Greetings! I was going to leave a message at the HMD talk page, but as I see that you're still editing the article, maybe you'd like to have first shot, so to speak, at it. There are half a dozen mentions of "off-bore" and my knowledge of the matter doesn't allow me to decide which of the following, or both, would better fit each use, depending on the case:

• Boresight (firearm)
• Gun harmonisation

On the off-chance that you're interested and can solve my dilemma, great. If not, no problem. I can take it on the talk page. It's not really a pressing matter. Either way, thanks. --Technopat (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Technopat. Thank you for your message. Now that you mention it, I see there are five instances that I can see. I think you could link to either article, as there is quite a bit of overlap between the two. Maybe they ought it be combined/ rationalised in some way. Of course with more intelligent missiles, boresight generally holds much less significance for accurate weapon aiming. But please go ahead and raise on the HMD Talk page if you wish - contributions from this shared IP address are often sporadic and cover a wide range of topics. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Breaktheicees. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Breaktheicees (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel B throwing of the glass of water over Simon Cowell, so hard that she split her dress, on a live broadcast of America's Got Talent, was highly notable and was widely reported. I think adding it is perfectly constructive. I wasn't "experimenting", thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Monty Don. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ButterCashier (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "In 2014, Don became the lead presenter for the BBC's flagship Chelsea Flower Show coverage, again replacing Titchmarsh" is unsourced and needs a tag until a source is found. The text which I added, "In 2023 he presented alongside with Joe Swift and Sophie Raworth", is a fact and the source I used was this: [1]. Why is that "vandalism"? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tiny-house movement, you may be blocked from editing. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robertjamal12, my edit was this. I corrected spelling and punctuation. Regrettably, by mistake, I also changed "usage" to "usag". How does this constitute "vandalism"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any vandalism. There was a spelling correction (move-able should be movable - I have corrected this) and a typo in a punctuation change. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robertjamal12, have you read the responses to each of the above "warnings". I would also remind you that this is a shared IP address. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Astrud Gilberto, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean when you say "Please, if you are going to criticise other editors, at least do it correctly", considering that the "incorrect edit" in question was not implemented by me. I did not come to criticise anyone; as the GA nominator, I feel obligated to keep the article from corrupting over time. Apologies for any ill feelings, but please refrain from accusing me of criticising me as I have not criticised you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the phrase "at least do it correctly" a criticism or not. No "ill feelings" until you reverted me without even looking at The Rest is History (podcast). 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be mean, but you have just linked a rap album, which is just the point I was trying to make. You are welcome to make edits, but please do so after double-checking to make sure that you have done so correctly. And yes, I did indeed look at the page before reverting and I found it odd that a podcast being run by an amateur historian-author and an apparent plagiarist who specializes in a different time period is considered reliable. I am even listening to the podcast right now just to see how it is, and so far it has been filled with rampant advertising. I will leave your edits be out of the interest of preventing an edit-war. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations on your GA. I would not want such a minor addition to be in any way "corrupting". Unfortunately many commercial media outlets contain adverts. It's somewhat unavoidable. I don't think Wikipedia imposes a blanket ban on such material. I'd suggest the 50-minute podcast contains a good deal more historical content than advertisements. If you think that the content by the "apparent plagiarist who specializes in a different time period" is grounds for removal, because of breach of copyright, then you may feel obliged to remove the link. Meanwhile I'll seek a secondary source that might be more appropriate. As I have already suggested in an edit summary, the better place to have this discussion might be on the article Talk page, where a third party view might be more forthcoming. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC) p.s. didn't I just correct the rap album link to the The Rest is History (podcast) one, after checking?[reply]

Again, apologies for any hurt feelings. It is never my intention to be rude on Wikipedia, but today just does not seem to be my day. Feel free to leave the podcast in if you wish: personally I think that it is not reliable because one of the podcasters is a popular historian, not an academically accepted one, who generally writes about 20th-century events. Wikipedia generally prefers sourcing from established historians who specialize in the appropriate time period. The decision to remove the podcast is up to your discretion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that for many people, especially younger ones, podcasts offer a more accessible means of learning about history than the leather-bound output of established historians. I guess it depends on what one understands by "Cultural references". I'd suggest that Sandbrook is careful in that podcast to name his own sources, who are indeed "established historians who specialize in the appropriate time period." I was surprised to see that the last entry in the article section was dated 2018. But I appreciate that the passage of c. 1893 years does require a longer perspective to be adopted. I realise there is always a danger for "Cultural references" to descend into a rag-bag of low-quality sound-bites. Having listened to the podcast, with Sandbrook's list of possible explanations for the death, do you think the article is lacking at all? Thank you for your civility. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I might be biased, but I believe the article reflects the primary academic perspectives on Antinous' death. Of course, I am always in search of more academic and authoritative research on Antinous, but it is challenging. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your rigour. I could understand your disappointment if you were seeking "primary academic perspectives" in that podcast. But I just think it adds a useful resource for a younger reader. Perhaps it might be better in "External links". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good proposal. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Craig A. Williams' 1999 book Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity is used once as a source in the article. Sandbrook was keen to quote him. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think we need a page for The Rest is History (disambiguation)? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting talk here. had to bing for knowledge on antinous. i thought it was the same name as one of Jane Belkins ex partners but hey adhd and autism can make associations that have slight errors with similar sounding and looking words.

Anyway, back to Hadrians lover, just wow, and I as an older person with a youthful personality still prefers good old academic books to podcasts. the problem for me with the digital age is as a podcast plays something may be said and I'll end up googling to know more, before I know it I've looked at hadrians wall, both the roman roads either side running down england. All the small cities and towns either side of the pennines and the yorkshire moors, then I'd be looking at every river in the vicinity of those towns, woodlands and campsites, geez that map forms the shape of a woman if you zoom out...

All that rabbit holing for the mention of one word, antinous! And that's why i prefer books, oh and also because a lot of websites are copies of others and misinformation is everywhere. The moors murders page always gets edits added and taken down, non important additions. A book is there black and white. noly the author gets to edit and reprint or make any additions. I dont even know how i ended up here but i did .. flipping autism adhd in full effect yet again, anyway thanks for the knowledgable information.. & come to think of it, I could do with reading the rules on edits as i am full of knowledge, reading 500 books will do that to a soul lol, there was a page on chinese ink painting and some edits needed checking and I had the knowledge already but citing books or links i dont understand. :) Artist-With-Dharma (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no-one ever has to "bing for knowledge", even noly the author., whoever he is. Which 500 was that? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (205.239.40.3) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Gerry Mayhew. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But he actually retired from the RAF in August 2022 and only started as Senior Military Adviser with BAE in November 2023. It is surprising that BAE have not issued a press release to announce this appointment. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Shadow311. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will be millions of people there, some of them temporarily blinded by looking directly into the sun (even though medical advice is never to do this). Many are likely to get disorientated and topple over, plunging to their deaths. It's really high. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over what? Shadow311 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edge of Niagara Falls. It is a recipe for disaster. So I am not surprised they have done a state of emergency. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm REDACTED403. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Stephen Twigg—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -REDACTED403 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what he's known as. Sorry I have no sources. It's just friendly banter. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example from the Liverpool Echo: [2]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's Quentin Letts calling him "Twigglet". Even Alexandra Blair in The Times gets to join in here. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Grabup. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Strange World of Gurney Slade have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but why is that "not constructive"? It's a link to the arrangement of theme tune by Max Harris. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Sir Robert Pattinson Academy appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nyakase. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Port Lincoln Prison—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Nyakase (talk 🐈‍⬛‍ she/her) 12:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]