text:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
So you don't feel alarmed, I plan on expanding the article tomorrow and Friday, and hopefully making it the 9th tank article to get to featured article status. I feel relatively comfortable that I have enough sources to cover everything, so we'll see (I am currently looking for more reliable sources on its exports, including news articles - but, the catch is that they have to be reliable sources). JonCatalán(Talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Found some references from the U.S. Army from 16 December 1944 to 2 January 1945 from the U.S. Army Center of Military History. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Bulge#Casualties.2C_lets_try_again... -Signaleer (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
All non-free images have to be of low resolution by default (WP:NFCC). There's no set maximum size, per se, but once you get to the point where the digital copy is of a high enough fidelity to be used in print you can no longer use it under the condition that it does not interfere with the market value, availability and distribution rights of the original copyright. Some editors cap the maximum dimension of copyrighted photos at 300px, which is too arbitrary, I prefer to minimize the photo to a sufficient resolution to be able to clearly identify what is going on. This is a very iconic photograph so American readers have likely seen it before and international readers can identify it as the stars & stripes being raised by four soldiers on the top of a hill. There's no need to use a high resolution to identify these details. Wikipedia has stricter policies than even the Supreme Court when it comes to claiming fair use on images, so if I didn't revert, another admin surely would have. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hohum:
The PIPE Here...there's a photo, spefically the one at [1] , that shows a view of the right rear track section, that I've cropped and annotated with text with my home PC, to point out the "contact shoe" and "connector link" design of the King Tiger tank's tracks. To be certain it can be uploaded and visible at Wikipedia, I've sent an Email this morning (8/31/2009) to "Rama" (at [2] ), the photo's original creator, for permission to use my text-annotated crop of that mentioned photo he took, at Wikipedia, that will CLEARLY show the two different designs of track links used for the King Tiger's tracks.
I'm mostly going to HAVE to wait for a reply from "Rama" for permission to use a crop of his photo - THEN the text will have the photographic verification needed to back it up.
Just letting you know, that's all, that photo verification of the text is waiting for permission to be given !
Yours Sincerely,
The PIPE (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(Re: I was wondering why you removed the collection of notable quotes from Strategic bombing during World War II without any edit comments or discussion on the talk page).
Etrangere (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am quite the newbie here, so what is the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE resolution for Non-Free fair use? And where are the guidelines written?
As I pointed out on the Burnt Out Panther AusfG page, I scanned these from books from print photos that were formed with linotype microdots - these are not high resolution photos to begin with - and so the native resolution of the scanned images is not that high. The Schneider -Tiger photos are even worse resolution - I have the el cheapo paperback copies of his books and the photo reproduction quality really suck for the paperback versions.
The photos only look good because I spiffed them up with Photoshop. Did the same thing with the Tiger photos as I did for the Panther photo - I used Gaussian blur to get rid of all the linotype dots and then sharpened and contrast enhanced to make them look much sharper than they look in the book itself.
I mean, I can certainly dumb them down, but the originals were no where near at the same resolutionas that I processed the copies at. Does this violate the guidelines?
Where are the official guidelines that explain these resolution issues?
DarthRad (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've downsized the resolution of this image to a max pixel width of 800. I chose that number because a} It is a significantly lower resolution than the original photos from the book. b} It happens to be the maximum size displayed on the file page for all photos on Wikipedia c) It is the equivalent of computer screen VGA resolution, pretty much the minimum for being able to see any sort of good detail in the photos. DarthRad (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for rearranging the pictures, it looks alright. I promised to provide sources to support the devastation by carpet bombing, against the oil tank theory by Kurfürst and others. I found that there are seven already in the article: Goossens, vd Pauw, E.R. Hooton, Loe de Jong, Brongers, Amersfoort, Götzel. Do you still feel this is not enough? What do you mean by providing sources "inline"? With respect to the dispute: 1308 bombs have been dropped. An amount of which a portion was bound to ignite fuel tanks, smaller or larger, domestic or business, starting fires all over the area. Of course it wouldn't be surprising if a larger oil tank also got hit and produced a large fire, though I would like to see some evidence. To put things in perspective: I did not remove Hooton's idea of a vast destruction near the dockside through oiltanks from the article. It should however not be represented in a way that would suggest that, to quote Kurfürst: "..., which was the direct cause of the destruction, rather than the relatively small number of bombs dropped." I don't know about you, but I don't consider 1308 bombs, 97 tonnes, a small number, even relatively. --Antiphus (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. A big fire, the so called firestorm, that enlarged the already vast area of destruction farther westwards, only developed two or three days after the bombing, when the east wind got very fierce. This was not near the dockside.
I saw in your edit, the comment that I had removed the date. I don't think I did? My citation - Buckley, John (1999). Air Power in the Age of Total War. West Midlands: UCL Press. ISBN 1-85728-589-1, never included a date. I will include a page number. Thanks. Etrangere (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hohum,
Thanks for all the formatting help and critique. I know you might be tempted to jump all over the content – thanks for giving me a bit of time to fine it up.
Here is something: I know that a world of photos is not necessarily a good thing for Wikipedia, but a few really are helpful illustrations in my eye. I have an image (line drawing) from the US Navy "Allied Landing Craft" 1944. Would complement the illustration on the LCVP page.
Also these: http://www.combinedops.com/DIEPPE/Dieppe_Commandos%20rn%20lst.jpg great illustration of the troop well http://www.combinedops.com/COM_PHOTOS/CHFT%20landing%20craft6.jpg nice illustration of the general lines of the boat http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/landing/lca1.jpg This one is a lovely colour photo of LCA from Prins Baudouin?
