User talk:Hohum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
    
Exquisite-microphone.png
User Page User Talk Sandbox Library Awards
Cartella verde.jpg
Nuvola apps ksig.png
Talk
   


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II[edit]

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)

Prenzlau[edit]

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)

Extended syntax: WP:EIS. (Hohum @) 13:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying it out in my latest article, Capitulation of Stettin. Djmaschek (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Help us improve![edit]

Hello Hohum,

For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.

Thanks for your time and effort!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yalta image[edit]

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)

Italian expedition image[edit]

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)

My pleasure. (Hohum @) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Chrystalball[edit]

The chrystalball policy (though poorly worded) is only meant to filter original research. The article should at least mention the pending termination of production. Marcus Qwertyus 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
It's not notable if the only reference to it is on "DoD buzz". I can't find any other news agency reporting it. (Hohum @) 16:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


If speculation of future events is allowed [15] then plans for future events are almost certainly notable. There is also no policy requiring multiple sources for inclusion. Marcus Qwertyus 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing for everything. Multiple sources don't need to be cited, but this story currently only appears in *one place*, which makes it dubious. Also, you should have started this conversation on the article talk page. (Hohum @) 22:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

J-XX -- many thanks[edit]

Thanks for your work on removing the poorly-sourced speculation from this article. Unfortunately, it's a perennial cruft magnet! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To subst or not to subst...that is the question :)[edit]

About this, they are the same. I subst'ed that template. I can't remember where but I had seen someone place the template and someone else subst it afterward to "reduce server load". I couldn't make up my mind which was better.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you subst it, changes to the template won't show up. Also, it's easier to manage templates - if all of the templates at the top of that page were subst'ed, or on pages in general, it would be a nightmare. Typically, the few templates which should be subst'ed, say so on their page. (Hohum @) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Shishman[edit]

Greetings! I have seen that you have suggested a "eight line dated list" for that article. I agree that the current timeline does not have a proper vision but I have no idea what "eight line dated list" is. Can you show me a link to an article with such a list or make it yourself and substitute the timeline. I am sorry to react so lately... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • 1291 — Michael Shishman is engaged to Anna Neda of Serbia
  • 1298 or 1299 — Marries Anna Neda
  • By 1308 — Becomes Despot of Vidin
  • 1323 — Elected Emperor of Bulgaria by the nobility, uses the name Michael Asen
  • 1324 — Successful war with the Byzantine Empire; divorces his first wife to marry Theodora Palaiologina
  • 1327 — Involvement into the Byzantine civil war; Treaty of Chernomen
  • 1329 — Definitive peace treaty with the Byzantines; anti-Serbian agreement
  • 28 July 1330 — Battle of Velbazhd; Michael Shishman is mortally wounded and dies
(Hohum @) 08:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I have done it. --Gligan (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Computer Monitor[edit]

Please dont spread biased and incorrect information. You also have deleted material from reliable sources and replaced it with material without source. If you write something you need to have a source. and dont delete sources.

Example 1 of incorrect information "4:3 is standard" My comment: Not true

Example 1 of bias: "One problem with this method is that it does not take into account the display aspect ratio, so that for example a 16:9 21 in (53 cm) widescreen display is far less high" My comment: First of all it is biased to claim that it is a problem. Secondly it is biased to talk about the height but not the width.

Example 2 of bias: "For many purposes the height of the display is the main parameter" My comment: This is biased as well. It is a matter of taste whether you prefer vertical or horizontal space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitor

/QAQUAU (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias? I assume English isn't your first language.
Your changes added items to the lead which are not in the main text, aspect ratios and the dates they became common aren't really a core issue to be mentioned in the lead, please read WP:LEAD. You removed an image which clarified a point which had been raised on the talk page - I see you have kept it this time. You changed a clear image of a monitor with one that has a cluttered background, and linked to the manufacturers page, which is not relevant.
Your source for dating the use of particular screen formats is a forecast made in 2008, and doesn't support your statements. (Hohum @) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, never mind. I have done some drastic changes and clean up. Please check it out. /QAQUAU (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitor

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

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

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

Nazi Germany 10 June 2011[edit]

Dear Hohum - I believe you blocked me for vandalising this page. Just thought I'd let you know I was removing the vandalism, as can be seen from the logs. Is there a better way to do it so I don't get blocked in the future (I tried reverting to a previous version but it said I had to edit manually)? Sorry I'm new to this editing malarkey! Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.85.14 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you. As far as I can see you aren't blocked. I just added a tag to your talk page which identified the Internet Provider which your IP is on. (Hohum @) 21:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reversion on the T-62 page[edit]

You reverted my edit on the T-62 page. However, my edit was simply reverting a change [check the article's revision history] (that itself was unsourced) by a French IP editor. My basis was that as the article says***, Israel converted 120 T-62 tanks to the Tiran-6 configuration. If they only captured 'several' tanks, then how would 120 tanks be available to convert? It is a logical assumption that they must have captured 'several hundred' to have enough to convert, as it is a sure bet that the Soviet Union did not give them to the Israelis.

