—[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 19:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
—[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 19:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
== Boves massacre ==
Thanks for undoing all my work about the article of the "Boves massacre", now the article is much better than what I did... you restored all the mistakes, deleted the picture and all the informations I added. Really well done... [[User:Charlie Foxtrot66|Charlie Foxtrot66]] ([[User talk:Charlie Foxtrot66|talk]]) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
:You need to (most importantly) reference your additions properly (page numbers for sources are required), and the text was partly incoherent. Also, removing references from what was already in the article is not acceptable. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
::What Hohum removed was poorly written and not [[WP:RS]] cited. When not RS cited it can be challenged and removed. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
If there was something wrong, you could have told me in order to correct it, or correct it yourself if you think you can do better than me, is not necessary to delete everything...... now the article is even more poorly written, with more mistake and it will stay like that until you will improve it yourself, because I'm not gonna make again this work.
Cancelling the other people work is much easier than doing it better, isn't it? [[User:Charlie Foxtrot66|Charlie Foxtrot66]] ([[User talk:Charlie Foxtrot66|talk]]) 15:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
:I made the issues clear in the edit note. Additionally, you are expected to know how to edit wikipedia for yourself - I can see you have been provided helpful links on your talk page already. I suggest you read them. I don't have the reference you said you were using, so I can hardly correct what you say is in it. It is up to YOU (per [[WP:BURDEN]]) to make your contributions useful and to comply with wikipedia policies. Take responsibility for your own actions. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, I take my responsability and you take yours.... now the article is much worse than what I did, and this is your own action [[User:Charlie Foxtrot66|Charlie Foxtrot66]] ([[User talk:Charlie Foxtrot66|talk]]) 16:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
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!
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 herehere 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]
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]
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]
*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.
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]
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 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]
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]
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.
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. Cadencool21:34, 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.
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. Cadencool22:12, 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.
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. Cadencool22:26, 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.
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. Cadencool00:57, 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]
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]
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]
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 talk01:56, 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—
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 Monstertalk22:56, 8 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 Monstertalk00:36, 9 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?
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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 = talk05:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World ISBN9781591149552
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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-talk05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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@)
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]
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.
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).
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]
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]
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)
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]
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]
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
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 ...
Jentz, Tom (1993). Tiger 1 : heavy tank, 1942-1945. London: Osprey. p. 17. ISBN978-1-85532-337-7. 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.
- 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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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. ISBN978-0892542109. {{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. ISBN978-0306821547. {{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. ISBN978-0691008530. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
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.
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]
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]
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.
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:
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]
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.
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. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.15:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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?
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]
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]
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.
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]
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hohum. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Disgraced.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