This is a part where I can't imagine figuring it out for myself. Any techno savvy, copyright understanding help around?AmesJussellR (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hohum, thanks a lot for your assessment and link-edits in the PQ17 article! Much appreciated! reuv T 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been quietly monitoring some recent changes on the Battle of the Bulge page. An anon editor has made a few minor changes to the number of troops and tanks in the battle. I did not want to revert those changes because they may be correct , but I saw that you did. That same anon editor returned later and rechanged the information. I looked at the sources in the article and I decided to revert those changes as well, with an invitation to the anon editor to discuss on the talk page. I just wanted to let you know that I have begun a thread to that effect. Thank You.Jojhutton (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
how can 28 german divisions have 500.000, explain to me. if u dont i see this as a capitulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
u cant explain how the 28 german division can have 500.000 ( 18.000 per division )? if u can explain it do it please where is your problem to answer my simpel question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
funny is that all other figures are out the 2 articles which everyone can read in www, but because the german strenght is to low for u u pick them from this "books" . u are i little bias idiot not more.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What difference does that make? Is there any genuine reason to suspect that the information you are deleting is false? Other than the fact that people have better things to do with their valuable time than research citations for known facts for Wikipedia for free in their spare time?
Have you confirmed that there are no citations over in Swedish Wikipedia?
Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You've made some fine edits to the Yom Kippur War. Just thought you should know.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out how the Wikipedia software works (besides 'poorly'; I still get annoyed that I can't figure out how to make it automatically sign for me), so I thought I'd ask...
What did you change from "|design_date= 1928-1931" to "|design_date= 1928–1931"? As I copy paste the two here side by side, it looks as if one has an n-dash separating the dates rather than a hyphen... Or something like that. Having just recently come from the whole military history formatting page, I understand that to be the accepted form on Wikipedia, within the Military History sections, at least...
Perhaps my question is twofold: how did you do that, and why does the difference history thing on my watch list report it as adding two characters? (This could actually be a problem with my ability to understand that difference report. :P )
J.M. Archer (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I fully support the revert that you made on the Battle of Villers-Bocage article; however the changes i made were due to a comment raised by User:Tony1 on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2. Are you suggesting that his comment is invalid then? (i dont mean that to come out sarcastic or anything)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
some concerns about counter tactics. i wrote something on the discusion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Alright I've gone ahead with your suggestion and gone over to WP:RSN. Several editors concur that the use of Hammad's book as a source is allowed, and even required per WP:NPOV. Now that Hammad's book has been "rubber-stamped", what happens next? I have a gut feeling JG isn't going to accept this. At any rate, he is being very unhelpful, expecting cooperation on the article to be quick and preferably to his suiting to. As with all Arab-Israeli articles this is going to take time. He already claims to have consensus on his side, counting you as well (though, to my knowledge, your position is as yet unspecified). I have several editors approving Hammad at WP:RSN, in addition to RomaC, and Nableezy as well. Since this was your suggestion in the first place, I take it you will support the result reached reached at WP:RSN, whatever it may have been. Where exactly is JG's consensus coming from then?
Recently he changed the article once again, only to have me revert him. Now he's on my talk page threatening me with sanctions and requesting me to collaborate before changing the article's text! He changed it, and is now asking me to stop. These incoherent, unreasonable actions are not helping the article in any way. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Looks like you have your first reply. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to Homicide bomber/suicide bomber --达伟 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for that I have just put it in for DYK X5 expansion hook is DID YOU KNOW ...that in 1974 Scorpions were transported to Cyprus to protect the British Sovereign Base Areas during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus ?.
Seems catchy. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for neutral words... Blablaaa (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Sir, Thank you for helping on some article I have posted or edited. You can tell where my skills are weak. Also, the photos clean up on the gray scale. Especially the Viper photo. I tried, to clean it up before I posted it, but did not improve it very well. Again, thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for cleaning up File:SMS Bayern sinking2.jpg. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the work you did on it. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a neat trick, removing the scanning artifacts. How do you do that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
C:\Program Files\GIMP-2.0\lib\gimp\2.0\plug-ins
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)
Image - Mode
Greyscale or RGB
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, I never made it to the library—went to a Maori dancing show instead. :-) I'll get there at some point tomorrow and try it. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Colin4C and Hohum, Since you were discussing it in February, I just wanted to let you know that I've requested the move of Vergeltungswaffe to V-weapons. It should show up at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_requests Real Soon Now(tm). Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the great editing that makes the article read "so much" better. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
I have responded to your recentmost post in the atomic bombings talkpage. I would really appreciate a response, and even more so a read of the newest post I've made there (not as direct response to you, though). My interest does not lie in spreading a personal agenda or stirring up emotions. It lies in the wish of adding utterly relevant details, approved by through objective decision making. I simply fail to see how we can consider court verdicts, which are official statements of law, as simple debate. I would be interested in getting to hear your reasoning, rather than killing the whole issue with silence. That would be immensely counter productive for Wikipedia as a whole, wouldn't you agree? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hohum. Consider this a friendly warning. Please do not post false lies in your edit summaries again like you did here. That was NOT vandalism. The next time I see you making false edits again, I will report you to ANI for your distruptive edits. User:Igor Piryazev is Russian, therefore English is not his mother tongue. Please show some human compassion when interacting with all users, including him. He is trying his best and doesn't deserve to be treated poorly by you on the Battle of Kursk talk page. Also please learn to be more tolerant and do try to show some human kindness the next time around. Thank you. Caden cool 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
Sorry for not announcing my absence from Wikipedia. Anyways, on subject with the Atomic Bombings article... Was your last reply an approval of the addition of a section to the article about the court ruling? --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I reported him [3] There's no excuse for that kind of rant and there should be zero tolerance for it in any forum.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokhorovka over the last 24 hours . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Caden cool 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"The next time I see you making false edits again, I will report you to ANI for your distruptive edits.". That is a threat. Since you have accused me again since then, it appears to have been baseless bluster.
