, I still have it. I'm fed up with idiots basically, people generally don't do it to my face as a Glasgae kiss often offends. But they feel they can regress to schoolchildren on here. Think I'll work on some of my sandpit projects for a while. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The inspiration [6], finest curry house in Glasgow. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about as far away as I can be, and still be on the UK mainland, so I won't have to dodge the fisticuffs ;) (Hohum ^@) 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my sandpit, I've been working on it. May be a difficult one to do in a few phrases seems more like an article. Are you aware of Carlos Escude's work? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Argentines have a strongly held belief known as Malvinism; that the Falkland Islands Spanish: Islas Malvinas are an intrinsic part of their country." Reference.

Wouldn't that pretty much do it, assuming there is a reference to back it up?

I'm not aware of Carlos Escude's work. (Hohum ^@) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[7], [8], [9], [10] The first link is to the paper I had in mind. The problem is the wealth of material I have to hand and condensing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[11] For info are you happy with that? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Im not sure why you sent me a 3RR warning message. I only made two reverts in 24 hours and not three on the Falklands War article.--MFIreland • ^Talk 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RR "An administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

You are clearly edit warring against consensus without meaningful explanation on the article talk page. An administrator is likely to become involved if you continue. (Hohum ^@) 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly mistaken identity

Heh, is this possibly the same "Hohum" from a particular Friday Club? Tarc (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. (Hohum ^@) 12:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's funny. I'd seen your name here and there from time to time and always wondered, but never really pegged you for a wiki-geek. :) Anyways, teh BeeNine is pining for your return to what is now FC 3.0; we're starting fresh since BD cocked 2.0 all up. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise - seen you around, but knew it was you. I'd go to the forum if I knew where it was now. Send me the address via "email this user" ?(Hohum ^@) 16:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I am as much of a prick here as anywhere. Same address, they finally fixed up the redirects. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prenzlau

I see that "upright" had been added in place of "xxxpx" within the image syntax in the Battle of Prenzlau article. I checked WP:Images and it only gives examples of the xxxpx format. Please direct me to a page where it explains how to use "upright". I haven't encountered this anywhere else, but maybe I haven't been paying attention. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended syntax: WP:EIS. (Hohum ^@) 13:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying it out in my latest article, Capitulation of Stettin. Djmaschek (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yalta image

Hi, good job noticing that photoshop fake on the Yalta image. I'd never have noticed. Just out of curiosity, have you got any idea who the guy is that was photoshopped in? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian expedition image

Wow, thanks a lot for the image. It's great. It sure helps out a lot. :-) --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. (Hohum ^@) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Hi Hohum, FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine contributions to articles related to the history of Nazi Germany, and in particular, World War II, I award you this Barnstar. Cheers. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta very much! (Hohum ^@) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Red Barnstar

	Order of the Red Barnstar
	(You're the first recipient of this star I made.) For meritorious political-historical writing about sensitive topics.

PS i wish ya hadn't reverted my tweak to the holocaust. my rationale: we who are familiar with the topic know that the section headline 'concentration and labor camps' means 'concentration camps and labor camps' but someone coming new to the topic might not. my english teachers of old would'a marked off for the headline as it was since there was potentially-unclear meaning: what sort of concentration? adding camps made it obvious at-a-glance.

but, meh, whatever.

and that qualm of mine does not detract from your impressive work. carry on. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! (I think).

Regarding the section heading, I normally try and keep them short yet readable, with as little redundancy as possible - otherwise the TOC can become difficult for a reader to quickly find the section they want. I'll do this at the expense of grammar, but not excessively so. This was a marginal case, and I probably would just have shrugged if it was reverted. (Hohum ^@) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany-article name discussion redux

Hi: Just to let you know, I quoted you in the current discussion here: [12] on the Nazi Germany talk page. This discussion as to the name to use for the article; which you may recall had came up before and I could not have stated a new reply better then you did back then. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baza

In the Battle of Baza (1810) article, I moved the Edouard Milhaud picture back to the left side. In some monitor configurations (that is, the one at my workplace) the infobox crowded the picture and forced it downward. When pictures cross the section heading boundaries, the article looks awkward. If not for this situation, your idea to have the picture face the text was a good one. Djmaschek (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Since you showed me how to use "upright" for pictures, I now use it all the time. Thanks for the tip. Djmaschek (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the image code so that it goes on the right, and on very wide monitors - should stay on the left of the infobox. (Hohum ^@) 17:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a Greasy Pig?