      • the source cited on the entry is not really valid, but for the sake of consistency, if 120 T-62's are mentioned as being converted, 'several hundred were captured' would make more sense.

In any case, I will be reverting your change based on my above explanation, however, I at least wanted to make sure that you understood my rationale for doing so.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

120 is far less than *several* hundred. "Captured enough to convert 120" would make more sense. A proper source would be even better as making these conclusions is OR anyway. (Hohum @) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The text infers (whether that is correct, I really don't know) that only 120 tanks were converted, but there were more that Israel had obtained. As for it being OR, it may be, but it isn't my OR, I was simply trying to revert a change that was unsourced.
On second thought though, if you want to change it to read "Captured enough to convert 120" I'll settle for that.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Euphemistic vs. Ominous in The Holocaust[edit]

Hello Hohum: I noticed that you accused me of editorializing when I changed: "euphemistic" to "ominous" in The Holocaust. Rarely would it be "euphemistic" to refer to a race of people in the context of a "Final solution." If the Nazis were attempting to create a euphemism, then they failed. Euphemisms are meant to be pleasant or less offensive, such as "marble palace" for "bathroom." The terms "Final solution," in the context of a race of people, are not pleasant and are supremely offensive. Also, the term "euphemistic" has a connotation of humor and should be removed from an article as profoundly significant as The Holocaust. I cannot think of a single "Final solution" of which I would ever want my race to be a part. Can you? --Isleofbelle (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are making a value judgement about the term; that is editorialising. The "Final Solution" clearly is a euphemism for extermination. (Hohum @) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Historians have pointed out that the meanings of the term “Final Solution” changed at least from late 1939 when it meant the sending of Jews eastward to reservations. By early 1940 the German leadership tried to persuade the Soviet government to take some 2 million Jews from Polish territory. In June 1940 the final solution included plans for mass deportations to Madagascar. After the beginning of the war with the Soviet Union a Final Solution was “generally depicted as the deportation of Jews eastward beyond the lands conquered by Germany in the war. The most recent discussion of this is by Yale historian Timothy Snyder in a review of a book in the New York Review of Books dated 23 June 2011 by the German historian Longerich who”maintains, that mass killing was finally understood as the realization of the Final Solution,...” An euphemism perhaps, but one with a changing meaning. Joel Mc (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page. This is the wrong place.(Hohum @) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to me the right place to qualify your statement "Clearly is an euphemism for extermination.Joel Mc (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

clarification[edit]

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Ta very much! (Hohum @) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Flagcruft and overlinking[edit]

Hi. I am interested in this edit you made which seems to work against our guidelines on linking and flag usage. Could you show me a consensus for this non-standard approach, or else undo your edit? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is implied by the number of tank article infoboxes consistently using the same style for a long period. If you want to challenge this I suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. By my reading, WP:Manual_of_Style_(military_history)#Flag_icons is non commital.(Hohum @) 17:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The project page you linked to contains the text Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not. It is clear to me that the instance I removed was only decorative; if you disagree, please point out the information carried by the flag which is not present in text. There is nothing there about linking common country names and WP:OVERLINK is pretty clear that this should not be done. All in all, I am still left wondering why you undid my edit. --John (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The overwhelming acceptance of tank infoboxes with flags suggests strong consensus to include them. Take it up where I suggested, where dozens of directly involved editors will be, rather than taking it up on a single article with a single editor. (Hohum @) 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That seems a rather unusual interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. I'll ask you again; why did you undo my edit in contradiction of project-wide consensus? What does the flag add? What does the link add? --John (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have answered you. I have suggested where else to take the matter. (Hohum @) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No you haven't. I made an edit, you reverted it, I asked you why, you said there was an unspoken consensus, I quoted project policy that contradicts that. From WP:CONSENSUS:
When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement rather than citing "no consensus". This provides greater transparency for all concerned, and likewise acts as a guide so that consensus can be determined through continued editing.
So, what is the actual disagreement you have? Please state clearly why you undid these edits. This may become a conduct issue if you continue to stonewall. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have said quite clearly why I reverted your change. I believe there is strong consensus, you apparently don't. I haven't mentioned "no consensus". I suggest you seek a third opinion among editors who are relevant to the article topic. I have already suggested where. (Hohum @) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No you haven't. You may believe what you like, but if you are unable to show where this strong consensus you say you believe in was agreed or decided, it is just your opinion, and it does become an apparent "no consensus" revert, which the page I showed you says we shouldn't do. Why would I want to take it to the project talk when the project MoS already clearly states that decorative flags are deprecated? What would that add? You also haven't addressed the linking issue which I asked you about. If you have not convincingly come up with any reason for the edit you made I will take it that it was a mistake on your part and I won't bother you about it again. It is disappointing that you are unable to see this. I won't bother you again here; but you may of course bring this to a central location if you wish, as I also may do. You may also continue this conversation if you can come up with any actual reason for what you did, or if you wish to acknowledge your mistake. Until then,--John (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. The next usual step on implacable disagreement of two editors is seeking a third party for their opinion. (Hohum @) 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Red Barnstar[edit]

