Open main menu

 Main Talk Awards To Do Sandbox 

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Tech News: 2019-40Edit

16:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - October 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 9Edit

Tech News: 2019-41Edit

15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-42Edit

23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

HelpEdit

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk PagesEdit

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editorEdit

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit CardsEdit

 
What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

ToolbarEdit

 
The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

WikimaniaEdit

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking aheadEdit

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Israeli F-16 shootdown concernEdit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2018 Israeli F-16 shootdown, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:US Banknote Contest/2019/invitationEdit

Shouldn't it be in the public domain rather than on the public domain? --Donald Trung (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trung Good eye, and thanks, I was seconds away from sending it to over 1,500 people. - ZLEA T\C 23:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.


If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

US Banknote ContestEdit

Thanks for your hard work organizing the US Banknote Contest. I look over the contest rules and it doesn't mention the laws regarding the copying of US currency outlined in the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992. I'm just concerned you're going to get a lot of people scanning US currency and uploading it to the Commons, which I don't believe is legal. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Magnolia677 Thanks for your concern, but uploading scans of US banknotes is perfectly legal as the intent is not fraudulent. See c:Template:PD-USGov-money for more information. - ZLEA T\C 13:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is it's "perfectly legal" so long as the person scanning the currency abides by the conditions listed in the template. However, these conditions weren't listed on the contest page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Magnolia677 I'm not sure they need to be, as uploading banknote images to Commons is not fraudulent. Additionally, the three conditions listed in the template only apply to printed copies of banknotes, not digital scans. - ZLEA T\C 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-43Edit

14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - October 2019Edit

Hello, ZLEA! Here is the September 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Tech News: 2019-44Edit

16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - November 2019Edit

2019 US Banknote Contest has started!Edit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

The 2019 US Banknote Contest has started!

Be sure to create a worklist for yourself if you haven't already done so.

Users may still join the contest by adding their username to the participants list.

Upload an image

If you do not want to receive notifications for the 2019 US Banknote Contest, remove your username from the mailing list

Sent by ZLEA at 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Drmies I'm sorry about that, I will be more careful in the future. - ZLEA T\C 19:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. My post was on behalf of another editor, though they asked rather undiplomatically. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-45Edit

16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 10Edit

/* A-36A Mustang (NA-97) */Edit

ZLEA?

Is this how I communicate with you.

I found your message about the A-36A Mustang being called the "Apache," which it was NEVER called by anyone, except for post-WWII writers who knew NOTHING about history of the whole "Mustang Family" that started with NA-73X and ended with the P-51H (although it's "out of alphabetical order," this also includes the P-51K.

I have multiple documents that beyond ANY shadow of a doubt, are on "my side" (it's not really my side...it's the side of actual history).

I read your bio and by 2002, I was already a pilot and had been a warbird enthusiast, photographer and writer of a number of warbird articles on AeroNews-dot-Net (ANN).

I have a recent A-36A article at www.thehangardeck.com that supported my A-36A stance, as far as the name. It came out in April. Strangely enough, by the time it came out, the Historical Archivist at Boeing, Michael Lombardi (who'd sent me documents on other aspects of the whole "Mustang Family," on other occasions) sent me two scans, neither of which I needed to prove my point, but will ABSOLUTELY "nail-down" the official name for the A-36A as "MUSTANG."

I will be most happy to supply you with both North American Aviation documentation and USAAF documentation (at least two document scan from each of them).

I can also help show how the only "Apache" that ever existed in the NAA "Mustang Family" of aircraft was on the NA-91 - the aircraft with the two 20 mm cannons in each wing. It was called "Apache" from the latter part of 1941 until July 13, 1942 (see, I have proof of an exact date), when it, and EVERY NAA aircraft that looked like a P-51 Mustang fighter was to be named "Mustang." That date, you'll note, is BEFORE the first A-36A was built. Will that do?

I even convinced the National Museum of the U. S. Air Force in Dayton, OH to change their signage for the A-36A on display there. Look it up on their website. They also changed their web pages on the A-36A. The DO mention that it has been called "Apache" (only post-War) and "Invader" (that nickname was ACTUALLY used by the pilots & groundcrew of the A-36As flown by the 27th Fighter-Bomber Group in North Africa in WWII...they even petitioned NAA and the USAAF to have the name officially changed to "Invader," but we both know that this name was already given to Douglas' A-26 Light-Medium Bomber/Attack Aircraft, so, naturally, they were turned down. Mustang is what it was from day one until the last one flew operations in WWII.