Just wanted to find out if you were willing to share some of the sources you mention on the Kaga article that are reputable, from the past 30 years, and intended for a general audience, that use the gendered pronoun when referring to ships. I won't ask you to respond to all of my arguments, since I know I'm being combative and offputting, but I hope you'll at least provide me with that info since you made the claim. Dr.queso = talk 05:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World ISBN 9781591149552
U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History ISBN 9781557504425
U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History ISBN 9780870217395
Aircraft Carriers at War ISBN 9781591143918
Naval Firepower ISBN 9781591145554
Jane's battleships of the 20th century ISBN 9780004709970
The encyclopedia of ships ISBN 9781566199094
Conway's Battleships ISBN 9781844860685

(Hohum ^@) 16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Craft Mechanised Mk 1

Dear Hohum, Please could you assist me with a file? It is File:Landing Craft Mechanised Mk 1.jpg. I really don't know what I'm doing trying to upload this - I suspect I may have gotten close. I hope you don't mind this presumption. Thanks for any help. Regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do. Upload an image to use in an article? Use an image in an article which is already on wikipedia or commons? (Hohum ^@) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now: File:Landing Craft Mechanised Mk 1.jpg. I'll take a look. (Hohum ^@) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I have begun a new page specifically for the LCM 1 and this Imperial War Museum photo would be quite useful. I'm sorry this is so counter-intuitive to me. Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken a look. Although you assert:

Crown Copyright. This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is one of the following:

It is a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957; or

It was commercially published prior to 1962; or

It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1962.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)

More information.

See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

The site it comes from (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185886) clearly says "This item is available to share and reuse under the terms of the IWM Non Commercial Licence."

Commons requires commercial rights for all of its images, no exceptions. (Hohum ^@) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. Thanks for your trouble.AmesJussellR (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted to say thanks for your improvements to some of the images I uploaded. The Petit Journal ones in particular look excellent - Dumelow (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you notice other images that need work, please tell me. (Hohum ^@) 20:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again...

Hi Hohum, I was wondering if you might be able to work your magic on this scan from Google Books? Many thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks much better! Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I tried improving the sky, but it's tricky not to lose the rigging. (Hohum ^@) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romani children

Greetings. I was looking at the photos of the Romani children and notice that below the photo it mentions that two escaped Auschwitz. I will like to create a blog about them. What happened to this beautiful children broke my heart. I will appreciate if you can provide me with the names or where I can find them on the Internet or elsewhere.

Thank you Edith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Stein12 (talk • contribs)

I'm guessing you mean File:Romani Kids ww2.jpg. I only did some image restoration work on it and don't know much about the image. It was originally uploaded by another user who may have more information: User_talk:7mike5000 - he also wrote the comment in the Eva Justin article that two survived. However, I can see that the image comes from a video hosted on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website - here. That has more details which you may be able to follow up on. (Hohum ^@) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun safety

Good edit. Clear and to the point. One thing the kerfuffle of the last few days has done is focus editors' minds on the meaning of the article, and this makes very clear what it is and is not. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frohe Weihnachten - 2012

Christmas Greetings. Have a good holiday. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jingoism

my wanting what is in an article to be properly cited is more a reflection of your attitude than mine Thats how your attitude looks from aside (no offence):

The cited reference had a name by which it is easy to google it. So when the ref link to the telegraph was broken, you could have fixed it, like i did. Instead you immediately got rid of the whole (inconvenient?) interesting fact.
I've put this fact into the "tank" article long ago, and since than check it once in half a year. And it is either deleted, or is distorted badly. You seem to have the article in your watch list, but do nothing to prevent it.

Let's make a deal, you will be as careful and watchful to the fact as to any other, and i stop thinking of you as of a jingoist? ;) deal? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly looked for a fix to the Telegraph link, which is my usual practice, but failed. However, the WP:BURDEN isn't on me to do this.

I have well over a thousand articles on my watchlist, I miss many problems. Also, the Tank article is a mess in general, so that's a needle in a haystack of problems.

Yet, you've noticed all the needles I've added. ;) And also those I've deleted.84.52.101.196 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a deal.

I'm utterly puzzled by your "citation needed tags" in the Spanish Civil War article. You have put them directly in-front of citations. If there is an element in the preceding text which the existing reference doesn't cover, perhaps put that text within "Citation needed span" tags? If there is a problem with the citations themselves, there are a bunch of tags to deal with that (list at bottom of Template:Citation needed), and a talk page to explain if a tag doesn't fit. (Hohum ^@) 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i used the "Citation needed" tag wrong. But I did explain the details on the talk page. And there is a link right to the explanation from the banner on the top of the page, which you have removed. And a brief explanation was in the banner. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftain new section in talk re Israeli/Uk co-operation

Hi Hohum. Would be grateful if you could take a look. Your comments would be welcome. Ive left a similar message on mr leggets talk page. Happy new year! Irondome (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancre Heights

Thanks for changing the weather table, it was my first go at doing one and I hadn't noticed the redundant criterion. I'll have to look at the others I've done on the other pages now. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. (Hohum ^@) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Thanks for your help recently with the United States Air Force Combat Control Team page and the Ashley Spurlin file, I appreciate it. I'm a bit newer at the whole contributing thing and... I just found out about DYK nominations as well. Anywho, I wrote a DYK nomination about the CCT page and I figured I'd let you know since you editted it a few times and if you would want to offer any feedback on how I did on it I would sure appreciate it. Thanks again, cheers — dain- talk 05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity Check

