User talk:Humenni

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 1Halpo1. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese inventions

Hi Halpo and welcome to Wikipedia,

You definitely have some valid points there, especially regarding redundancy and repetition. My main concern is that the deleted information is not repeated per se. A better approach, I believe, is to consolidate all the scattered non-Chinese-related into a few sentences either at the end or at the beginning of the paragraph rather than have them all over the place. What do you think?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Nicely done.

Thanks! Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Prehistoric warfare

• If you read the source cited, it discusses only tribal societies in the present day (i.e. roughly, the Iron Age). I can move it to its own "Modern Age" section if you prefer. Wolfdog (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the reason I inserted the deliberate phrase "modern-day" is because this is, after all, an article on prehistoric warfare and I'm trying to avoid easy confusion. The entire section "Endemic Warfare" in fact seems irrelevant to this article. Wolfdog (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's why I said "roughly" and offered the "Modern Age" alternative. In either case, what do you think of the fact that "Endemic Warfare" has its own page yet still has its own section included on the "Prehistoric warfare" page. The sources listed point to modern tribes, not prehistoric ones. I was willing to incorporate endemic warfare issues into a section on the modern age, but otherwise it doesn't seem to fit for this article at all. 20:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the section on the talk page, and I'll comment on it. When you say that "the warring societies themselves were not historical," do you mean "the warring societies themselves had not developed a system of written history"? That seems to me a very unusual (and maybe problematic) way to use the term "historical." I think most of the Wikipedia audience would not consider any societies existing today to be "prehistoric" as implied by your sense of the word "historical." I'm mostly talking about the wording here. A "prehistoric society" most widely means "a society existing before the advent of societies with writing systems," but using it to mean "a society that has not yet invented a writing system" seems unfairly presumptive, as if all societies like this will inevitably "advance" into a society with a writing system, which would be a clear sign of our own cultural bias. If this is the definition you're using and the bias were false, then we wouldn't even say "prehistoric(al)"; instead, we'd just neutrally say "non-historical." The word "prehistoric" used all throughout this article, according to your writing system-based definition of "historical" (if I've got that right), specifically implies "before writing has arisen in any given society itself." Wolfdog (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I just figured that endemic warfare would already be included in each Age section anyway. Wolfdog (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nivkh people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedentary. 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) 08:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meaning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting needs sources

Hi, 1Halpo1,

I see you just did an edit you characterized as "trimming" in your edit summary, but I saw that it introduced a factual error, so I reverted it. I have found as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors here on Wikipedia that many attempts to copyedit articles without sources at hand can introduce subtle errors, unless the copy editor has reliable sources about the article topic at hand while editing. Thanks for your efforts to tidy up articles. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)