User talk:Blockhaj

Welcome!
Hello, Blockhaj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page de Havilland Vampire have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. BilCat (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did add sources when i reverted back the second time. Most of my info is from the Swedish wikipedia and a source which i added a week ago. Do you rly think i sat down and wrote half an A4 of bs? Its basically expanding what was already written. And what do u mean wikipedia isnt a source? Do u have to seriously post all of the sources from the Swedish wiki page to drive home this point?--Blockhaj (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AB Landsverk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armored car ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/AB_Landsverk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/AB_Landsverk?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited M2 Browning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AN/M2 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/M2_Browning check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/M2_Browning?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bofors 37 mm anti-tank gun, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch, Polish and Armored car ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bofors_37_mm_anti-tank_gun check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bofors_37_mm_anti-tank_gun?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Bofors 57 mm m/47 aircraft gun) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bofors 57 mm m/47 aircraft gun.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 21:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pugachev's Cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air brake ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pugachev%27s_Cobra check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pugachev%27s_Cobra?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 40 mm grenade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armour-piercing discarding sabot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brittain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

RP-3 and collapsible tables
Further to not tablulating that which does not need to be forced into tables. The MoS says at Manual_of_Style says "collapsible templates that toggle text display between hide and show, can interfere with readers' ability to access our content" because many readers do not use the desktop view. Also "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it. Working on a rework.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

12 August 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blockhaj making rude edit comments. Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

F-16
Wikipedia talk pages, just like articles, are not reliable sources and cannot be used as references like you did on the F-16 page.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright law
Hello. For us to be able to use that image, we need to be able to prove that the image is public domain in the United States and its country of origin. The current cut-off for the US is 1926 (meaning, the publication needs to have occurred before 1 January 1926), so a book published in 1926 is not currently PD in the US. As for its country of origin, I don't read Swedish, so I can't tell whether an illustrator is credited in the source. If so, we'd need to know their date of death to determine when the image entered PD in Sweden (which is governed by the 70-years PMA rule that's generally standard across the EU). And if not, presumably the author of the book made the illustrations, and we'd still need their date of death. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The image comes from a website which is dedicated to digitalize and proof read old public domain books: http://runeberg.org/ The book it is from is part of a series released in 1926. http://runeberg.org/uppf/ The books are written by a larger number of "professionals", but no one is listed by name in the book. Majority of the images in the book are from previous publications and should thus be in public domain either way.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care what website it comes from. A book published in 1926 obviously cannot predate the 1/1/1926 cutoff. If one assumes PD-EU-no author disclosure applies, it would still have been under copyright in its country of origin when the URAA went into effect in the United States on 1 January 1996, which extends copyrights here automatically and retroactively. Under US law, the image would be considered a work for hire, which means a 95-year term of protection starting from publication. There is simply no way the image is PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The image is extremely low quality. Cant this be classed as "scaled-down, low-resolution" fair use? Honestly its borderline not even a "work", its just a basic line drawing. Isnt there some template like this Template:PD-textlogo/en it can go under?