My posts have been polite and civil. There is no requirement for me hand out hugs. The sarcasm is in your mind. I haven't seen your style of assistance to Igor (cheering him on) improve his understanding of the rules even slightly either, so I'll drop your advice in the bin. I will continue to ask users who are not conforming to wiki rules, to follow them. What is disruptive to the project, is unreliable sources being used. (Hohum @) 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to you User:Igor Piryazev has quit Wikipedia. Running off new editors who want to help build an enclyopedia is not the way we work around here. I understand you were trying to enforce policy on reliable sources but you did so in a negative way. The way you hounded him with your iceberg responses (sorry but I call it as I see it WP:SPADE) was uncalled for. The poor guy is Russian and wanted to help build articles with Russian historians/Soviet sources. I tried asking you many times to show compassion but you failed to do so and in the process drove him off the project. Please change your ways at communication before you alienate more vulerable new users, especially those who's first language is not English. Caden cool 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
THanks for fixing that !!
I haven't a clue how that happened, I wondered what page I was onwhen it did it. It was trawling through the list and stopped at a page, I clicked on a few links to delink them and then suddenly it went blank and when it came back it was going through the category list again. Bloody computers - got minds of their own.
Cheers for that Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hohum [[4]] is your chance to get rid of me :D Blablaaa (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You removed this:
This was the only article that stated that this was his daughter and gave her date of birth.
It is all better now. I hope you like his music.... > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Hohum! Is there anything that can be done to this photo to clear up the ugly yellow tint? Many thanks, Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
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 life22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What did you mean by, "clarification needed" on the last sentence? I thought it was pretty clear. Victory in Germany (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow! How did you do that? That's REMARKABLY better. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No trouble. I've hogged it enough. There are some mistakes/unexplained continuity errors I need to fix, but I'll shift over until tonight to allow you to go to town on the WIKI side of things! Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections
Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy
Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hohum, Time for me to ask an important question - how would I submit the LCA article for review? As you've taken an interest in my work, I hope you don't mind my bothering you with this. At my current rate, and with the article framed as it is, it will take me another year to complete it. Should I submit it for review now anyway? I've enjoyed working on the article and am wondering whether it might be torn, politely, limb from limb for style reasons - I am not really a British English speaker and doubt I have all my "ous"s and commas outside the quote marks properly. Please let me know what you think and any advice. Thanks AmesJussellR (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Nice job. Dapi89 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants
In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
removed verbatim copyvio cut and paste from: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html
Thank You --AkkiDa 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
User Communicat has posted File:Disgraced.jpg [5]. 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.[6]. In discussion of Communicat's post of , User Petri Krohn [7] provided a link showing the picture is being used by the International Institute of Social History. [[8] 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)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome and the good adivice, I usually quote the source... I must have been very sleepy, sorry! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not put excess pictures in a gallery. Slightsmile (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)
In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for fixing refs syntax, WW2 aftermath main article. Communicat (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
User Hohum, I have installed a fresh Window XP, and hope that nothing wrong again. If anything annoying happens again, please let me know. Thanks. Arilang talk 01:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#military history POV-bias and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Communicat (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to suggest an improved caption, please feel free to do so. I'm walking away from the article for a few days after another PA. In passing by the way I was really confused by what you wanted to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
[10], [11], [12], [13] The first link is to the paper I had in mind. The problem is the wealth of material I have to hand and condensing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
[14] For info are you happy with that? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Im not sure why you sent me a 3RR warning message. I only made two reverts in 24 hours and not three on the Falklands War article.--MFIreland • Talk 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed the article Suicide attack for these reasons:
"Publically" is not a regional variation of "publicly", nor is it an acceptable variation, as you claim. "Publically" is not recognized by any of these dictionaries: Compact Oxford English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Macmillan Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, or Cambridge Dictionary of American English. "Publically" is listed in Commonly misspelled words as a misspelling of "publicly", but it is not listed as a regional or --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)national variant in WP:SPELLING. All of these indicators should tell you something.
WP:MOS says "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important." I don't see how the spelling of the word "publically" is textually important here.
I do question why an editor would change an article for the sole purpose of introducing a spelling error where none exists. "Publicly" looks right to the vast majority of encyclopedia readers and will be understood by all. How can a reader who is interested in "suicide attack" be helped by having the word "publicly" misspelled?
Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hohum I'm sorry about the references; I know it is a pain to list the full references like that, but I had not brought anything from Forster's essay onto the Einsatzgruppen page until now, so I thought best to list the full references. Personally, I would prefer just to use ibid which is so much more simpler, but rules around here discourage that, and it always easier to have the full references if you bring in new material (which always seems to happen). Actually, I would prefer it if you didn't have to reference every single sentence, but the moment you don't, there is always somebody who will delete it under the grounds it is unreferenced. Even worse, even you do properly reference something to reliable secondary source, it usually ends getting deleted because somebody will declare your source no good, which almost reflects the fact they don't like the source has to say. To say this is highly annoying is an understatement, so I probably overdo it with the referencing, so to reduce excuses for deleting my contributions. This is particularly the case when you are going against the popular grain. Most people have the idea that the Holocaust was the work of the SS, and the German Army didn't have anything to do with it. Most historians today would declare otherwise, but unfortunately the historical consensus on the subject is not the popular consensus, so it is only a matter of time before somebody deleting all of my work. I try to get better on the referencing, and thank you for bringing that to my attention. Merry Christmas!--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, is this possibly the same "Hohum" from a particular Friday Club? Tarc (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there something you disagree with?
The way I have done it in the past is to write first, and add references later. May not be how Wikipedia likes it, but thats how I do it. I find that in this process the article is THERE to be read and offers better quality read than it is now. If someone reads it and doesn't agree with what I wrote, they can a) discuss it, and b)edit it with own references.
If you don't agree with this approach, you can ether add the references yourself, or delete the added material and I will go elsewhere and write something else, and you can take over doing the anti-tank warfare article 'properly'. Ok?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello Hohum,
For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.
Thanks for your time and effort!