Wiki barnstars order of the red barnstar by cramyourspam.png 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)

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)

WWI Tanks[edit]

Thank you for your kind support and cooperation. I'm not really a git (as we say in the UK), I just write in a highfalutin manner to amuse/irritate people. Having beeen exceedingly obstructive at first, Trekphiler has now joined in with all the zeal of a convert. That is nice to know. It would have saved a lot of time and irritation if he'd taken the trouble to read up on the subject a little - not least the 3 or 4 very similar sections on Wikipedia. I have only a vague idea of the intricacies of Wikipedia; my principal concern is not to learn them but to get the facts straight, largely because I keep encountering misinformation that has been copied from there. Anyway, we seem to have achieved something of a breakthrough. I had the most fearful trouble convincing some Wikipedants that George S. Patton Jr. never went anywhere near the Battle of Cambrai, let alone led the attack. But it all calmed down, and the present account resembles the actual events. Please feel free to suggest any fine-tuning on the current project.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you aren't a git (I'm British). I'm also glad any time articles are improved. You don't really need to know the inticacies of wikipedia, but knowing basic policies is of benefit; providing reliable citations is important. Some tank articles are in dire need of improvement. (Hohum @) 19:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Am doing my best, but a todger by the name of Dingley is trying to make life difficult. Some help here? Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

CFB North Bay[edit]

Hello, Hohum.

Thank you very much for the interest you have taken in our air force base's Wikipedia page. With regards to the BOMARC, this is the correct original acronym (as derived from "Bo" "M" "A" "R" "C", from the two entities involved in the missile's development); however "Bomarc" slipped into the common lexicon, in official documentation as much as public usage, and is more often seen than the original. One example of the original: Les Earnest, currently Senior Research Scientist Emeritus at Stanford, was involved in the missile's and SAGE's development as a member of MIT; in his 1989 essay about "SAGE-BOMARC risks", he uses the original acronym "BOMARC". Ergo, in our air base's page, I am reverting to the correct acronym, with the annotation about the two forms. SAGE is another term that encountered this phenomenon, frequently written as "Sage".

This does not mean we consider your contributions irrelevant. Our Wikipedia page was begun and amended over the years by people (a) not from our air force base and (b) who never made an attempt to contact us for information or to confirm their "facts". Consequently, to the dismay of our base's command staff the page was rife with mistakes and omissions, and did not accurately represent our base or its history. Therefore, I have been assigned to re-write the page using documentation in air base, Canadian Department of National Defence and Library & Archives of Canada archives, as well as recognized, reliable publications such as "Ocean Bridge", by Dr. Carl Christie, a 1995 University of Toronto Press book about the history of RAF Ferry Command. Due to how poorly the page was crafted before our intervention, we now review each outside amendment since the majority of contributors still are not from/have never served at our base. Although you fall in this category, your remarks were pragmatic, and, thus, were appreciated.

Once we have completed the writing portion of the page, new graphics and photos shall be added from the various archives listed above.

Regarding myself, I have served in the Canadian Forces since 1975, including 25 years as a NORAD officer, of which 22 years has been at Canadian Forces Base North Bay. In 1998 I was selected by the Department of National Defence as a Wing Heritage Officer, one of a dozen air force members across Canada handpicked to represent the air force's history and heritage to the public and media. My specialty, of course, is the history and heritage of the air force in North Bay, Ontario, Canada.

If you wish to contact me, or our base, for any reason, please send an e-mail to Raymond.Newman@forces.gc.ca

Best wishes.

