The community bulletin board has 2 sections that can be used by Wikipedians for announcements: "Events and projects" and "WikiProject notices". In general, keep it concise (under 2 lines), refrain from fancy formatting, and new entries should be placed at the top of their section.
Events and projects: In this section, only organized events, projects, and/or competitions should be listed. These are organized by how often they occur:
The Yearly section is for uncommon events, like events that only occur every year, once, or irregularly. The Monthly section is for events that occur each month, or are always ongoing.
WikiProject notices: In this section, any announcement, request for help or other notice from a WikiProject should be listed here.
Entries should be signed, and ordered from newest to oldest.
Entries are to be removed after a period of 6 months.
Welcome to the community bulletin board, which is a page used for announcements from WikiProjects and other groups. Included here are coordinated efforts, events, projects, and other general announcements.
Monthly contest, WikiProject Military history. The contest department of the Military history WikiProject aims to motivate increased quality in military history articles by offering a form of friendly competition for project members making improvements to them. The primary contest available is a simple rolling competition that awards points for improving articles. The contest runs from the first to last day of each month.
Also consider posting WikiProject, Task Force, and Collaboration news at The Signpost's WikiProject Report page.Please include your signature when adding a listing here.
WikiProject Christianity is back and running! We are looking for new and interested editors to join. We look forward to working with you! Sheriff U3 12:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Community Tech team will be focusing on wishes related to Watchlists and Recent Changes pages, over the next few months. They are looking for feedback. Please read the latest update, and if you have ideas, please submit a wish on the topic.
Updates for editors
The Wikimedia Commons community has decided to block cross-wiki uploads to Wikimedia Commons, for all users without autoconfirmed rights on that wiki, starting on August 16. This is because of widespread problems related to files that are uploaded by newcomers. Users who are affected by this will get an error message with a link to the less restrictive UploadWizard on Commons. Please help translating the message or give feedback on the message text. Please also update your local help pages to explain this restriction. [1]
On wikis with temporary accounts enabled and Meta-Wiki, administrators may now set up a footer for the Special:Contributions pages of temporary accounts, similar to those which can be shown on IP and user-account pages. They may do it by creating the page named MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-temp. [2]
Wikimania 2025 will run from August 6–9. The program is available for you to plan which sessions you want to attend. Most sessions will be live-streamed, with exceptions for those that show the "no camera" icon. If you are joining online to watch live-streams and use the interactive features, please register for a free virtual ticket. For example, you may be interested in technical sessions such as:
The MediaWiki Users and Developers Conference, Fall 2025 will be held 28–30 October 2025 in Hanover, Germany. This event is organized by and for the third-party MediaWiki community. You can propose sessions and register to attend.
Welcome to this sandbox page, a space to experiment with editing.
You can either edit the source code ("Edit source" tab above) or use VisualEditor (here). Click the "Publish changes" button when finished. You can click "Show preview" to see a preview of your edits, or "Show changes" to see what you have changed.
Anyone can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). Click here to reset the sandbox.
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
I'm hoping to understand your rationale on this reversion and explain my rationale on the original edit. I know edit summaries aren't the best place to expound on thought processes.
To me, this is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. The implied conclusion is that the GBU-39 may have been an appropriate option in spite of what former Army EOD technician Trevor Ball said. Since no RS has been provided that mentioned the specific design to limit collateral damage in the context of the Tel al-Sultan attack, including this material here is original research. Obviously the design hasn't changed, but mentioning it in this context is still synthesis.
Am I missing something? EvansHallBear (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't draw the same implied conclusion you're drawing -- I don't think anything about pointing out that the GBU-39 is specifically designed to limit collateral damage carries any implication about whether it was an appropriate option in a particular strike or not. The weapon's design is unchanged regardless of the type of strike it was used in. It is objectively the case that the GBU-39 was specifically designed to limit collateral damage. If the weapon used in the Tel al-Sultan attack was a GBU-39, then it was designed to limit collateral damage. That's not synthesis, because it's not a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources -- that is directly supported by what Reliable Source B states. Further, it doesn't contradict the implication from Trevor Ball, which was that Israel had better options when civilians are nearby (to reduce collateral damage). That may well be the case; it does not alter the fact that GBU-39 was specifically designed to reduce collateral damage. So no, I don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as synthesis. Remember, this article is about the GBU-39, not the Gaza war, not the Tel al-Sultan strike, not Trevor Ball. The article is not improved by removing details about the weapon itself. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Even if you disagree with the conclusion that I think is very heavily implied, at the very least the point about the design contextualizes the attack in a way that no RS does. Per WP:SYNTHESISIf no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. This is exactly what this article did. Unless you can provide a source that mentions the design of the GBU-39 in the context of the Tel al-Sultan strike, I think this should be removed.