--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
The chrystalball policy (though poorly worded) is only meant to filter original research. The article should at least mention the pending termination of production. Marcus Qwertyus 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on removing the poorly-sourced speculation from this article. Unfortunately, it's a perennial cruft magnet! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
About this, they are the same. I subst'ed that template. I can't remember where but I had seen someone place the template and someone else subst it afterward to "reduce server load". I couldn't make up my mind which was better.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! I have seen that you have suggested a "eight line dated list" for that article. I agree that the current timeline does not have a proper vision but I have no idea what "eight line dated list" is. Can you show me a link to an article with such a list or make it yourself and substitute the timeline. I am sorry to react so lately... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Please dont spread biased and incorrect information. You also have deleted material from reliable sources and replaced it with material without source. If you write something you need to have a source. and dont delete sources.
Example 1 of incorrect information "4:3 is standard" My comment: Not true
Example 1 of bias: "One problem with this method is that it does not take into account the display aspect ratio, so that for example a 16:9 21 in (53 cm) widescreen display is far less high" My comment: First of all it is biased to claim that it is a problem. Secondly it is biased to talk about the height but not the width.
Example 2 of bias: "For many purposes the height of the display is the main parameter" My comment: This is biased as well. It is a matter of taste whether you prefer vertical or horizontal space.
/QAQUAU (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hohum, FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Hohum - I believe you blocked me for vandalising this page. Just thought I'd let you know I was removing the vandalism, as can be seen from the logs. Is there a better way to do it so I don't get blocked in the future (I tried reverting to a previous version but it said I had to edit manually)? Sorry I'm new to this editing malarkey! Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You reverted my edit on the T-62 page. However, my edit was simply reverting a change [check the article's revision history] (that itself was unsourced) by a French IP editor. My basis was that as the article says***, Israel converted 120 T-62 tanks to the Tiran-6 configuration. If they only captured 'several' tanks, then how would 120 tanks be available to convert? It is a logical assumption that they must have captured 'several hundred' to have enough to convert, as it is a sure bet that the Soviet Union did not give them to the Israelis.
In any case, I will be reverting your change based on my above explanation, however, I at least wanted to make sure that you understood my rationale for doing so.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hohum: I noticed that you accused me of editorializing when I changed: "euphemistic" to "ominous" in The Holocaust. Rarely would it be "euphemistic" to refer to a race of people in the context of a "Final solution." If the Nazis were attempting to create a euphemism, then they failed. Euphemisms are meant to be pleasant or less offensive, such as "marble palace" for "bathroom." The terms "Final solution," in the context of a race of people, are not pleasant and are supremely offensive. Also, the term "euphemistic" has a connotation of humor and should be removed from an article as profoundly significant as The Holocaust. I cannot think of a single "Final solution" of which I would ever want my race to be a part. Can you? --Isleofbelle (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hi. I am interested in this edit you made which seems to work against our guidelines on linking and flag usage. Could you show me a consensus for this non-standard approach, or else undo your edit? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No you haven't. You may believe what you like, but if you are unable to show where this strong consensus you say you believe in was agreed or decided, it is just your opinion, and it does become an apparent "no consensus" revert, which the page I showed you says we shouldn't do. Why would I want to take it to the project talk when the project MoS already clearly states that decorative flags are deprecated? What would that add? You also haven't addressed the linking issue which I asked you about. If you have not convincingly come up with any reason for the edit you made I will take it that it was a mistake on your part and I won't bother you about it again. It is disappointing that you are unable to see this. I won't bother you again here; but you may of course bring this to a central location if you wish, as I also may do. You may also continue this conversation if you can come up with any actual reason for what you did, or if you wish to acknowledge your mistake. Until then,--John (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for your kind support and cooperation. I'm not really a git (as we say in the UK), I just write in a highfalutin manner to amuse/irritate people. Having beeen exceedingly obstructive at first, Trekphiler has now joined in with all the zeal of a convert. That is nice to know. It would have saved a lot of time and irritation if he'd taken the trouble to read up on the subject a little - not least the 3 or 4 very similar sections on Wikipedia. I have only a vague idea of the intricacies of Wikipedia; my principal concern is not to learn them but to get the facts straight, largely because I keep encountering misinformation that has been copied from there. Anyway, we seem to have achieved something of a breakthrough. I had the most fearful trouble convincing some Wikipedants that George S. Patton Jr. never went anywhere near the Battle of Cambrai, let alone led the attack. But it all calmed down, and the present account resembles the actual events. Please feel free to suggest any fine-tuning on the current project.
Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Am doing my best, but a todger by the name of Dingley is trying to make life difficult. Some help here? Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Hohum.
Thank you very much for the interest you have taken in our air force base's Wikipedia page. With regards to the BOMARC, this is the correct original acronym (as derived from "Bo" "M" "A" "R" "C", from the two entities involved in the missile's development); however "Bomarc" slipped into the common lexicon, in official documentation as much as public usage, and is more often seen than the original. One example of the original: Les Earnest, currently Senior Research Scientist Emeritus at Stanford, was involved in the missile's and SAGE's development as a member of MIT; in his 1989 essay about "SAGE-BOMARC risks", he uses the original acronym "BOMARC". Ergo, in our air base's page, I am reverting to the correct acronym, with the annotation about the two forms. SAGE is another term that encountered this phenomenon, frequently written as "Sage".
This does not mean we consider your contributions irrelevant. Our Wikipedia page was begun and amended over the years by people (a) not from our air force base and (b) who never made an attempt to contact us for information or to confirm their "facts". Consequently, to the dismay of our base's command staff the page was rife with mistakes and omissions, and did not accurately represent our base or its history. Therefore, I have been assigned to re-write the page using documentation in air base, Canadian Department of National Defence and Library & Archives of Canada archives, as well as recognized, reliable publications such as "Ocean Bridge", by Dr. Carl Christie, a 1995 University of Toronto Press book about the history of RAF Ferry Command. Due to how poorly the page was crafted before our intervention, we now review each outside amendment since the majority of contributors still are not from/have never served at our base. Although you fall in this category, your remarks were pragmatic, and, thus, were appreciated.
