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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but, meh, whatever.

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

Thankyou! (I think).

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landing Craft Mechanised Mk 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is because it is one of the following:

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

It was commercially published prior to 1962; or

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

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

More information.

See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

It's a deal.

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

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

• 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the excerpt from p. 22:

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

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

Additionally, p. 24:

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

google books link

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

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

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

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]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

googled later, found these

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

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

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

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

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

thats the best i can do. -thanx again

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 22 December 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment about 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]

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

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

thanks--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 08:03, 30 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]

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

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

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

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

Here are the sources in context:

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

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

References

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi:

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

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

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

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

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.

Per WP:MILMOS:

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

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

• Numerical quantities or statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably a caching issue. Try C:Help:Purge (Hohum ^@) 17:54, 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]

I think you've recovered it already.

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

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

Howzit, Hohum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

Hi, I don't know what's happened, but our conversation is strangely vanished, or at least I can no longer see it. Do you mind if I post it again? You know, it's a matter of responsability. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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... Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. (Hohum ^@) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Hohum removed was poorly written and not WP:RS cited. When not RS cited it can be challenged and removed. Kierzek (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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? Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. (Hohum ^@) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]