Just wanted to check, your answer to User:Gaba p on WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:RS was pretty much what I'd already pointed out repeatedly wasn't it? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. (Hohum ^@) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I quote you at WP:ANI, where he has made a frivolous complaint of me not discussing matters and edit warring to have him blocked? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being quoted as long as the context is clear. (Hohum ^@) 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg Line

Thanks for looking over the article. Do you have a reference I could look at to explain |upright=1.1| as it's a new one on me. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended syntax: WP:EIS. (Hohum ^@) 00:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a play later.Keith-264 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos AWB I think it might be putting spaces back were Auto Ed takes them out.Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflage FAC

Hallo Hohum, can I first say thankyou very much for lending a hand round at Camouflage, it's appreciated. It's my first venture into FAC territory, and I'm finding it quite tough compared to GAN. Nikkimaria has offered to lend a hand tidying the references, and I've had to remove most of the images among other things. Your nice countershaded Focke-Wulf has come in handy at Countershading, and I've started a 'missing' article at Disruptive coloration, which is already a lot better. Meanwhile, if you could spare a moment to look at Camouflage and its FAC, I'd be enormously grateful as I feel a bit out of my depth and all alone there! But I think once the refs are straightened out it will seem a lot better. Hoping you've got the time and inclination - of course will understand perfectly if not -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Mind you, I think I preferred the b/w Catalina image, more dramatic and full of the sea somehow. But the FAC comments are all about references and manual of style; and we need to leave images alone while Nikkimaria checks all the copyright status and everything, she just told me this evening. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General stability of an article is desired during a review - but I think this applies to major changes, or lots of little ones. An image change or two usually isn't an issue imo.

I prefer colour images where possible, in this one specifically because you can't really tell if something is really white in a b/w one. Also, it's far higher quality. (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's stay with it, glad to have you around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Home

Many thanks for taking the raw URL's and doing the reference page. Nice pic of Stenigot tower as well. Thanks again! Cmpltd (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. The Stenigot tower image was hidden away on commons without being in a Chain Home category, so it was luck that I found it. The link review found a whole bunch of dead links - if you can find better alternatives it would be helpful. I might be able to find old versions on a web archive - but most look like someone's self-published site. (Hohum ^@) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale massacre at the Centurion article

Re your message. Such a wholesale removal of material from a WP piece even if uncited, is tantamount to a form of Good faith based "vandalism" in my opinion. I felt I was justified in reinstating it at least provisionally. A whole narrative structure which can be sourced has been removed. Therefore the entire section suffers as there is not even the skeleton of information to which cites can actually be added at a later date. Therefore it adversely affects the 2 relevant sections. My recommendation is to pepper the entire section(s) with citation needed flags and adopt a gradualist approach to this. Also a section on talk needs to be created to actually gather the relevant cites from other interested tankie editors, esp from SA and to a lesser extent Israel.

By the logic displayed, a good portion of WP would disappear overnight if these slash and burn edits were repeated on a large scale. A large percentage of sections (or entire articles) are in the "citation needed" pending category. And yes I am aware of the "rules" :) Cheers Hohum Irondome (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My message didn't say to remove anything, so I have no idea where you are getting the "wholesale massacre" idea from. I asked for what you added to be cited - presumably you got the information from a reliable source in the first place, or feel it is true because you read it somewhere? Reliable sourcing is a requirement on wikipedia.

Unlike articles which are biographies of living people, where uncited material must be removed immediately, other articles, like this one, often have a lot of uncited information which stays for a long time - in the hope it will be cited by someone with a reliable source. I was hoping you were one of those people.

When entire sections are unreferenced, I suggest using a single section tag like {{unreferenced section}} and {{refimprove section}}. "Peppering" the article with many individual tags tends to be counterproductive. (Hohum ^@) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I reverted 2 large edits which removed a very large chunk of text in the Middle East and South Africa section. The 2 edits immediately prior to my undong them. It was uncited material but I felt the removal didnt help the sections structure. Thats what I was talking about above. Cheers Irondome (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. (Hohum ^@) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:Battle of Wilsons Creek.png

Hi. I noticed that you had uploaded the above file. I am currently trying to upgrade an article which uses this file to AL class and according to one reviewer, the source of the file "should be changed to the book or website from where it was originally scanned/uploaded". Could you help with this? Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked down the original source and updated it. (Hohum ^@)

Much appreciated. Many thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War Pakistan Aid

Hi Hohum! Well, I came here for discussing the Pakistani Aid to Arabs, you reduced the text that I entered here. It is inappropriate reduction, as what was in the text, is clearly shown in this source Also, you can go to the Pilot which shot down IAF plane, Sattar Alvi. I have entered the text again which is shown in the above source, and I have also reduced some of the text. Now before any further reduction, plz use the talk page. Faizan (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source wasn't being used at the time. Anything unsourced can be removed. Additionally, wijipedia can;t be used as a reference, and the refgerence on the Sattar Alvi page was unreliable.(Hohum ^@) 18:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Let me find a new Reference which is reliable! Faizan (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust article

I see that you have reverted my edits in the The Holocaust article, making four days of work on my part count for nothing. I know this article is one of the longest on this site and it's a bit of a nightmare to find anything, but it means you have put all the mistakes back in; such as the excessive white space, the copyediting, i.e. duplicated links (and therefore uneccessary) and so-on. The clue was in the edit summary.

