User talk:Swatjester

Φ

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues the Arab–Israeli conflict the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups the Balkans or Eastern Europe post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Lockheed AC-130

Hello - I had set the sort key for the above article so that it sorts alphabetically with the other C-130 variants at Category:Lockheed C-130 Hercules. Now the article is sitting off by itself under A. Gjs238 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you were doing now. I'll revert back to your version -- not sure if that's how it's supposed to work or not but as I noted I thought it was unintended and it's clearly not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Li

Are you ok if I modify the protection of Jet Li to EC? The majority of the accounts are (now blocked) socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OkayEiko. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no worries, go for it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Made a note of it on the talk page too, because in all likelihood they'll be back.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In retrospect, the shared format of NameName### should have been a tell that they were socks but I didn't catch it at the time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like write a page on a new Russian GLONASS system.

Hey mate, there is an interesting new system in the news but it relates to the Russio Ukraine war. It doesn't have a page yet. How do I go about making an edit request to make a new page? It's a GPS jamming resistant antenna thats been very well investigated by Ukraine as it is being used in drones and glide bombs. Produced by a company we don't have a page for either Joint-Stock Company VNIIR-Progress. I'm happy to write the pages and hand the content to an senior editor to make the pages. Is this possible? https://militarnyi.com/en/articles/kometa-challenge-for-ukrainian-ew/ https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-fF7zqVYq4PXkmNwSdj5pz5/ Liger404 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The challenge here is that you want to write an entire new article, not just a short edit; so there's a lot of text to convey. And because of the ECR restriction, the only place you can do this is in the Talk: namespace and not formal internal discussions. This excludes going to the Wikiprojects or using Wikipedia: namespace request pages. Your best bet (aside from just waiting and getting to 500 edits and being able to do it yourself) would probably be making an edit request on some closely related talk page -- maybe Talk:GLONASS? Wikipedia:Edit requests explains the format but tbh you don't have to do it exactly that way -- you can just make a new section called ==Edit Request== and then explain what you're trying to do. But as I said, it's a lot of text and the only place you can do it is in the Talk: name space. So what you're going to need to do here is probably get this article written in two steps: first, a short stub (with enough notability, detail and references to survive deletion, but does NOT need to have all the content you plan to add). Then, once that page is created, you go to *that* talk page and do an edit request there, this time with all of the content you want to add. Hope that makes sense. Fortunately it's a temporary issue -- once you hit extended-confirmed (500 edits/30 days) you'll not have this problem in the future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, appreciate it. Liger404 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard

I have made a topic concerning your recent behaviour over on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. SQMeaner (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history 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) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria of Military History

Should future weapon platforms ie. weapon platforms still under development be considered falling under 'Military History'?

Shouldn't a weapon platform coming into service 5-10 years into the future be exempted from this category? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the clarification previously here, there is no time-based limit imputed. So I'd say that the current interpretation says "yes it falls under." Think about it this way -- even if the weapon platform isn't coming into service for several years, whatever thing that you're trying to edit about it is almost certainly occurring in the present (or near-present) -- if it wasn't, it would probably run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:V. So for example, India may not finish developing the HAL ORCA or TEDBF for several years; however statements about what they *plan to do*, or about the current development process, are things that take place in the present, and thus are covered by the restriction. That is how I interpret it, but I'm just a singular admin and can speak no more broadly than myself here. If you want a more formal or definitive answer, you could file a request for clarification. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]