Thank you.

Mustangtmg (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Tom Griffith Mustangtmg (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Mustangtmg You don't need to prove to me that the A-36 was nicknamed "Mustang" and not "Apache". However, most sources state that you are incorrect. You will need to cite whatever sources you have that "prove" that ALL the other sources are incorrect. - ZLEA T\C 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

* A-36A Mustang (NA-97) */ Corrected name from "Apache" to "Mustang."Edit

ZLEA...

This Wikipedia "Talk" page is confusing at best...

Can you please email me at mustangtmg@yahoo.com

I can function better in an email format.

I promise to be respectful, which goes without saying.

Tom Griffith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustangtmg (talkcontribs) 12:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-46Edit

22:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I do NOT understand how this "messaging" or "talking" (whatEVER) works.Edit

Apparently, unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote on 12 Nov 2019, you're saying that even though I can prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that the A-36A was never, EVER called "Apache" that since most sources say that it is "Apache," that you, and I guess Wikipedia, have NO desire to be correct. If this the case, then why does it even exist?

I apparently know my "Mustangology" better than most folks out there who purport to be "experts." I would like to try to communicate with you via email, because honestly, this function of Wikipedia is clunkier than the old "Message Boards" that we had 20 years before you were even born.

You have nothing to fear by emailing me, or looking me up on Facebook. You'll find that I'm a well-respected person, having retired from the practice of Hospital Pharmacy after over 45 years and have been a WWII aviation aficionado since the middle 1950s...that's probably before your parents were born.

So email me at mustangtmg@yahoo.com (I've had that email address since LAST Century).

I'll look for something from you on my email and if I get nothing, I'll work my way back to this "wonky" Talk thing and see if you've communicated with me that way.

We need to get the TRUTH out there, and just because 99 out of 100 folks say "Apache" to one who says "Mustang," that does NOT make the 99 correct, does it?

And we all agree that "Invader" was an unofficial nickname given to the A-36A Mustangs that they flew/maintained in the Italian Campaign of WWII, but that was a "field" name and was official only for the Douglas A-26 Invader, a plane that made its first flight while the A-36A was being designed, and a few months before the first A-36A even came out of the NAA factory. Check it out, then explain your intransigence on agreeing on the name. I had to learn the correct name for the A-36A (BTW, that was the only model ever built and there was no aircraft designated as an "XA-36" prototype ... the kinda-sorta prototype was an NA-83, RAF Serial Number "AM118" that the dive brakes, strengthened wing, pylons for bombs or external fuel tanks, plumbing for the external fuel tanks, etc) too, because I thought it was "Apache" for years, then "Invader," and then I started my own research on it and for sure it is and always WAS "Mustang."

Thanks and have a good day.

~~Tom Griffith~~ 11-14-2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustangtmg (talkcontribs) 02:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Mustangtmg I suggest you read this guide on talk pages, especially this section, before you reply. I know that talk pages can be confusing to new users, but you will get the hang of it eventually. I cannot email you for reasons I cannot disclose, so this is the only way I can get in touch with you.
Unfortunately, determining what version of history is "correct" on Wikipedia is done by establishing consensus. This is due to the fact that multiple sources exist that contradict each other, and it is the Wikipedia community's job do determine which version is most likely correct based on the sources provided. Currently, consensus is that the name of the A-36 was "Apache" based on the sources available to us.
Something I would like to point out is that your "proof" appears to be original research, which, unfortunately, is not accepted as a reliable source. If I am wrong, and you have a source/sources that specifically state that the official name of the A-36 was in fact "Mustang" and not "Apache", you may bring it up at Talk:North American A-36 Apache and request that the A-36 page be moved. Otherwise, it may be better to publish a book on the A-36 based on your knowledge, and in the future, your book could be used as a source in the article.
Wikipedians do desire to be correct, but that is not always easy as ANYONE can claim to be an expert. I agree, if 99% of people make the same mistake, it is still a mistake. However, the mistake cannot be corrected without reliable/irrefutable proof that it is a mistake. - ZLEA T\C 18:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ZLEA".