Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Sejong the Great without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ph, your edit comment is mistaken. My edit you were referring to was reverting someone else's POV edits, to your revision. I'm with you on the Han map issue. -Zanhe (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's my fault. Sorry.--Ph (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ph and 219.111.109.116

Perhaps could you, both of you, stop of simply reverting what the other has said and engage into a discussion using the talk page of List of monarchs of Korea ? Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with using the talk page first. Thanks.--Ph (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Linyuguan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaoyang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Collision787 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.187 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greenhorn38 is clearly Sockpuppet of User:Collision787. I think so. But I don't know anything about the creating new Sockpuppet investigation. Please, ask a favor of somebody who know that. Sorry.--Ph (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konghanzheng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhang Yuning. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ph. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of science and technology in Korea into Korea. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the diction of a single-purpose account, there is evidence to indicate you for engaging in sockpuppetry at Joseon. Stop edit warring and stop using other accounts or you will be blocked. Use the talk page to build consensus in a civil manner. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Nowadays, I've never been approached Wikipedia frequently. Please check back for accurate information.--Kor Ph (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said in edit summaries:

• "Sorry, but if you mentioned about the tributary relations about that, it need to record in articles of almost all former east asian countries. That's a grossly inefficient, I think."[1]
• "already finished matter. See former talk pages"[2]

Then an IP made the same edit with the edit summary:

• "It's finished matter. Please check former talk pages."[3]

And finally a new user, who had only made this exact same edit as of my original warning, said:

• "Until same description is added to all applicable country like Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, ETC. It is bias and inconsistent to only add to the Joseon."[4]
• "How does important to Korean Empire overshadow a 500 year old country? That is being bias toward one small time period versus the whole (500 years). Also forcing bias toward imperialism and start of Western exposure to Korea as if that defines Korea."[5]
• "Its missing from Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, ETC. More articles don't have it than have it."[6]

Based on word choice, grammar, and punctuation, it looks very much like you logged out and created a new account. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 06:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kor Ph. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kor Ph. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sarim. Since you had some involvement with the Sarim redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You called for discussion Talk:Balhae#The_preamble_has_been_brought_to_neutralityKaustritten (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

안녕하세요ㅎㅎ민초탐정 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Pyongyang into Pyongyang Castle. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Please don't add different transliteration or extra words to a direct quotation which are not in the actual source. Thank you.

As we know in relation to the origin of the Bohai people, when Gouli [Koguryo] was not yet destroyed, they [the Bohai people] were the useless tribe of Mohe, [and] many tribes were alike; its name was that of the small barbarian nation Sumo, and in the past [this tribe], being in competition with Gouli, moved to the inner area [China]

— Choe Chiwon

([7] Kim, Alexander. "The Historiography of Bohai in Russia." The Historian (SUMMER 2011), vol. 73 no. 2: 284-299, p. 292-293)

Qiushufang (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It'll keep the original quotation. I agree. --Kor Ph (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. though not compulsory, you are encouraged to make use of edit summary to describe the changes and/or why the changes are being made.
2. if you are not able to move the article to the preferred article title due to technical limitations, make a request at WP:RM/TR and an admin or fellow editor with pagemover right will determine if it warrants further discussion before swapping the page around. the copy-paste move that you did ended up with the article(s) havng disjointed edit history.
3. i have reverted the changes you have made, and appreciate that you make the request to WP:RM/TR. Though I have a pagemover right, I have not researched into which version of the romanisation of the Korean name is the preferred one, especially if it is a historical person. – robertsky (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation. I wasn't used to the technical part.--Kor Ph (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been imitating this with previous cases, is this correct? WP:RM/TR --Kor Ph (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap. Looks right. – robertsky (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your revamp of Template:Korea topics works out rather disastrous. It created 9 links to disambiguation pages at are repeated in nearly 600 articles. If you revamp it again, make sure there are no links to disambiguation pages left. The following links to disambiguation pages were in the template:

• Administrative divisions of Korea
• Economy of Korea
• Foreign relations of Korea
• Government of Korea
• Military of Korea
• National symbols of Korea
• Outline of Korea
• Politics of Korea
• Transport in Korea

Good luck. The Banner talk 11:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you checked it properly. 4 of 9 links to disambiguation pages you point are correct, but you are referring to the 5 contents that I didn't even mentioned:

• Administrative divisions of Korea ?
• Government of Korea ?
• Military of Korea ?
• National symbols of Korea ?
• Transport in Korea ?