R.D. Newman Captain 22WHERO (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 22WHERO (talk)

Hi. Your efforts are appreciated. Perhaps you could update the CIM-10 Bomarc article, with references too? Hohum (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WW2InfoBox[edit]

I've reverted your edit which deleted the USSR from the list of Axis co-belligerents in WWII. You made your edit with the comment "non aggression isn't co-belligerence," which would be perfectly correct if the USSR hadn't invaded Poland (and a few other countries), in coordination with Germany. But invading Poland was not "non-aggression."

We can discuss whether the USSR should be listed as an Axis power or merely an Axis co-belligerent, but it is not reasonable to ignore the fact that the USSR and Germany jointly invaded, subjugated & occupied a very major Allied power, Poland. So please do not delete the USSR from the right-hand (Axis) column w/o Talk page consensus.

Thanks for listening! NCdave (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to have consensus to make the change in the first place. (Hohum @) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference consolidation[edit]

Hey there Hohum, I noticed you consolidated the citation references for the article Grigory Butakov. I am just asking if you could do the same thing for the article Nathaniel M. Allen? If it is not too much trouble. I simply do not know how to do it. Vought109 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. (Hohum @) 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


7.92 x 57mm Mauser‎[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to improve/restore the 7.92 x 57mm Mauser ‎/ 8x57mm IS article, since the quality of this article is not what it could be due to lack of discussion, civility and refusal by some editors to do some basic research after suggesting on their talk page to evaluate what they wrote. Of course not every EN editor can read German or has access to C.I.P., but I take information from European sources regarding a German cartridge that currently have legal status in Germany and the UK serious. The only 7.92 mm rimless cartridge according to C.I.P. is the 7.92 x 33 Kurz. The C.I.P. rulings contain 10 rimless 8 mm cartridges and 13 rimmed 8 mm cartridges. The 8 mm bore was and is a common caliber In German speaking countries and can be compared to the .30 in bore. I do not like editing wars, so I can live with the tag that this article has multiple issues.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My edits were copyedit & table format improvements. I'm leaving the 7.92 versus 8 argument to people with the relevant sources - although I had removed some duplicated references from that or related articles. (Hohum @) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
-My most recent revert may have altered someone's 7.92 vs 8 edits - that was unintentional, but I was trying to get back to a version where my other improvements still existed. (Hohum @) 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow up to BOMARC conversation[edit]

Hello, Hohum. Regarding our conversation about whether BOMARC or Bomarc is correct, we decided in fairness to you to query the final authority about the missile, the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Our air force base liaised frequently with the museum when the City of North Bay, Ontario, had a BOMARC on a pedestal (removed two years ago) through the base's Wing Heritage Office. The museum owned the pedestal missile, and representatives visited periodically to conduct inspections (particularly since part of the missile was radioactive). An e-mail was received here on 21 December 2011 from Mr. Brett Stolle, CA, Manuscript Curator, Research Division/MUA, of the museum. He states that while there is no "official" version (his quotation marks), "Our considered opinion is that the best and most proper form would be BOMARC, as this in effect after all an acronym. Once the missile is returned to exhibit we use BOMARC to reflect the proper name."(our quotation marks; his remarks are presented here exactly as in the e-mail)

As for adjusting the BOMARC Wikipedia page, our priority at the moment is our own page. Once this is completed, then we shall look to others.

Best wishes. 22WHERO (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

AK-47 vs M16[edit]

The reason the “Unknowns” are tinted red in the “Rifle evaluation study” section is because traditionally unknowns are considered negatives…for example "Here be dragons" on old maps, or if a woman does not know who’s the daddy. I hope that you understand my reasoning and I request that you self-revert your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept your reasoning. Not knowing how good or bad something is is neither a positive or negative. If you wish you discuss this further, please do so on the talk page of the article. (Hohum @) 03:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Yon[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Yon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Germany-article name discussion redux[edit]

Hi: Just to let you know, I quoted you in the current discussion here: [16] 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)

Baza[edit]

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)

  • 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)
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)

Am I a Greasy Pig?[edit]

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)

(Hohum @) 16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Landing Craft Mechanised Mk 1[edit]

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed![edit]

The pigs[edit]

Liked the quotes on your user page big time :) -- Nazar (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Thank you. If you notice other images that need work, please tell me. (Hohum @) 20:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Me again...[edit]

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)

Thanks, that looks much better! Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I tried improving the sky, but it's tricky not to lose the rigging. (Hohum @) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties, by Month[edit]

Hi Hohum. I see that you have edited the WW2 casualties page. I am looking for a researcher who will help out with a data visualization project I am doing. Information is available on my talk page - see Woogie10's comments. Please let me know if you are interested. Neilhalloran (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Romani children[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

Pensacola 1814[edit]