That the GBU-39 was designed to limit collateral damage is already included in the article, so stating this again provides absolutely no additional value. The text you restored even reuses a reference. But if that information had not already been included in the article, this section would be the least obvious place to add it. EvansHallBear (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Where is the requirement to "provide a source that mentions the design of the GBU-39 in the context of the Tel al-Sultan strike" coming from? That's not something that WP:SYNTH requires, because the claim in question (which is only the second half of the sentence) makes absolutely no statement about the context of the Tel al-Sultan strike. What about the Trevor Ball statement either specifically states or implies anything about the Tel al Sultan GBU-39 being designed differently than any other GBU-39? Nothing. So there's literally nothing to synthesize. Juxtaposition is not synthesis. The two statements are both objectively true, do not contradict each other, and are not being used to imply any third conclusion (this third part is where I feel like we're disconnecting). The fact that we already mention the GBU-39's design as a standalone fact elsewhere in the article and reuse the source further solidifies why this isn't synthesis -- it shows that the statement is *clearly* relevant on its own (and notably moreso as far as the subject of the article is concerned than the Ball quote) and is perfectly acceptable to include in its standalone usage. Synthesis is not a matter of grammar either; from the essay on what SYNTH is not: if every single idea (considered separately as well as the overall effect) is taken from reliable sources (rather than your own new ideas), then there is no grammar structure or way of expressing these ideas that will make the material violate SYNTH. Moreover, there's no indication that anyone other than you has drawn the conclusion that it somehow implies that the GBU-39 was appropriate to have been used, despite it having been in the article for nearly two months now without objection. I don't see how anyone would reasonably draw the conclusion that "This was specifically designed to limit collateral" somehow implies anything about whether or not "Country A had better choices of weapons to use," particularly when said design was decided 18 years previously. So no, I think you're going to need more than just that to show there's consensus that this is WP:SYNTH, I don't find your reasoning compelling. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea that I'm drawing conclusions that no one else would. But WP:UNCHALLENGED isn't a good argument here, especially when there was an MOS:TERRORIST in this section that went unchallenged for almost a year.
However, reading WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION again is rather illuminating. I may be reacting more to the placement of the statements than the statements themselves. Saying that the GBU-39 used in the Tel al Sultan strike was designed to limit collateral damage is unobjectionable and wouldn't have caught my attention as a standalone statement. However, placing this statement after the Trevor Ball statement felt like a way of undermining him. Would you be amenable to rewording to Although the GBU-39 was specifically designed to limit collateral damage, former Army EOD technician Trevor Ball stated that Israel had better options when civilians were nearby.? Apart from alleviating my concerns, I think this is just a clearer sentence. EvansHallBear (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
It's a little lengthier (maybe not? Probably trivial if so.), but if that satisfies your concerns, then sure that wording works. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
WikiNYC this week: Thursday Edit-a-thon + Sunday Wiki-Picnic!
Please join us for the launch events to recognize the Wikimedia NYC 400!
Fulfilling Wikimedia NYC tradition, we'll start off the campaign with an edit-a-thon on Thursday and a Wiknic on Sunday, and will continue with Wikimedia NYC 400 events throughout the rest of this year.
diving into cloud" is not proper grammar regardless of whether singular or not; the change would be either "a cloud" if singular or "into clouds" if plural. Please take more care and pay closer attention before reverting obvious errors back in next time.
I’m not about to lose sleep over it, but I was entertained by the force of this revert, especially since it misses the point.
The aircraft was diving into cloud, as in cloud cover, not diving into a cloud, like it’s choosing a pudding. You’re not picking, you’re legging it.
I don’t expect you to agree; the grammar police are firmly convinced they’re always right, I'll change it too
"Their going thru the cloud’s, even tho there knot shore its gud, yaw just suppose two trust there in stinks cos the pilot’s no watt their doning." 👍🏻 BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm struck by your continued insistence you're correct. "Cloud" is a singular noun in American English, which is the variant in use on the AIM-9 Sidewinder article (as it is an American weapon system -- see MOS:TIES). That notwithstanding, the usage of "cloud" as an uncountable noun is incorrect in this circumstance in both American and British English. I'm also going to remind you that civility is a core behavior requirement on this project -- referring to people as the "grammar police" is not civil, especially from someone who is quite literally wrong on the matter. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
hello
Hello, my brother lives in Iran, and according to Persian-language articles, the police command in Iran has played a key role in identifying Mossad agents and fighting them. The preventive police are responsible for management in police stations, (NUPO) is responsible for fighting Mossad agents, and the agahi police are responsible for identifying Mossad agents. Also, the Iranian cyber police have played a weak and insignificant role. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
None of that is acceptable as a source, and regardless an order of battle is a military concept in which civilian police play no part. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations.
I added two news codes affiliated with official news agencies in Iran to the talk page. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
No. As I said, police are not part of a military order of battle. And I have no idea what "news codes" are in this context, but they're not a usable source -- further Iranian state media information as a primary source is frequently unreliable or unusable without proper attribution and support from proper secondary sources. Additionally, per the ARBPIA arbitration decision, you are not allowed to be making edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, including Iran; as you are not an extended-confirmed editor. I will be blunt here -- I do not believe that you likely have the familiarity with Wikipedia to successfully edit in this topic space. I strongly urge you to spend significant time elsewhere on this project familiarizing yourself with our norms and policies before even attempting to revisit this topic area. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
ANI
Hey--I don't follow ANI closely and have been a bit less active in general, but I saw the report you wrote up on the harassment of Magnolia: thank you for taking the time to do that. I know how much time those things take, and I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Any perceived resemblance of this page to any social networking website you may be familiar with must therefore be a product of your imagination, and should be ignored. This page was originally designed by User:Gurch[3] and was then shamelessly stolen by User:Swatjester.
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