I suggest you read it.

To avoid a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between your talk page and mine, if you want to reply, please use this one, as I will be watching it.

RASAM (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused if you think it took four days of your work to (incorrectly, and against WP:MOS) change some quote tags, which is all your *single* edit comment mentioned, and all that I reverted, as far as I know. (Hohum ^@) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Moved pictures, maps and quotes to reduce white space; copyedit - (article is very big and difficult to navigate); replaced 'Quotation' with 'cquote' to avoid boxes obscuring information"

I tried to reduce the horrendous amounts of white space visible (at least it is on my screen). While wrestling with the maps, quotes and so on in this monster of an article, I found info boxes and a couple of pictures being partially obscured, and the only way that I knew to avoid that situation was to use 'cquote's. If it is against the WP:MOS and you've fixed it, then fair enough, but you still managed to erase many copyedits - from single words and punctuation marks to whole phrases. They all came under what you call a *single* edit, (see above for another copy of the [rather long-winded] edit summary).

RASAM (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem with altering many things in a single edit is that it's difficult to unpick the good and bad parts - of course, many tiny edits have their own issues too. Try grouping similar types of edits together.

However, it looks like I didn't pay attention to all the changes to made. I'll have a look to see if I can re-include your substantive edits while not including the cquotes. (Hohum ^@) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind also, that reducing "white space" and image crowding is an attempt to accommodate various different browser window sizes, usually biased towards satisfying smaller widths (~1024px) as not everyone has a large high resolution monitor. (Hohum ^@) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reintroduced your edit and am fixing up the formatting problems. (Hohum ^@) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ginchy

Thanks for your scrutiny but do you really want pictures etc on the left-hand side? I find that it breaks the margin and looks untidy. Regards, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The manual of style suggests "pointing" images towards text - i.e. faces and items which lend themselves to this (cars, planes etc.). It also suggests alternating images left and right (partly because on very wide resolutions, there will be a big stack of images misaligned with the relevant text if they are all on one side). However, it's also a matter of taste as well as balancing style recommendations and technical issues. (Hohum ^@) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, does it really? For me reading left to right makes the right side the obvious place, so my eyes scan the picture reading each line. I take care to spread them evenly down the right hand side and try to match them with the size of the paragraph on it's left. I'd rather have fewer pictures etc than break the left margin. Does this mean that I've turned into an old fart? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Featured article of today Ezra Meeker - I find the images on the left and right form a balance. Does that look wrong to you? (Hohum ^@) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. Old fartdom here I come.Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mandatory, and consensus / taste applies, and on the Ginchy article, it probably wouldn't cause a stacking issue, so fee free to put them on the right. I would ask that you don't set specific pixel sizes except where necessary (like infoboxes), use the default thumbnail size, the upright or upright=<number> parameter (see WP:EIS) - this lets people use their preferences to set image sizes. (Hohum ^@) 18:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ho' I bow to the power of your Wikimojo. I thought that the px sizes were for fitting them to the text, as I have copied other editors on usage, since I find that wiki procedure pages are explanations written for people who know about computers, rather than descriptions for ignoramuses like me. When I saw upright notations, I hadn't a clue what they were about. I assumed that people just clicked on to get the big version. I'll give WP:EIS a look tomorrow. If you have any more suggestions about my page design please feel free. Thanks mateKeith-264 (talk)

I've just noticed that you recommended WP:EIS a few months ago....Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Leopard 2 delivery

The reference had information on when delivery of Leopard 2 tanks to Qatar will be completed. The deal for the order is confirmed and I was just writing in the timetable. How is that in violation of anything? America789 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have self reverted. Missed that it was a finalised deal rather than a "maybe". (Hohum ^@) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. America789 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Defence Regiment

Thank you for all the work you've done on the article. It's great to have a more experienced editor do a bit. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum have you any idea how I can resolve the issue of using the badge or a representative image on all the UDR pages? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. It seems to me that as it is the same cap badge for each unit, they each have a relevant fair use claim, but the NFCC requirements aren't really my thing and I can't find a wikipedia noticeboard for the topic. (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Sherman

So where on earth does the figure of 61 come from then? Italia2006 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existing reference to Zaloga, Armored Thunderbolt almost covered it, I have added an additional page to the existing reference.