Hello Hohum, Thanks for having taken the time to review the article, which I see you performed 2 hours ago. Based upon similar feedback on the Talk:Fort Bowyer article, I've tidied up the citations. Would you be able to pass on any hints as to what else is required in order to get to B class for the referencing and citation requirement. My achilles heel up to now is that I have been concentrating on citations within the paras, but have been allowing paragraph endings to remain unsourced. I'll be putting this on the Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814) page. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Adwa changes[edit]

Thank you so much for your edits. Thanks to you this article is starting to look amazing. It is part of my effort to restart the Ethiopia WikiProject. I know you are busy on other projects but consider joining me even if its on an advisory role (despite my best efforts I can not get the old members involved). I am working on a new main page for the project. But after seeing the Military History Project, I have decided to start over and model it after that project. I could use any criticism (once I post it) or advise you could share. What is the etiquette for reviving a dead project? Can I just jump in and archive everything and start over?

As you have an interest in military history, here are some articles you might consider starting:

አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no source material or background knowledge of the battle, Ethiopia, or Italian language skills for translation - so I'm pretty much limited to copy editing, and style changes. Good luck with your efforts though. (Hohum @) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun safety[edit]

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)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten - 2012[edit]

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

Jingoism[edit]

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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)

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)
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)
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)

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

  • 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)

Battle of Torrence's Tavern Image[edit]

Thank you so much for fixing tht imager Banastre Tarleton. I have been trying to do that all day. What exactly was wrong with it previously that it would only float at the top or very bottom?

Also, I'm in the middle of having my article, Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) reviewed for A-class status. If you're interested I'd love your opinion, as you're an editor whose work I certainly appreciate. Cdtew (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The multiple infoboxes on the right interfered with the floating. Putting the "Stack" template around them fixed this. (Hohum @) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ratte and Monster edits[edit]

{{subst:Homuh}} Comm1098 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not change my Edits, i worked hard on them and the images are 100% Free, so please dont change them.

Thanks, Comm1098

There is no proof of permission for the images, and the text additions were not sourced, and barely coherent. (Hohum @) 17:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

{{subst:Hohum}} Comm1098 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked nicely do not change my edit , it is 100% free im asking you nicely once more do NOT CHANGE IT.

Thank you, Comm1098

You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, and over on commons you need to understand they need proof of permission of use of the copyrighted images you uploaded. If you keep adding unreferenced text to wikipedia, it will keep getting removed, which is policy. (Hohum @) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancre Heights[edit]

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)

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

Hi there![edit]

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 smile  dain- talk   05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanity Check[edit]

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)

I think so. (Hohum @) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
I don't mind being quoted as long as the context is clear. (Hohum @) 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindenburg Line[edit]

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)

Extended syntax: WP:EIS. (Hohum @) 00:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a play later.Keith-264 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
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)

Camouflage FAC[edit]

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)

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

Chain Home[edit]

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)

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)

Wholesale massacre at the Centurion article[edit]

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)
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)
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)
Fair enough. (Hohum @) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Battle of Wilsons Creek.png[edit]

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)

I tracked down the original source and updated it. (Hohum @)
Much appreciated. Many thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War Pakistan Aid[edit]

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)

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

Image tagging for File:Brandon Lee.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Lee.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Brandon Lee.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Lee.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. (Hohum @) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat[edit]

Thank you for your help.Johnvr4 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

For your perusal.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renault_FT&diff=prev&oldid=551115703

Hengistmate (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't take administrative action - If he continues to be abusive I suggest consulting WP:NPA. (Hohum @) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust article[edit]

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)

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

Ginchy[edit]

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)

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

Iraq War edit conflict[edit]

I have been willing to discuss all issues, but the user involved simply mass-reverts my edits without discussion. Locking the to the version that mass-deletes huge contributions of mine is extraordinarily unfair. CJK (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Qatar Leopard 2 delivery[edit]

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)

Apologies, I have self reverted. Missed that it was a finalised deal rather than a "maybe". (Hohum @) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. America789 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment[edit]

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)

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)
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)

M4 Sherman[edit]

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

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)

Deletion of apparently copyright image Sept 12, 2013[edit]

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)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Photography[edit]

Hello Hohum,

What exactly is the reason for removing the external link? What makes the other external links okay?

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Reworked Rene Auberjonois image[edit]

Thank you, that's very much appreciated. I'm considering sending it to FPC, but I think people there will find the lighting to be a little too arty. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

why did you rv all of my edits?[edit]

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)

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)

Semihemidemi[edit]

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

February 2014[edit]

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)

Reference Errors on 1 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

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)

Sure. (Hohum @) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
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)

Round In Fifty[edit]

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

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

The 2S25[edit]

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)