 * Whomever made that drawing made it almost 100 years ago, if not more, and it was published in a book under no name. It depicts a ship whish was blown to pieces in 1907 and then scrapped in 1909. Its more than likely a redraw of a prevous image from the end of the 1800s. I dont understand why anyone would even bother to try to act like this is not in US public domain, no matter how confusing the laws are.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, none of that applies - we can only claim fair use when there are no free alternatives, and there are already plenty of images and drawings of the ship in the article. And it certainly meets the threshold of originality, so the logo template doesn't work either.
 * It doesn't really matter what you or I think should be the case. There are plenty of paintings by Willy Stöwer that are still copyrighted in the US, even though he died more than 70 years ago (and his works are all PD in Germany) because the URAA extended their terms. Copyright law is frustratingly restrictive (and I think excessively so), but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.
 * And please stop edit-warring over the paragraphs. Your opinion about what is harder or easier to read is just that; I took the time to write the article, I would appreciate it if you respected mine as equally valid and left it as I wrote it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Per this, no. The burden to justify the change is on you, not me. I have repeatedly asked you to stop edit-warring; please undo your latest revert or I'll report you for edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Articles are not permament. I totally respect that u wrote the article, but at the same time, Wikipedia is not written in stone and everything can be improved and expanded. I can only speak for myself here, but i have reading difficulties and like to split longer segments into shorter ones to help me and others with similar problem read articles on Wikipedia. I do not remove information when doing this.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that you have reading difficulties, but we do not cater articles to any one person's preferences. As I have already said, you find your version preferable, whereas I find short, choppy paragraphs more difficult to read. Why does your preference outweigh mine? Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends on which gets more handicappaped by the change. However at this point i dont care anymore. Discussions like these drains the fun of Wikipedia. Il undo my change and wish u a nice day.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Caseless ammunition
In the article Caseless ammunition I thought it best to remove the illustration at the top because it is misleading—the initial sentence there is Caseless ammunition is a type of small arms ammunition that eliminates the cartridge case that typically holds the primer, propellant, and projectile together as a unit. The illustration of a 40 mm aircraft installed weapon does not meet the definition of 'small arms' nor does it represent a cartridge; it is a small rocket propelled projectile. If you like, we can open a discussion on the article talk page—I do not think the current image belongs in the article—I will search for a better diagram. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I realized that just as i undid ur change. :/ However that description is incorrect as the caseless ammunition concept works for all calibers. I have now changed the intro with a military source to explains what caseless ammunition is.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I should also note that a lot of confusion comes from modern caseless ammunition, which has a "casing" of the actual propellant around it, similar to telescopic ammunition. This is present in the article but the definition of such ammunition is vague and its technically a different type of ammunition when compared to traditional caseless ammunition, like the original "rocket ball". The german example in the article is most often classed as "telescopic ammunition" historically, and not caseless ammunition.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new work. Now, however, I think more needs to be done. For example,
 * in the U.S. military, the terms rifle or small arms have no overlap with the term gun
 * main battery guns on WW II battleships used projectiles plus bags of propellant—no cases.
 * I'm thinking major rewrite—you have made a good start.
 * This article points to some sources that may help (though the article itself is not that useful). — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 00:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This article points to some sources that may help (though the article itself is not that useful). — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 00:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well one problem is the name "caseless ammunition". Caseless cartridges would be more correct, however that name is not common around the world. I will try to correct some of the points u brought up.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help improve article quality. Thanks you. Zuyeca (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What article? Akane Yamaguchi? I have never heard of this person before and i dont know anything about badminton.--Blockhaj (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mine shell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

6.5×55mm Swedish / 6.5 × 55 mm Swedish
I understand that you want to put spaces in the nomenclature. I am used to write A × B, but in Wikipedia articles metric cartridges are written as A×Bmm and do not follow common (inter)national standards. After once using the A × B format, I made some editors rather sad. I like the table regarding the historic military ammunition. Are there any ballistic tables of these historic cartridges available? HTH.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I also understand that Wikipedia has their own standards when it comes to naming but its never wrong to push for some new standards or ideas. When it comes to the ammunition table i plan to put in different types of data for the different cartridges, such as ballistics, but i havent been able to find a suitable form factor for the table yet. I dont want it to be absurdly long, yet i cannot make it too wide, etc. I have access to a great variety of manuals and documents from the Swedish military archive and plan to put their content to good use here on Wikipedia.--Blockhaj (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

