Jump to content

User talk:ZLEA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coins" listed at Did You Know on the main page on August 29, 2019.
This user helped get "Continental Currency dollar coin" listed at Did You Know on the main page on August 14, 2019.
This user helped get "General Dynamics–Boeing AFTI/F-111A Aardvark" listed at Did You Know on the main page on July 24, 2020.
This user helped get "Republic XP-69" listed at Did You Know on the main page on July 24, 2020.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Main Talk Awards To Do Sandbox Resources Bird Watching 

Voting for coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-36

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]

CS1 errors

[edit]

Just a heads up, your recent aircraft-related edits (example) have been mass-adding CS1 errors (specifically Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter‎) to pages, because the |aircraft type= parameter is somehow getting added to the citation templates instead of the infobox. Seems to be some sort of JWB fail. :Jay8g [VTE] 06:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay8g Thanks for letting me know. I think I reverted all the problematic JWB edits, but feel free to revert any I might have missed. It seems I failed to consider that some of the old infobox parameter names are commonly used by other templates. As a workaround, I can instead add the old parameter names to the new infobox to avoid messing with common parameter names within articles. I'll work on updating the template and JWB preset tomorrow. - ZLEA T\C 08:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-37

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
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) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mil ko-10

[edit]

you are wrong, according to the register, mi-10 has not been flying since 2009 JustasIn (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JustasIn We have a source confirming that the Mi-10K was still flying as late as 2014. I think you might be mistaking the original Mi-10 variant for the type as a whole. - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all aviation lovers know that not a single mi-10(k) is flying, you are just spreading bad information JustasIn (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an aviation lover, so evidently not all of us know this. - ZLEA T\C 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're not a true aviation lover. Sadly, I'm apparently not one either. Carguychris (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the source a bit closer, I do see that it says "The last helicopter has mothballed in 2009." However, this is referring to the Mi-10 variant, not the Mi-10 type (which includes the Mi-10K). - ZLEA T\C 17:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the entire registry of mi10k, not one of them has taken to the air after 2009 JustasIn (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JustasIn Where can I find this registry? If it meets the WP:RS criteria, then we can update the article. Otherwise, we will continue to use what actual reliable sources say. - ZLEA T\C 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-38

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lincoln cent mintage figures for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lincoln cent mintage figures 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln cent mintage figures 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.

Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longterm solution to sock

[edit]

We're both aware of the IP sock/meatpuppet problem at List of equipment of the Kosovo Security Force. I'm inclined towards requesting a one or two year semi-protection at RPP but wanted to run it by you first. My only concern is that it serves as something of a DUCK filter, inclining me towards leaving it open to simplify SPIs. If you have any thoughts, let me know. Thanks for covering that page and others! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti RPP sounds like the way to go. I have lost faith in SPI's ability to deal with IPs, so I'm open to whatever solution will actually help fix the problem. - ZLEA T\C 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My estimation is that we need at least four more CU and a couple SPI clerks on top of that. Will kick it over to RPP upon next disruption; feel welcome to beat me to the punch. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-39

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-40

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A huge thankyou

[edit]

Thanks for your support on the Carvair article. I was going to leave it there, but then you came back with WP:AIRMOS which I had not seen before. That has given me much to think about, including the possibility I need to revisit about 200 previous edits and bring them up to a higher standard. So half of me wants to curse you too!

You are a star!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. It's not uncommon (it's actually expected) for newer editors to miss the various MOS pages, especially the WikiProject-specific pages. No one is expected to know all the guidelines from the start. Even I still learn something new about guidelines every now and then after seven years. - ZLEA T\C 01:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Template:McDonnell Douglas aircraft

[edit]

Why did you put the 188 and 210 in different categories in the newly reorganized template and omit the 188E? All are based on the Bréguet 941, but the 188E and 210 were substantially redesigned, and none of them were actually built. Carguychris (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carguychris From what I understand, the baseline 188 was not intended to be an airliner, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The omission of the 188E from the airliners section was simply an oversight. Although the 210 was not built, I included it in the section as most of the other unbuilt McDonnell and MD aircraft were included in their respective sections as well. - ZLEA T\C 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, checked the Francillon book, and it actually doesn't say what use the 188 was being proposed for. It's more specific about the 188E and 210, mentioning that they were designed as airliners and were promoted more heavily, which makes sense given that the 188/941S was relatively small. I'm OK leaving the 188 where it is, but I split out the 210 in the template so as not to suggest that it was a minor variant of the 188E or a rename; specs indicate it would have been a much larger aircraft with little in common other than layout. Carguychris (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-41

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-42

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-43

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-130

[edit]

Thanks for adding the non-sequential section on the E-designations navbox. I really wasn't sure what to do with it, hence my edit summary. I swear, the Air Force Department must be hiring straight out of kindergarten. I didn't think it could get worse after the OA-1K. Makes me afraid for what's next. BilCat (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's no longer just the Air Force. The E-130 is a Navy designation. - ZLEA T\C 16:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Force Dept approves the designations. BilCat (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the Navy's new designations had been more or less sequential until now. - ZLEA T\C 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-44