Here's the excerpt from p. 22:

At the outset of the war, the army planned to raise 216 divisions, including 61 armored divisions. At nearly 400 tanks per division, this entailed the manufacture of 25,000 tanks, plus additional tanks for training and attrition -- not to mention that Britain was buying large numbers of tanks and the U.S. had further Lend-Lease commitments. ... The plans were for an astonishing 45,000 tanks in 1942, and 75,000 in 1943. [the 120,000 figure]

So, that's not quite "120,000 tanks = 61 divisions". It's "They initially planned to build 120,000 tanks, which would provide for 61 U.S. Armored divisions, their training, and projected replacement of losses, plus sales to Britain and Lend Lease."

Additionally, p. 24:

The US Army would form 16 armored divisions during the course of the war instead of the original plan for 61, although some 70 seperate tank battalions that had not been included in the original plans eventually were organised

google books link

(Hohum ^@) 11:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of apparently copyright image Sept 12, 2013

Hi there... Apologies, but I've deleted your image of Gerry Rafferty and Enzina Fuschini as a suspected WP:CV. It has been uploaded to someone's own page but (I believe) simply pulled off newspapers online, where it is labelled as a copyright image. I've put more details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerry_Rafferty#Deletion_of_apparently_copyright_image_Sept_12.2C_2013 Best wishes, CW 82.71.0.229 (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why did you rv all of my edits?

there is nothing wrong with the sources and if you have a problem with the wording please improve it instead of removing everything, and nazi germany needs a motto so if there isnt we must find some alternative Kalix94 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the edit was very poorly worded, and the sources were poor, as I said in the edit comment. If you have a problem, bring it up at the talk page of the article, where this has already been discussed. (Hohum ^@) 01:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semihemidemi

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for <Your solving the "Ranger program" issue with a hatnote>

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Georges de La Tour may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

File:Georges de La Tour (French - The Musicians' Brawl - Google Art Project.jpg|''Brawl, (Hurdy-gurdy group)'', c. 1625-1630,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thanks for all these image upgrades, but can you use edit summaries, so people don't have to look at them when they come up on their watchlists. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (Hohum ^@) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please indicated which image you switched (title and artist), rather than "Clearer version" or "Google Art Project version". Thanks in advance.Coldcreation (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round In Fifty

Seamless editing, thank you very much for taking that on! Cassianto (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just tweaked it a little more to reduce some discolourations. Please mark it as resolved if you are happy. (Hohum ^@) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked to perfection, I shall "resolve" now. Thanks. Cassianto (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2S25

Hi, I'm the user responsible for rewriting the article of the 2S25. I can tell you're a very busy user with all of these reviews but I do have one question. On a scale of 1 to 10, one equaling a B-class article and ten equaling a GA-class article, what rating would you give it? Originally, I was planning to rewrite it to make it a GA-class article but gave up after finding out that almost all the sources on this vehicle are either Russian, deprived from Russian, or from the internet. Khazar (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? Don't be shy. Khazar (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I notice you never seem to use them. Please do so. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is not the first time I've had to ask this. It is a great inconvenience for other editors not to use them. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snake

Hi Hohum, can you please help with Snake? Jaqeli (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done? Jaqeli 12:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my Inkscape skills aren't good enough to get multiple colours on this image without an unreasonable amount of work. (Hohum ^@) 12:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks anyways. Jaqeli 14:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger I Ammo types

Hello, I was wondering if it was you who added the different ammo types section on the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 gun's page : 8.8_cm_KwK_36

I'm particularly interested by the pzgr.40 APCR ammo for this gun. And I've not found any source links concerning it on this page ...

I'm playing an online game called War Thunder : the Pz VI Tiger I (E) using the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 is modled, however, it doesn't get in it's ammo selection any pzgr.40 APCR ammo, if you could give me any historical source which can prove that this gun could be equiped with APCR rounds, i could transmit it on the develloper's forum and make this game more historically accurate ...

Thank you very much.

PS : English is not my mother tongue and I'm not very familiar with wikipedia, please excuse me for any mistake i could have made ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roi Arachnide (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jentz, Tom (1993). Tiger 1 : heavy tank, 1942-1945. London: Osprey. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-337-7. Of the total ammunition load of 92 rounds, the recommended ratio was 50 per cent Pzgr 39 and 50 per cent Sprgr. Occasionally, when available, a few rounds of Pzgr 40 were carried for use against the heaviest armoured Russian tanks and tank destroyers.