Once we have completed the writing portion of the page, new graphics and photos shall be added from the various archives listed above.
Regarding myself, I have served in the Canadian Forces since 1975, including 25 years as a NORAD officer, of which 22 years has been at Canadian Forces Base North Bay. In 1998 I was selected by the Department of National Defence as a Wing Heritage Officer, one of a dozen air force members across Canada handpicked to represent the air force's history and heritage to the public and media. My specialty, of course, is the history and heritage of the air force in North Bay, Ontario, Canada.
If you wish to contact me, or our base, for any reason, please send an e-mail to email@example.com
Best wishes.
R.D. Newman Captain 22WHERO (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 22WHERO (talk)
I've reverted your edit which deleted the USSR from the list of Axis co-belligerents in WWII. You made your edit with the comment "non aggression isn't co-belligerence," which would be perfectly correct if the USSR hadn't invaded Poland (and a few other countries), in coordination with Germany. But invading Poland was not "non-aggression."
We can discuss whether the USSR should be listed as an Axis power or merely an Axis co-belligerent, but it is not reasonable to ignore the fact that the USSR and Germany jointly invaded, subjugated & occupied a very major Allied power, Poland. So please do not delete the USSR from the right-hand (Axis) column w/o Talk page consensus.
Thanks for listening! NCdave (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey there Hohum, I noticed you consolidated the citation references for the article Grigory Butakov. I am just asking if you could do the same thing for the article Nathaniel M. Allen? If it is not too much trouble. I simply do not know how to do it. Vought109 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts to improve/restore the 7.92 x 57mm Mauser / 8x57mm IS article, since the quality of this article is not what it could be due to lack of discussion, civility and refusal by some editors to do some basic research after suggesting on their talk page to evaluate what they wrote. Of course not every EN editor can read German or has access to C.I.P., but I take information from European sources regarding a German cartridge that currently have legal status in Germany and the UK serious. The only 7.92 mm rimless cartridge according to C.I.P. is the 7.92 x 33 Kurz. The C.I.P. rulings contain 10 rimless 8 mm cartridges and 13 rimmed 8 mm cartridges. The 8 mm bore was and is a common caliber In German speaking countries and can be compared to the .30 in bore. I do not like editing wars, so I can live with the tag that this article has multiple issues.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Hohum. Regarding our conversation about whether BOMARC or Bomarc is correct, we decided in fairness to you to query the final authority about the missile, the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Our air force base liaised frequently with the museum when the City of North Bay, Ontario, had a BOMARC on a pedestal (removed two years ago) through the base's Wing Heritage Office. The museum owned the pedestal missile, and representatives visited periodically to conduct inspections (particularly since part of the missile was radioactive). An e-mail was received here on 21 December 2011 from Mr. Brett Stolle, CA, Manuscript Curator, Research Division/MUA, of the museum. He states that while there is no "official" version (his quotation marks), "Our considered opinion is that the best and most proper form would be BOMARC, as this in effect after all an acronym. Once the missile is returned to exhibit we use BOMARC to reflect the proper name."(our quotation marks; his remarks are presented here exactly as in the e-mail)
As for adjusting the BOMARC Wikipedia page, our priority at the moment is our own page. Once this is completed, then we shall look to others.
Best wishes. 22WHERO (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason the "Unknowns" are tinted red in the "Rifle evaluation study" section is because traditionally unknowns are considered negatives…for example "Here be dragons" on old maps, or if a woman does not know who's the daddy. I hope that you understand my reasoning and I request that you self-revert your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Yon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi: Just to let you know, I quoted you in the current discussion here: [16] on the Nazi Germany talk page. This discussion as to the name to use for the article; which you may recall had came up before and I could not have stated a new reply better then you did back then. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Now I understand. Thanks for your trouble.AmesJussellR (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Liked the quotes on your user page big time :) -- Nazar (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hi Hohum. I see that you have edited the WW2 casualties page. I am looking for a researcher who will help out with a data visualization project I am doing. Information is available on my talk page - see Woogie10's comments. Please let me know if you are interested. Neilhalloran (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello Hohum, Thanks for having taken the time to review the article, which I see you performed 2 hours ago. Based upon similar feedback on the Talk:Fort Bowyer article, I've tidied up the citations. Would you be able to pass on any hints as to what else is required in order to get to B class for the referencing and citation requirement. My achilles heel up to now is that I have been concentrating on citations within the paras, but have been allowing paragraph endings to remain unsourced. I'll be putting this on the Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814) page. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your edits. Thanks to you this article is starting to look amazing. It is part of my effort to restart the Ethiopia WikiProject. I know you are busy on other projects but consider joining me even if its on an advisory role (despite my best efforts I can not get the old members involved). I am working on a new main page for the project. But after seeing the Military History Project, I have decided to start over and model it after that project. I could use any criticism (once I post it) or advise you could share. What is the etiquette for reviving a dead project? Can I just jump in and archive everything and start over?
As you have an interest in military history, here are some articles you might consider starting:
አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Christmas Greetings. Have a good holiday. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
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):
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? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing tht imager Banastre Tarleton. I have been trying to do that all day. What exactly was wrong with it previously that it would only float at the top or very bottom?
Also, I'm in the middle of having my article, Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) reviewed for A-class status. If you're interested I'd love your opinion, as you're an editor whose work I certainly appreciate. Cdtew (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:Homuh}} Comm1098 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not change my Edits, i worked hard on them and the images are 100% Free, so please dont change them.
Thanks, Comm1098
{{subst:Hohum}} Comm1098 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I asked nicely do not change my edit , it is 100% free im asking you nicely once more do NOT CHANGE IT.