APCBC reverts
What was this in aid of? I shouldn't be expected to have to go begging people to explain reverts. The current formatting disguises a huge amount of cruft re: the images (not least the use of multiple image for a single image) and the first section is just a complete mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * How is the current article format problematic? Your edits cluttered the page with images and made it harder to read and follow. The multiple image at the start of the page is there to give the image a header so it looks like a proper info box for APCBC (due to the lack of a suitable template on English wikipedia). The image at the start is not a historical APCBC example, but an amalgamation of several historical easy to understand APCBC designs, meant to serve as an explanatory image for the article's subject matter. It was specifically made for this purpose.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Galleries are discouraged; proper infoboxes are trivial to fake up, but that's inappropriate anyway. As most of the images are superflous I'll remove them on the next pass, along with figuring out what to do with the lead diagram. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are galleries discouraged? And in what way are most of the images superflous? They show APCBC designs from across the world, indicating how the design could differ. As for the lead diagram, whats problematic about it?--Blockhaj (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:GALLERY for the Manual of Style guidelines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bofors 40 mm gun into Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow responce. Its noted and i will look into this.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems people already corrected this.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Bofors
So, if the information requires references, it's a good habit to enter a fact template or ask for it, instead of reverting. Matrek (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As someone who has seen actual export documentation for the Bofors 37 mm atg L/45 i have never come across a mention of the US licensing the gun. And the Naval source u supplied makes it even weirder. Are u sure the US didnt license an older 37 mm naval gun instead of the 37 mm anti tank gun L/45?--Blockhaj (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, my bad for reverting.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Cobra Maneuver Revision
Hello, your edit summary message on the latest revision claiming that's a Cobra climb in both sources is false, you can clearly see the aircraft still at a level position of flight when pulling back at the beginning of the maneuver and not climbing. Look at the clouds beside it for reference, the aircraft is not climbing above them, it is staying level with them as its pulling back to a beyond 90 degree angle. A cobra climb would result in a stall out and pull up back to level flight and not a smooth reposition into level flight without stalling out justifying it not being a cobra climb. Duderocks5539 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * the clouds are out of frame when the climb is performed and u can see changes in the background indicating a major gain in altitude, for example the sky behind it getting darker. The low resoulution even pronounces the light levels. Ive seen the F-22 at an airshow doing this maneuver and it is not a true cobra. Its just a basic stall maneuver that looks cool at air shows. The pilot comes in at, idk, 800 kph or less, pulls up hard to achieve a large amount of contrail but do not maneuver quickly enough to not initiate a major climb. The aircraft then cuts the thrust to stall out during the climb and then uses post stall flight characteristics to go beyond 90 degrees alpha. Note how the change from 0 to 90+ alpha takes over 4 seconds (compared to like 2 seconds for the real Cobra). Once at or nearing the peak of the climb the pilot applies thrust and uses post stall maneuvering to return to level flight (sometimes thrustvectoring is used to hover in place for a while).


 * There are tons of discussions around the web and in real life (see the Cobra Maneuver discussion page for example) about the F-22 being able to do the Cobra, it usually ends with F-22 fanboys declaring that they have their own definition of the Cobra, or they pull the "classified stats" card. Ive even seen people claiming the F-18 can do the Cobra (long before the new Top Gun movie), which several F-18 pilots have claimed is not true. So far i have not seen an F-22 pilot make either claim, nor describing how a Cobra is performed in the F-22. Honestly, even the Mig-21 claim is dubious. The book (which i have only read translated snippets of), does go into detail of how to perform the maneuver and what the maneuver does, however there is no video footage of it. From seeing and flying Mig-21's in flight sims i have not seen the maneuver being recreated, however flight sims are far from perfect, especially community made models, nor have i seen it being tested in a Mig-21F-13 (only in radar nosed models). The Cobra maneuver is a weird maneuver that only specific aircraft can perform. Not even the Mirage III, which is extremely similar to the Saab 35, has been claimed to perform it.--Blockhaj (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Missed comenting on the second video but even there its clear its climbing. Just the sheer slowness of the maneuver (even accounting for video speed) makes it impossible to be a cobra, as the aircraft sits in the climbing angle for too long, thus climbing, a cobra is so fast that the aircraft never have a chance of climbing majorly before the stall is complete. Here is a good video describing the cobra maneuver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XrD9LA2iKw&t=1645s --Blockhaj (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than disputing these edits with individual editors, as you also have on my talk page, may I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Message
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breda 20/65 mod.35, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swiss.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Leopard 1 at the museum in Borden
You currently appear to be engaged in a dispute about whether a photograph of a Leopard 1 at the museum in Base Borden Military Museum is a Leopard C1 or a Leopard 1A4. Please try to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the issue. Maybe you could explain how to distinguish between a Leopard C1 and a Leopard 1A4. -- Toddy1 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"Smash burger" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smash_burger&redirect=no Smash burger] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Socks
Hey - that's fine, I was reverting the contributions of the sock of a blocked user. If you see anything that is correct, and want to reinstate it, be my guest. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Que? What's a sock in this case?--Blockhaj (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK. It's when you edit under multiple accounts. In this case, it's someone who has been blocked many, many times before, but just won't go away. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oki, had no clue, but the edits were relevant.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got no problem with people reinstating edits if they are able to stand by them and say they were solid. The problem with folk like that is that you don't know if what they're writing is accurate, or biased, or even intentional misinformation. Or a random assortment of all three. They shouldn't be editing here at all, and reviewing their illicit edits would be very onerous, so I often just mass revert any edits they'd made before being discovered - but always on the understanding that any editor in good standing who can confirm am edit was accurate is welcome to reinstate it. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nyckelharpa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mora.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bitis nasicornis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juvenile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Pyttipanna. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do not remove valid information from articles.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are not "information". Going against the MOS is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You removed more than links. Just remove the links. Have a nice day.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello! I'm BoonDock. Your recent edit(s) to the page Panhard AML appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''No reference. I would dispute the statement "often used as such historically" unless VERY well referenced.'' BoonDock (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didnt realise that the Eland armoured car had its own article. It was essentially used soly as an assault gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The term "assault gun" is nonsense as is the suggestion that the Panhard/Eland is one.. BoonDock (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