(Hohum ^@) 13:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudyard Kipling edit

here's where i came across it >>>>http://rajnikantp.blogspot.in/2014/06/brutalisation-of-india-by-british-part-i.html<<<< (in the paragraph/section titled --British Justice--). Don't remember the exact way i edited it, so if you do, or if previous revisions can be restored (assuming this reference seems credible to u), please do. -thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.102.202 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

googled later, found these

- (about Dyer) >>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/06/a-man-of-permanent-contradictions/302512/<<<<

- a line from his poem The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands :

Go send your sons to exile To serve your captives' need To wait in heavy harness On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child

-the line ' a lesser breed without the law' apparently comes from another of his poems titled "Recessional"

-Professor Gilbert Murray's comments can be found in page 18 of this book --- "Gandhi's Interpreter" by Geoffrey Carnall. a link to the specific page shows up on google-books if u search with the quote and the names.

thats the best i can do. -thanx again

Bondi_bio_photo.jpg

Hi Hohum, would you please edit the file above like you did it for the cropped version. Thanks in advance, MagentaGreen (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Duke of Wellington

Dear Hohum, I noticed that you changed back my corrected caption on the 1st Duke of Wellington page. You gave some advice about how I should correct the caption that says the Swinton is of Kitty Pakenham. I can't work out how to follow your advice. But I do know that the painting is of Elizabeth Hay, later 2nd Dss of Wellington because I work at Stratfield Saye House and see the original painting every day. Are you able to change the caption for me? Yours, archivist10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivist 10 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Archivist 10:Is there a catalogue for the items held at Stratfield Saye House, ideally online, which can confirm this? If so, I can update commons and wikipedia using it as the verification. (Hohum ^@) 15:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USS Oriskany fire assessment

Just wanted to say thank you for assessing this article. I'll see what I can do to expand upon it. Thanks a bunch!RGFI (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question for you about cleaning up a scanned photo

Is there much that a photo expert can do to this photo without getting it scanned again? [13] We have a much smaller version already in Commons and it would be nice to upgrade it. I've got Photoshop and can probably at least clean up the moiré pattern if it's not too complicated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't see an image at that link. If you can see one, perhaps grab it and upload it to commons (or somewhere else you can point me to), and I'll see what can be done. Some moire issues are trivial to fix, others can be so difficult a rescan is preferable. (Hohum ^@) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, go to page 189, although google books seems to be blocking non-US IPs, if that's a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK, which is probably the issue. (Hohum ^@) 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the original, hope that you can do something with this. [14]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried. Not entirely happy with the outcome though. (Hohum ^@) 00:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh well; thanks for trying.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Hohum. You made a fine job fixing File:QinShiHuang18thCentury.jpg colors. I wondered if you could do the same with File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png. It has a an unusal brownish tone in it, making Cabral look tanned, when he was a brown haired white man (like here). --Lecen (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried, but unfortunately I can't do much with that image. (Hohum ^@) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I really appreciate your help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XM109

Hey, thanks for your improvements to the Barrett XM109 article. This is ancient history, but I think you may have added a mistaken citation back in 2008. I started a thread on the talk page about it. No worries. Rezin (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the talk page. (Hohum ^@) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging in case you didn't see my reply. Rezin (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits of page No. 255 Squadron RAF

Please would you visit the Talk page relating to No.255 Squadron and there (a) constructively join in the discussion about "splitting", also (b) set out your connection (if any) with the squadron. The result of a lot of difficult research work done by descendants of squadron members has, within the last few days, been deleted without prior discussion. 255 Historian (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Lee Gray

The information about Jimmy Lee Gray and his crimes was taken from his article. Since you contend that my insertion was "unreferenced," what is the correct procedure for citing another Wikipedia article?

The obvious intent of the article on the gas chamber is to make readers feel sorry for the murderers who were put to death. Such an article is obviously POV or unbalanced unless we are also told the nature of the crimes for which the murderers are being put to death. Gray kidnapped, raped, and murdered a three-year old girl. A three-year old girl! Does anyone care whether she suffered, or how long it took her to die? And yet, we have an article expresses sympathy for Gray, and we not told, in the article, that he kidnapped, raped, and killed a three-year old girl.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use other wikipedia articles as sources per WP:CIRCULAR, but you could use the relevant sources that page uses.

However, I don't feel manipulated into any sympathy for him. The paragraph you're adding to describes a failure in execution, and doesn't use any unnecessary phrases to describe it. It should link to his article, where readers can find out more about why he was sentenced to death. (It's pretty obvious that anyone sentenced to death in the US has done something horrific.) This article isn't about the crimes, it's about the mode of punishment.

Also, please use the article talk page to talk about the article. (Hohum ^@) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Hohum,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Replacing an FP

The simplest way might be to upload it as a new image, and do a simple delist and replace nom - just use the "delist" box on WP:FPC and add the replacement image in as well. If it proves difficult to figure out how to set that up, that's probably true for a lot of people, so let me know and I'll code a delist and replace template to simplify things.

It's a little complicated, but it's more-or-less guaranteed results - either your changes will be accepted, or you'll get an explanation of exactly why. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I have done my best here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Marine da nang.jpg (Hohum ^@) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I'll do a full scan of the image soon. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto archiving

Hello,

I set up yesterday the auto archiving via MiszaBot, unfortunately it did not work as assumed. I've had created the Archive 1, but Lowercase sigmabot III used an self-provided Archive 12. Could you please be so kindly and have a look over there how to fix it? Many thanks. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a failed attempt to help, I moved "/Archive12" to "/Archive1"

You'll need to get an admin to delete "/Archive 1", and then move "/Archive1" to "Archive 1". (Don't try copy pasting content, as the history would be lost).