Thank you, Comm1098
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Lee.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Lee.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.Johnvr4 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hengistmate (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have been willing to discuss all issues, but the user involved simply mass-reverts my edits without discussion. Locking the to the version that mass-deletes huge contributions of mine is extraordinarily unfair. CJK (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
So where on earth does the figure of 61 come from then? Italia2006 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
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]
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]
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
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
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is the reason for removing the external link? What makes the other external links okay?
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very much appreciated. I'm considering sending it to FPC, but I think people there will find the lighting to be a little too arty. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
Seamless editing, thank you very much for taking that on! Cassianto (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
I notice you never seem to use them. Please do so. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hohum, can you please help with Snake? Jaqeli (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Is there much that a photo expert can do to this photo without getting it scanned again? [17] 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)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article needs to have more objectivity, rather than a preset opinion or one's own personal preference. I already started the talk, to discuss the subject, since, there's some questionable statements. Could you please have a look? Many thanks!Anatolij M (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


text:
By David O. Heishman –
I rise in opposition to new parking restrictions near Hardy County Courthouse. New signs posted along South edge of Washington Street inform me No Parking. Violators will be towed. I contend this posting makes public access to Hardy County Courthouse much harder for no defensible reason.
Come, take a walk/ride with me. We'll begin at corners of Clay Street and Washington Street which passes the court house. Width of pavement of Washington Street in that vicinity averages about thirty-three feet roughly measured between sidewalk curbs. Those measurements hold all the way down (West) to Rosemary Lane. Utility poles along this stretch are set at the curb, or street edge of concrete walks.
We'll pause to observe those utility poles. I know from past experience, when I used to be a surveyor, that utility companies try to set poles where private rights meet public rights, that is, on the boundary of public right of ways. Step into the line of poles and look both East and West. Bottoms of those poles pretty well describe a straight line all the way from Clay to Elm Street.
Between Rosemary Lane and Elm Street there are no sidewalks on the South side of Washington. This stretch of Washington runs between several private homes plus the Hardy County Courthouse on the North side and private homes South side. Those new No Parking signs I mentioned are set pretty well in line with the utility poles along properties of last three homeowners before corner of Elm Street.
Distances along this stretch of Washington measured between sidewalk curbs on North side and utility poles South side average approximately thirty-three feet, roughly same as widths measured between Clay and Rosemary.
Between Elm Street and Main Street a surprise. Widths of pavement ran closer to thirty one feet, two feet narrower than width's to East. This stretch, heavily used, with businesses both sides, supports two way traffic plus limited parking both sides.
[ Register ] to subscribe to the Online Edition.
Login & Purchase

subset: commoncrawl


text:
December 22, 2014
For the third straight season, it was Lincoln Southeast coming out victorious against the Lincoln Southwest Silver Hawks, 17-12 at Seacrest Field — and it was the arm of Najee Jackson intercepting a Tay Bender pass that led to the win for the Knights.
More than 8,500 fans took in the contest that saw a new quarterback leading the Knights, as Najee Jackson took over the reins from Derrius Vick, who is now at Ohio University.
Lincoln Southeast (1-0) took a 10-6 lead into the halftime break, and then added another touchdown in the third quarter when Jackson launched a 79-yard pass to Desmond Robinson giving the Knights a 17-6 lead. Lincoln Southwest added a touchdown, but the Knights offense was too much for Lincoln Southwest to contain.
LSE running back Devin Washington ran the ball 27 times for 114 yards. Najee Jackson finished the game with two touchdown passes and 120 yards.
LSW quarterback and Kansas State recruit Tay Bender finished the game with 168 yards through the air and three interceptions. Jake Jordan ran the ball 20 times and 104 yards for the Silver Hawks.
LSE travels to face Papillion-LaVista South next Friday, while Lincoln Southwest hosts Omaha Westside at Seacrest Field.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
About Me
Roy Scranton
- Roy Scranton's stories, essays, and reviews have been published in Rolling Stone, Boston Review, the New York Times, Contemporary Literature, The Appendix, LIT, Theory & Event, and elsewhere. He is one of the editors of Fire and Forget: Short Stories from the Long War (Da Capo, 2013). His book Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene is forthcoming from City Lights in 2015.
08 September 2011
Thoughts on the Last Ten Years
In the New York Times: "The Only America They've Ever Known."
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
By Mike Woitalla
Watch the world's best soccer players, like Lionel Messi or Marta, and you'll be amazed at how they control and stroke the ball while moving swiftly, feinting with their body, improvising ways to elude defenders game after game — a combination of high skill and creativity.
We'd see them lose the ball lots and lots while trying out moves. But they had the luxury of playing without adults around shouting at them to pass or moaning when their moves didn't work. While mastering their brilliant dribbling skills, they had to fail thousands of times — yet never hesitating to try and try again.
When James Joyce said, "Mistakes are the portals of discovery," he was talking about life in general. In sports, top coaches recognize that the fear of failure hinders athletes from excelling. "If you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing anything," said basketball legend John Wooden.
On today's youth soccer fields in America, parents watch their children closely, bringing with them that innate and powerful desire to see their children succeed. But we must not allow that well-intentioned ambition to blind us to the fact that for children to improve and enjoy the game, they must be afforded the freedom to explore it on their own terms.
"We all know that in the learning process, missteps or mistakes are the beginning foundation of building the stepping stones of developing," says Dave Chesler, U.S. Soccer Director of Coaching Education.
Upon becoming U.S. Soccer's Youth Technical Director, former U.S. World Cup captain Claudio Reyna traveled the world observing coaches at the clubs with the most successful youth programs.
"The coaches were guiding the training," he says. "They were not controlling. They weren't on top of the kids. They were not stopping the play for every mistake.