It will be partially revert through only on valid points. If you look closely, almost contents of the previous version are applied to the new style without being deleted. To prevent 3RR, I'll fill out the new version here and review and revert it again:

I hope you don't do disastrous reverting without any acceptable explanation again. Thank you for pointing it out.--Kor Ph (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this Maintenance page. But when the new update (tonight/tomorrow morning) will show the same tragedy, I will revert. Adding 585 * 9 links to disambiguation pages is unacceptable. The Banner talk 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beside that: the template "Country topics" is designed to serve one country, no two. So a split of the template in North Korea and South Korea will also work but the present choice is wrong and disastrous. The Banner talk 14:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert without closely checking with using little bit rudeness words such as "tragedy" or "disastrous", I will revert too. However, splitting the template is a little in favor.--Kor Ph (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the example of the Chinese templates, including China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, it looks like splitting the templates are better. This temp seems better to deal only with the Traditional Korea before the division in 1948.--Kor Ph (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it does not show up in the maintenance list, it is good enough for me. Thanks for understanding what the actual problem is. The Banner talk 15:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Your recent editing history at Silla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qiushufang (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make a logical rebuttal, and you're trying to stop my argument. It's great.--Kor Ph (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know that is not the case. You gave a nonsensical reason at Balhae to change the naming convention listing Bohai under the Hanja while Balhae was put under Hangul. This is a blatant distortion of history and symptomatic of modern nationalist historiography. The "Chinese" Hanja would have been read the same as the Hangul as well and it was the way it was written throughout the vast majority of Korean dynasties in their documents. That you gave a spurious reason in the edit summary such as followed the precedents of the Frankish Empire documents belies your insincerity. The link Frankish Empire takes you to an article templated with lack of citations so I do not understand why you would use it as a template, especially on a historical topic completely unrelated to the Frankish Empire, nor do your changes follow the Frankish Empire page's template which lists both Latin names as well as their corresponding languages. This was what I did here and you reverted. There is also no reason to list separate native names in romanized form as they were both in the common name to begin with, nor are they different names, but different readings, which is different from the case at Frankish Empire. Both the Hanja and Hangul versions are read the same in Korean. You also opportunistically took out the naming convention Bohai, which has been established in the naming section as an equally valid name for the polity, while making your changes. Your copy paste responses justifying the prioritization of Hangul as the "native" name of these polities because they are "Korean" history is exactly what a nationalist POVPUSH looks like because it distorts history to suit the history of a modern nation. They are also just false. You claim that their relationship with Chinese characters, in this case Hanja, did not exist but this is obviously inaccurate for Silla considering that one of the listed languages is Classical Chinese. The only writing system for Balhae is also Classical Chinese. At Goguryeo, there is even an image of a Goguryeo stele in Classical Chinese characters while you claimed that "there were no characters in that era. When called out, you merely reverted to opining about the definition of nationalism and how such and such should be this way because it is Korean history: [8]. Your editing behavior and justification is to throw out nonsensical examples like a completely unrelated historical article, appeal to nationalism, and avoidance. Qiushufang (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Please make sure to use sources when you edit... I've now seen many of your pages where they're incredibly long and detailed, but not a single source is used. There's nothing stopping anyone from deleting all of your unsourced work. I may even do so in future. toobigtokale (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

안하고 있는지 한참인데 뭔 개소리야 211.198.82.131 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

그래도 하루안에 답했네 toobigtokale (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945