Once that's done make the following change on the talk page

| archive=Talk:Panther tank/Archive1%(counter)d

| archive=Talk:Panther tank/Archive %(counter)d

(Hohum ^@) 02:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, many thanks for your effort, I will try to catch an admin. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done : Archiv 1 was redirected by Keegan and should be working now. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery sizes

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I undid your change to the gallery widths as the images are variously portrait and landscape, and it seems best to have the same area for all images, roughly the same size as standard (down the right) images rather than suddenly one or two in a gallery far larger than the rest. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change because the gallery takes up about the same amount of screen space, but most of the pictures are bigger and easier to see detail in. i.e. there is a lot less wasted whitespace. (Hohum ^@) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how odd. It looked quite different to me, I was using Firefox. Perhaps it's browser-specific. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I also use Firefox, very odd. (Hohum ^@) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for letting me know I forgot to include the book title. It's World War II Sea War, Volume 3: The Royal Navy is Bloodied in the Mediterranean. Thanks for for your diligent work in improving the page.--100menonmars (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:USMC-14131.jpg

That Konane photo is so incredibly better! (How'd ya do that?!?) Thanks, IHTS (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like this and this (Hohum ^@) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for those tips! IHTS (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about blogs

Your comment about using blogs as sources does not consider the quality of the mentioned blog. In the modern web, a dedicated aviation blog like "the aviationist" or "Oryx", often used as first source for "mainstream" press has much more precise information than any New Your Times, CNN or RT. Your POV is biased and your sources are very weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by vnkd (talk • contribs)

Your presumption of what I know is flawed. I have left The Aviationist references intact because it seems that he is at least an expert in the field. The other blogs I removed are not. You also ought to take more care checking which sources I have added to the same articles - which is *none*; I have only put them in cite tags to make them more presentable. Your attention to details like this is sloppy. Know what you are talking about before throwing around accusations. Check WP:RS and WP:RSN to find out what wikipedia considers reliable sources. Also, sign your messages. (Hohum ^@) 14:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raj Kapoor In Aah (1953).png

hi ,thanks @Hohum:, can you tell me how Raj_Kapoor_In_Aah_(1953).png doneAryan^fromHindustan (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the heal tool in gimp. tutorial here (Hohum ^@) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks--Aryan^fromहि है (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle

Thanks for the edits on the loca map, I've only been experimenting with "Location map many" recently, I'll be able to copy the layout. Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think it's an improvement. Blue anchors may be more cartographic. (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how to manoeuvre the place names helps even more.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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]

References

^ Mackenzie 2011, p. 137.
^ ^a ^b Sydnor 1990, p. 319.
^ Parker 2014, p. 215.
^ Levenda 2014, p. 167.

Sources

Levenda, Peter (2014). The Hitler Legacy: The Nazi Cult in Diaspora: How it was Organized, How it was Funded, and Why it Remains a Threat to Global Security in the Age of Terrorism. Ibis Press. ISBN 978-0892542109. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

MacKenzie, S.P. (2014). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415867771. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Parker, Danny S. (2014). Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306821547. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Sydnor, Charles W. (1990) [1977]. Soldiers of destruction: the SS Death's Head Division, 1933–1945. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691008530. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Sydnor, Charles W. (1973). "The History of the SS Totenkopfdivision and the Postwar Mythology of the Waffen SS". Central European History. 6 (4). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/S0008938900000960. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thank you again. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. This is better discussed on its talk page though. (Hohum ^@) 18:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I will do that. I was just making sure I'm not the only one who would question uncritical use of potentially biased and revisionist sources. :-) -- K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

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)[reply]

103rd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Blitzkrieg

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

Good luck

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)[reply]

Greyscale PNG's

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)[reply]

Action of 8 May 1941

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Axis ship-watching activities in the Gibraltar area

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

Lollardmap.jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Aircraft camouflage

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

T-34s in Angola

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you return?

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

References

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

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

Caen

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)[reply]

Caen RfC

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)[reply]

Normandy Landings

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)[reply]

Comment on my talk page

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)[reply]

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

WWI images

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)[reply]

Well deserved and overdue

	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)[reply]

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

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

Reliable sources for firearms

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rutledge P. Hazzard

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did stumble upon some source material for him though

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

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)[reply]

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	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

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)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

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)[reply]

Be Careful!! - Mountain Warfare!!