"When you first start coaching young players, you see so many things, because, yes, they make mistakes, and if you see a lot of mistakes, you want to correct a lot of mistakes. But these coaches were really letting the kids learn the game."
A big challenge for American youth coaches who are guiding their players in an age-appropriate way — AYSO coaches are trained and certified for their teams' age groups — is that parents may misinterpret their lack of interference. They may expect more instruction when in fact the coaches have correctly created an environment for a natural learning of the game. Parents who understand that kindergarteners aren't taught trigonometry or forced to read Shakespeare may not have enough familiarity with soccer to gauge at what aptitude a player or team can be expected to play at a particular age group. They may also refer to the other sports that are unlike soccer.
"All of the American sports are coach-centric," says Scott Gimple, AYSO's Director of Development. "Te coaches call the plays. Te coaches call the defense. They send in the signal in all those sports. Soccer's not that way.
"The other thing is that soccer is such a fluid game. It's a game of mistakes. People are making decisions all the time, but it's the best decision they can make in that split second. As parents, we want to control so we're yelling from the sidelines like we would if we were watching baseball: 'Trow it to first! … Trow it to second!' … Giving them directions."
That results in players not getting the chance to figure out how to make their own decisions, losing out on an opportunity to be creative and problem solve on their own.
"I was refereeing a U-12 girls' game and there was corner kick," Gimple says. "Te girl stopped and turned to her dad and said, 'Dad, where do I go?'"
Scott Snyder, AYSO's Player Development Technical Advisor, says parents and coaches need to restrain themselves.
"We step in too quickly — trying to correct before the child even has chance to learn on his own," Snyder says. "I use the analogy of when I'm driving in an unfamiliar city. I'm getting lost and driving all over. Eventually I get to where I was aiming for and by that time I know the city very well!"
Besides the fact that players are more likely to master the game if they're not over-coached at the early stages of their development — soccer is their playtime, not a time to fear parental disappointment.
"I remember seeing a little girl make a mistake and start crying," Gimple says. "Nobody necessarily yelled at her. But because she made the mistake she felt like she failed. So something was ingrained in her that taking that risk and making a mistake was something to cry about.
"There's got to be a cultural change from parents hovering over the kids and trying to prevent them from making mistakes, wanting to do what they think is best for them by giving them instructions, pointing out obvious solutions that they can see, to help their kids be successful … What we want them to do is sit back and let their kids try something different and not necessarily succeed, and then try it again, and keep trying again until they are successful and have figured it out.
"It's like giving a child a puzzle and telling them where to put the pieces because you don't want them to make mistakes. When really what children do by trying different pieces of the puzzle, they learn how to put together a puzzle."
"Parents should allow them to do that when they play a sport."
(Mike Woitalla, the executive editor of Soccer America, played AYSO soccer in Hawaii.)]]>
By Mike Woitalla (from Soccer America's Youth Soccer Insider)]]> I've reffed five games in two weeks, earning enough money to pay for that device on my wrist that counts my steps and reveals how much exercise I'm getting.
Soccer America on Twitter: Follow Soccer America | Mike Woitalla
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the USA hosting the 1994 World Cup – a good time to check in with Tony Meola, who started every game in goal for the USA as it reached the second round of a World Cup for the first time since 1930. Meola, who also helped the USA end its 40-year World Cup drought by qualifying for the Italia '90, is heavily involved in youth soccer.
Interview by Mike Woitalla (from Soccer America's Youth Soccer Insider)]]> Last month, the U.S. Soccer Federation named Tab Ramos its Youth Technical Director, replacing Claudio Reyna, who left for MLS expansion club New York City FC in May. Ramos, also an assistant to Jurgen Klinsmann with the full national team, will continue as U-20 men's national team head coach. We spoke to Ramos, who in December was selected to the USA's All-Time National Team Best XI, about his expanded role with the Federation.
I think a player who comes to the Development Academy has a great advantage in terms of moving on to the national team because he's already familiar with working under a specific practice plan, a specific periodization within his team. Working basically the same way he'd be working with the national team or a professional team.
I don't want to say that every single academy in the country is doing a perfect job. And I also don't want to say that outside the Academy there aren't coaches who aren't perfectly capable of running their teams. Or running their teams just like an Academy team would be run.
But for the most part, when you look at numbers in general, the Development Academy is a great place to be. And the best place to be. And we do encourage all the players nationwide to be in an Academy club.
That's not to say there aren't some clubs who are also doing a great job and who we would want to consider down the road for being in the Academy.
In Part 2 of our interview, Ramos discusses his work with Jurgen Klinsmann, the high school vs. club controversy, young Americans going abroad, and the 2013 performances of the U.S. U-17 team.
Interview by Mike Woitalla (from Soccer America's Youth Soccer Insider)]]> SOCCER AMERICA: How different is today's youth soccer scene from when you were growing up in Northern California.
Interview by Mike Woitalla (from Soccer America's Youth Soccer Insider)]]> The NorCal Premier League, with nearly 200 Northern California clubs, covers an area that's larger than England and has one of the world's most ethnically and economically diverse populations. NorCal clubs range from those with million dollar budgets to ones that depend solely on volunteer staff.
A few years ago I arrived at soccer practice in a bad mood for reasons I don't recall. The giggly girls hardly hit a decent pass during the warm-up rondos and I started barking.]]> That didn't work so I figured, OK, let them goof around for a couple minutes while I calm down and set up stuff. I looked around the four-field park at which about 10 teams were practicing. About 40 yards away I noticed Coach T with his U-10s boys, and something struck me: He's really enjoying himself -- and the boys looked sharp and like they were having fun during their exercise.
Coaching young players to increase their chances of excelling at the higher levels can often mean losing games. So how can coaches convince parents not to confuse scorelines with player development progress? Here are a couple of methods that can help coaches show parents how to look for improvement without focusing on wins and losses:]]> A "Parent Pregame" is how U.S. Soccer Director of Coaching Education Dave Chesler addressed the issue during his long career of youth coaching.