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
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) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

[edit]

Hello, I'm 72.81.136.3. I noticed you reverted my edit because I didn't have a reliable source, so I was wondering if this site was reliable http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV09f.html. It covers Navy squadron deployments, aircraft carriers and carrier air wing deployments. So, if this is reliable can my edit be reverted back? Thank you. 72.81.136.3 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a self-published source. While this does not automatically make a source unreliable, I see no indication that the creator of this website is a subject-matter expert in this field, so I'm going to say it's probably unreliable. - ZLEA T\C 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this site be reliable? https://www.seaforces.org/usnair/CVW/ATG-201.htm 72.81.136.3 (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this site appears to be self-published by someone without any indication of being a subject-matter expert. You might want to try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Research desk. Perhaps someone there has access to a newspaper from the time or some other reliable source that contains the information you're looking for. - ZLEA T\C 03:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this classify as a self published source? http://www.anft.net/vf-11/history.html If it isn't could you help find one? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be self-published as well. I'm afraid I do not have the time to hunt down sources for this, but there are several options you can do. First, you can ask the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Research desk if anyone there knows of sources that might have the information. Otherwise, you can also ask the creators of these websites where they got their information. Although none of them cite their sources, they might be able to point you in the right direction anyway. - ZLEA T\C 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted change

[edit]

I made an update to the P-51 survivors page, adding an estimated number of airworthy aircraft. I did this as I wanted other users to be able to see this information without having to physically count every one (the Spitfire has this, for example.) I used the article itself as a source, and I counted 171 airworthy P-51s. 155.186.59.95 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reasons as to why we cannot just use the article as a source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the list may be incomplete, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate. Counting the number of list entries, especially if the completeness or accuracy cannot be guaranteed, is also original research. We need sources which explicitly state the number of surviving aircraft if we are to include the figure in the article. Also, thanks for pointing out the issue on the Spitfire article, the content has been tagged as needing a citation and will likely be removed if no source is found. - ZLEA T\C 07:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-45

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]

Existence of J-31B and reversion of the J-35 wikipage

[edit]

Given your fixation to the SCMP article, you should realize that there's no FC-31 based aircraft that ever has side weapon bay in its design. (Quoting the article : “J-31B seen in the video was also the first variant to feature weapon bays on the side")

So there's 2 scenario: One, a reality where J-31B truly exists simply based on the 3D model of a video from CCTV program; a variant of the FC-31 that has never been seen outside of the said 3D model and yet has already been officially adopted by the PLA given the J- suffix, which magically skips the J-31 and J-31A in its naming convention, and also amazingly has side weapons bay, running contrary to the recently revealed J-35A.

Or two, a reality of which the J-31B is just a small mistake at the hands of a video editor within CCTV and the aircraft doesn't exist, given how 3D model might just seem to be a placeholder to talk about the aircraft that hasn't been revealed at the time, and by now has been succinctly disproven by the announcement and actual appearance of the J-35A in real life.

This just seems like a pretty simple decision on Occam's Razor, and I suggest you revert all your edits which is based on that SCMP article. Lgnxz (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lgnxz This just seems like a pretty simple decision on Occam's Razor. No, it's WP:OR, plain and simple. You still have not provided a reliable source that challenges the status of the designation, and therefore you have no grounds to remove the information. If you have sources which directly dismiss the validity of the J-31 designation, feel free to provide them. Until then, any further attempts to remove it will be considered disruptive. - ZLEA T\C 05:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's simple, the 'J-31' aircraft, especially the mythical J-31B with side weapons bay, has never been seen nor confirmed by anyone other than that single 3D model. Also how's the recent confirmation that the aircraft is named and shown in the airshow to be called as J-35(A) not a ground of dismissal of the J-31B? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people like you that keeps insisting that the J-31B still exists as a separate aircraft, instead of just unofficial name from years ago for the J-35 of today? Lgnxz (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also how's the recent confirmation that the aircraft is named and shown in the airshow to be called as J-35(A) not a ground of dismissal of the J-31B? Because that would be affirming a disjunct. The apparent absence of the J-31 and J-31A designations are also not enough to discredit the existence of the J-31B, and the burden of proof has been met by the video released by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. No more WP:OR. Unless and until you provide a reliable source discrediting it, I'll consider this matter closed. - ZLEA T\C 06:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Video from SAC isn't available in the article. There's no actual quote from the people speaking in the supposed video, and all the analysis done in the SCMP article relies purely on the screenshot alone.
Besides that, I asked you many times already whether you understand about the J- suffix. SAC, CCTV, or any other government institution does not have the authority to use or determine the use of the suffix, that alone is the responsibility of the PLA. Therefore, how are you so sure that it's not a mere mistake by the SAC, a False advertising so to speak?
Chinese military also isn't the kind of institution that do a retraction/clarification on direct official statement from the past, let alone mere speculation from third parties to fill the information blackbox. Goodluck chasing those source that can satisfy yourself, who am I to tell you otherwise anyway right. Lgnxz (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]