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

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

File:Helmut Eberspächer.jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pull quote?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you

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)[reply]

APCBC

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)[reply]

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

"Faked background"

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)[reply]

Powered exoskeleton

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)[reply]

Photo request petition - please sign

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)[reply]

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on 1745

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Preference sizing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Xmas

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

Battle of Britain

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)[reply]

New spoons photo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bombing of Dresden page

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)[reply]

New Albion article

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)[reply]

Re: your edits of Heinrich Himmler article

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)[reply]

Stirling Hoard

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

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

Arthur Rostron & Margaret Brown

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help on Titanic & Carpathia photo LLcentury (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lend Lease

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)[reply]

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

Lefta ping at RFPP

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

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

Recent image changes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gaulois photo

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

Sources

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)[reply]

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

Backlog Banzai

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)[reply]

Ways to improve List of commando units

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)[reply]

Nonsense about Russia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 2019

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Help with Imagery

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opinion

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)[reply]

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

Reverting Operation Paperclip

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Cold War. Your input solicited...

...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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with Cold War! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASA page - manned/crewed/human mission to Mars

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

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)[reply]

Take a look about lists

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great Retreat (Serbian)

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)[reply]

Revert on Lakh article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Season's Greetings

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

If you like to ...

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)[reply]

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

Lend-Lease

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strange editing practice

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

March Madness 2020

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[reply]

about the reversion in Allied War Crimes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Need help don't know what to do with this some one is making stuff up asking around for help

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare

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)[reply]

Japanese War crimes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your revert at Contradicts other

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Patton

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleting Content

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sherman tank 76mm

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

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)[reply]

Just some minor discussions

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)[reply]

military cooperative

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)[reply]

Pitched battle article

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)[reply]

Hello Hohum this is a message about translations!

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Anti-vax activist tags

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)[reply]

Ref Tucker Carlson, from the article.

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

References

^ Cite error: The named reference :22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Did Tucker Carlson Say Forcing Kids To Wear Masks Outside Is 'Child Abuse'?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2021-04-28.
^ Cite error: The named reference COVID-19 vaccines might not work was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Blake, Aaron (May 6, 2021). "Tucker Carlson's sloppiest, most dangerous vaccine segment yet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 7, 2021.

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)[reply]

Frank Winterstein:

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

References

^ Winterstein, Taylor (2020-01-12). "(@tays_way_) Protest photo of Taylor & Frank Winterstein". Archive; Instagram. Retrieved 2020-01-16.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Military reverted edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

accusation of edit waring

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your astounding patience, diplomacy, civility, fortitude and sheer Wikipedianess. I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World War II article sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BRD

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Bullet

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Italic titles on German tank articles

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Understanding Problem

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Benj'n Hick

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)[reply]

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

Bare URLs

Why did you add[15] {{linkrot}} to Oilskin just after I removed[16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

nowrap

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category suppression needed at User:Hohum/sandbox2

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

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)[reply]

Harpoon missile

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)[reply]

You

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

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)[reply]

Synchronization gear subject headings

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)[reply]

Communications Zone boundaries April 1945

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)[reply]

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

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

January 2023

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)[reply]

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

Cosmic Hunt

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leonardo's science etc

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)[reply]

Alaskan Barnstar for Ted Stevens corrections

The Alaskan Barnstar

Here's the AK Barnstar. Thank you for your many recent edits on Ted Stevens, helping bring it up to GAN status during it's currently ongoing nomination.
~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 18:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MAS .223

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

P-38 Lightning

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)[reply]

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

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)[reply]

Crete

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)[reply]

woodworking

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

ARA General Belgrano

I just wanted to check the thinking behind your edit[17] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

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)[reply]

A little bin of fun

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hot chocolate ref

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

File help for File:M8 Armored Gun System level 1 armor 1994.jpg

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)[reply]

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

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

Revised edition of Tolkien's Letters

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)[reply]

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

Tiger II

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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 ([18]) File:Tiger II cutaway U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection-2.jpg ([19]) File:Panzer III Ausf. F U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection.jpg ([20]) File:Panther II US Army Armor & Cavalry Collection.jpg ([21])

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)[reply]

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

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

Userbox for your consideration :)

User:Widgetkid/Userbox/DiscGolf WidgetKid (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kursk

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

M114 photo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Production table formatting

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

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

Looks like MS32. [22] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Voting for coordinators is now open!

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)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

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)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

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) [reply]

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTEMackenzie2011137-1] Mackenzie 2011, p. 137.

[FOOTNOTESydnor1990319-2] Sydnor 1990, p. 319.

[FOOTNOTEParker2014215-3] Parker 2014, p. 215.

[FOOTNOTELevenda2014167-4] Levenda 2014, p. 167.

[:22-5] Cite error: The named reference :22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[:24-6] "Did Tucker Carlson Say Forcing Kids To Wear Masks Outside Is 'Child Abuse'?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2021-04-28.

[COVID-19_vaccines_might_not_work-7] Cite error: The named reference COVID-19 vaccines might not work was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Blake56-8] Blake, Aaron (May 6, 2021). "Tucker Carlson's sloppiest, most dangerous vaccine segment yet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 7, 2021.

[protest_canberra-9] Winterstein, Taylor (2020-01-12). "(@tays_way_) Protest photo of Taylor & Frank Winterstein". Archive; Instagram. Retrieved 2020-01-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]