ADEN cannon
Hello You reverted an edit I made here, without explanation, a couple of days ago. I’ve opened a discussion over there if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was reverted because it had no obvious source and was objectivelly incorrect. "Modest fire rate" (vague statement) and "velocity" were not reasons for the cancellation of the mk213, the germans simply didnt finish the design in time of the end of the war.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Self-propelled anti-tank gun


A tag has been placed on Category:Self-propelled anti-tank gun indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Grg i Köpenhamn
God kväll! Eftersom jag vet att du är väldigt flitig i arkiven skulle jag vilja be om en tjänst. Som du ser har jag lite problem med källorna, du råkar inte ha tid att gräva lite i saken? BP OMowe (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ska se vad som finns, mvh.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Spontant hittar man detta reportage från juli föregående år där en AT4 brukades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltankyR5OA --Blockhaj (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fenrir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Blockhaj. Thank you for your work on Pike nose. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ty Blockhaj (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Saab 35 Draken
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You are the sole editor disagreeing with my edits and you never give any constructive criticism, instead citing, as far as i can tell, nonexistant rules about the English language or Wikipedia. My most recent edit is fully valid based on the source at hand and you had no proper reason to undo it. This is gatekeeping based on your own preferences with no reference to previous consensus. Blockhaj (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss the article, do so on its talk page so that other editors can see it. This page concerns yourself. This is how Wikipedia works. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about the article. This is about you. You have treated this whole situation like a gatekeeper besides neither understanding Swedish inflection or backing up your rationality claims. Blockhaj (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of military aircraft of Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fighter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of maintenance tag
Blockhaj. You have twice removed a legitmately placed maintenace tag from your recently created article Fantasy Viking. Stop doing so, or you shall be reported. -- JascaDucato (talk &#124; contributions) 13:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Both were legitimate removals. First lacked a discussion, the latter was a revert to a previous oboslete version of the article. Blockhaj (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Bartholemew Roberts
Pembrokeshire was in the Kingdom of England when Roberts was born. This fact can be verified on Wikipedia. Repeatedly undoing factual statements to restore non-factual statements is vandalism, even if you are a registered user. 82.20.248.119 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe don't lecture other users not to undo your edit to a page after you had to back down after being caught undoing legitimate edits in order to remove verifiably true information that doesn't agree with your personal nationalistic politics. Matter closed, though I will check you don't do what many like you do: wait a week or two than revert the article back to how you want it to be. 82.20.248.119 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am Swedish and i don't give two damns about English politics. Register an account before i start giving a damn about ur edits. Blockhaj (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George Floyd protests. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Bruh, i have been on Wikipedia for several years, this robot message feels purposefully out of touch. I performed a conventional edit. It cannot be argued to be unconstructive or disruptive. I have reverted the revert with an editing comment. I am not engaged in an article content dispute, i have not been active in the editing of that article since its inception. Blockhaj (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at George Floyd protests, you may be blocked from editing. Kire1975 (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Nomination of Fantasy Viking for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fantasy Viking is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fantasy Viking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Ffranc (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ur (rune), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Icelandic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)