"The yells and insults from the sideline from the parents make kids more violent."
-- Utah referee Pedro Lopez, the brother-in-law of 46-year-old referee Ricardo Portillo, who died last week after being punched by a 17-year-old goalkeeper.
By Mike Woitalla (from Soccer America's Youth Soccer Insider)
The New York Red Bulls, which last year had more than 20 players called up to a U.S. youth national team, were rated Soccer America's top 2012 boys youth club -- the first time an MLS club claimed No. 1 since the rankings' inception 10 years ago. In Part 1 of our interview with the Red Bulls' Director of Youth Programs Bob Montgomery we spoke about the club's quest to produce pro players, the U.S. Soccer Development Academy, and the impact of pro teams on the youth soccer landscape.
One of the more enjoyable parts of interviewing pros is hearing anecdotes from their youth soccer days. Here are some from this season's MLS stars in the Youth Soccer Insider's latest edition of "When They Were Children."]]> DARLINGTON NAGBE (Portland Timbers)
Play in the U.S. Soccer Development Academy's new U-13/14 age group -- with about a 100 teams -- begins this fall and futsal will be part the schedule. U.S. Soccer has also started hosting U-14 futsal events, including a 32-team tournament at the Home Depot Center in late April. We speak with Keith Tozer, U.S. national futsal team coach since 1996, on futsal's value to the development of young players.]]> SOCCER AMERICA: Why is U.S. Soccer advocating futsal for young players?
In Part 2 of our interview with Tim Holt, the USL president addresses some of the key issues facing American youth soccer. Although best known for its expansive network of pro, semipro and amateur adults leagues, USL has had a major impact on the youth game, having launched the Super Y-League in 1999. USL also operates an Olympic Development Program, a U-20 Super Y-League, and its Premier Development League (PDL) provides a bridge to pro soccer for young players.]]> SOCCER AMERICA: Is there anything that USL does to help alleviate the huge pay-to-play problem in American youth soccer?
United Soccer Leagues (USL), best known for its expansive network of pro, semipro and amateur adult leagues, has also had a significant impact on the youth game, having launched the Super Y-League in 1999. USL also operates an Olympic Development Program, a U-20 league, and its Premier Development League (PDL) provides a bridge to pro soccer for young players. We spoke to USL President Tim Holt about USL's youth soccer ventures past, present and future.]]> SOCCER AMERICA: How would you best describe the impact that USL has had on youth soccer in the USA?


text:
Popular Lyrics
Billboard Hot 100
Upcoming Lyrics
Recently Added
Top Lyrics of 2011
Top Lyrics of 2010
Top Lyrics of 2009
More »
Popular Artists
Artists A-Z
Popular Albums
Upcoming Albums
Katy Perry
Lady Gaga
Lil Wayne
Hip Hop/Rap
All Genres »
All News
Daily Roundup
Album Reviews
Song Reviews
Sign InRegister
Artist: Camera Obscura
Album: Underachievers Please Try Harder
Genre: Pop
A sisters social agony
You bruise like a cherry my darling girl
Words can mean nothing to some in this world
I want you to know I thought about you last night
I cried
Play indie rock if that's what you want
Quote Mike Leigh films it will turn them all on
I heard you were going on a first date
That's great
Don't apologise
Try your best not to disguise
To get misty eyed at times is fine
Sometimes it feels like you're the only one
A freckle appeared on your lip from the sun
Those kids that you run with, they put you down
Make no sound
Writer(s): Tracyanne Campbell
Copyright: Universal Music Publishing Mgb Ltd.
Lyrics powered by www.musiXmatch.com
Cannot annotate a non-flat selection. Make sure your selection
starts and ends within the same node.
An annotation cannot contain another annotation.


text:
The following guidelines for lab submissions were introduced by Robert Soule during the 2006-07 fall semester and have been modified since. Please be sure to follow these guidelines when submitting your labs. They are required to receive full credit on the labs. If you have any questions, please send an email to the class mailing list, and I will respond.
You must submit be one single file, either a .zip file or a gzip'ed .tar file. (Other archive formats might be acceptable, but these two are recommended). You must upload this one single file to NYU Classes.
The zip or tar file must expand to a directory that contains your lab. That is to say, put all your source files and the README into a directory, and zip/tar the directory. Do not zip/tar the individual files directly.
The directory must be named
For example, if I were
submitting lab 1, I would put my solution into a directory named
The directory must contain a plain text file named "README" in which you explain how to compile and run your program. A readme file consists of the following:
As mentioned, the README must be a plain text file, not an MS Word document, or some other binary format.
I will be compiling and running your lab on an nyu machine using the commands you specify in the README file. These commands are part of your lab assignment and must be correct.
If you have a Makefile or an Ant build.xml, include that with your submission in your directory as well.
Name the source code files for your handin using the file extension appropriate for the language used. For example, a c source code file would be named myfile.c, a c++ file would be named myfile.cpp, and a java file would be named myfile.java.
In the example below lines beginning with a * are what you type
(without the *, and after substituting appropriate material for the
parts inside <>).
Lines beginning with a + have the substitutions I would make for lab1.
Lines beginning with a - are actions you would perform.
* mkdir lab<number>-<lastname>-<firstname> + mkdir lab1-soule-robert - put all of your source files into this directory - put a README file explaining how to compile and run your program - into this directory - cd to the parent of this directory - tar or zip the directory (use "gtar" in Solaris) * zip -r lab<number>-<lastname>-<firstname>.zip lab<number>-<lastname>-<firstname> + zip -r lab1-soule-robert.zip lab1-soule-robert * tar -zcvf lab<number>-<lastname>-<firstname>.tar.gz lab<number>-<lastname>-<firstname> + tar -zcvf lab1-soule-robert.tar.gz lab1-soule-robertAllan Gottlieb