Hi Thanks for editing and guiding me with regards to Wikipedia pages , wanted to understand when can i submit a page to Wikipedia or how to publish an article in Wikipedia Avi130988 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Avi130988[reply]

@Avi130988: The article you are writing now is live on Wikipedia it is published the instant you create the article in Main space. That is why you see people working on it at the same time as you are. A lot of new editors use Wikipedia Articles for Creation to get input on their article and have it formally reviewed by an experienced editor before it is published to Main space. I hope this answers your question, if I did not or you need something else please let me know. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including some sample messages in the talk page. I'm a Ham operator, not military, so am just now learning the format.

I moved your samples into a table, and added a voice (ACP-125) version. Can you proof this to make sure I got everything in the right format line? I'm pretty sure I blew a couple of them. Peter K. Sheerin 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K. Sheerin: Wow! The article looks great. You have done a lot with it since I first looked at it. I would be glad go over the table. It might take me a day or so. I need to take a look at the standards documents to be sure of line numbering/naming since I either write out messages from memory/templates or have a terminal that spits them out. Although on first glance I see a couple of things. It should be made clearer in the 126/127/127-sup format is the TO and INFO lines are one call sign/RI per line. For instance:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA
XXX9ZZZ AAA
XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB
PPP6GGG AAA
TTT6HHH CCCC

Rather than:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA, XXX9ZZZ AAA, XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB, PPP6GGG AAA, TTT6HHH CCCC

That seems to just be a formatting issue with how long my example texts are though. In the examples I gave there is no group count because that is generally only specified in CODRESS messages but the line is there. The from line also generally has a routing indicator, I probably just forgot it in the example. Something I am not sure if is in the standard or not is the classification line is also used to specify SERVICE (Operator to operator) message types as well as classification. In that case it would read CLASSIFICATION SVC rather than CLASSIFICATION. On line 4 the ZRN UUU is a security warning which is an example of an HI/OP SIG. It was put in automatically when I made the example and can be removed if you like.

The standards vary some between agencies and services. For instance the US State Department is a little different from US Military (US State Dept - ACP-127 FORMAT LINES). The samples I gave is what my terminal spits out and is how US Army and Army MARS format things. I am also an amateur radio operator and volunteer with Navy MARS, our format is slightly different, mainly in routing indicator and DTG. Some formats use the Julian Day Number in the header as well.

One comment, off the top, is you might want to reconsider some of the listed documents, they do not really have anything to do with the message format itself. For instance, if I remember correctly, FM 11-490-7 is the document which creates and tasks MARS but it has none of our operating procedures. Many, if mot most of the documents listed seem to be like that.

I think it would be very interesting to go through some of the old documents to see how the standard changed over time and how it varies in implementation. Great job! Please let me know if I can help in any other way. I will get back to you on the table soon. Jbh^Talk 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PetesGuide: Looks like i pinged the wrong account. Also see notes on article talk page. Jbh^Talk 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Thanks for the compliments! I wanted to get this format documented before too many more people forget proper message exchange procedures, like the folks who thought ICS-213 was suitable as a radio message form. ;-) I populated the references with every manual I thought might be relevant, and will whittle them out as I keep working on the article. Yeah; formatting plain text in table cells is un-fun. I need to add some HTML line breaks in there. Already know of the State Dept. manual, but am loathe to try to decode its cryptic content.

DE K6WEB
Peter K. Sheerin 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Youch! I am fearfully amazed at some ARES/RACES organizations training and capabilities. The ICS does not really consider formal, digital message traffic and Amateur Operators kind of need to make do when dealing with served agencies who are more used to filling out 'While You Were Out' message forms than documenting their message traffic. Of course the hams should be converting everything to RADIOGRAM format before sending but many of the examples I have seen just use the ICS 213 blank in FLMSG. There is no uniformity of training and procedures across jurisdictions. That is one of the main reasons I prefer to work with MARS, there is at least a base line of training and expertise.

I wrote a quick extract of a couple of lines from DOS on the talk page [1]. If something like that would help you please let me know. PS Just FYI your call sign might give out more personal information than you intend ie QSL. If it does you can have WP:OVERSIGHT remove it from public view. Jbh^Talk 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my incorrect revert of this article. I did not see a decision placed on top. On plwiki I'm used to place/found it at the bottom of AfD. I don't understand also the erasing all information with a redirection without first merging. Well, I see the specifics of enwiki. Regards, Chrumps (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrumps: No problem. Yes, on enwiki AfD close summaries are placed at the top. The history is still available for later use such as adding some information to the main article or if the topic later becomes notable. In general we do not have articles on University Faculties/Departments/Colleges unless they are notable in and of themselves as institutions. Anyway, enjoy editing on enwiki, I am sure it is going to be different than dewiki but I am sure you will catch on fast. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any assistance. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I ask some opinion by your part on these discussions: Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color and Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color, because the user Impru20 doesn't want to change the color, even when I give references that states what is the real color used by these parties. He says that he want to discuss that, but he doesn't realised about the references. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfs90 and Impru20: As requested I took a look at the discussion on the above two articles. Again, like the prior discussion, I see little difference between the colors. In my opinion any time the color is referenced it should be the same as in the party's published style guide. However, as Impru20 mentioned on Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color there are sometimes technical issues which require another close colour to be used. In that case proper display of the graphic is more important than adhering slavishly to the style guide so long as it looks right.

TL;DR If we are stating the color used by the party we say what their style guide says ie the template should reflect the style guide. If we are creating graphics a consistent look (cf perceptual changes because of nearby colours) is more important. I am unfamiliar with how party colours are handled on Wikipedia in general so this is simply my off the cuff opinion. If there is some customary practice I an unfamiliar with please let me know. Jbh^Talk 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, that no one had a "customary practice", it looks that someone created the templates and the colors only by personal feelings. I don't look any similarity between the colors of UPyD and PSOE (as Impru20 said), and Impru20 is complaining only because he created a lot of maps, graphics and things related, that if we change the color of the party, he had to change all of them. In this case, if he's too compromised with all the Wiki project, he would have the time to correct all that. In the same way, I don't look any reference by Impru20 that sustains his possition; he doesn't gave any reference that says the UPyD color is the one that was used in the template since some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm complaining, among other things, because you are not even caring to discuss the issue before going on to push your edits forwards, which really annoys me. How much does it cost you to TALK? You have had several warnings by several users in the past because of your edit warring behaviour, and far from changing, you still keep maintaing the same behaviour.

Now, on the issue itself: Sfs90, you before put forward some arguments to defend changing to a given color; now you want to change them to other different shades of those colors! So, before, you defended the logo colors; now you want to use the colors set in the manuals of style (something which, by the way, most parties don't even have). Do you realize I'm at the behest of a user who is constantly changing opinion and goes on to change colors using different arguments each time? How many times do you suggest I should change maps, charts and the such? Everytime you feel like to change the colors? Furthermore, the current colors are fine, and most of them are so established so as to keep armony within charts, graphics and maps. What's the necessity of changing the color templates, just because you feel like it, and disestablishing the entire consistency of colors in the charts? I'm really bothered of the little consideration you have for the work of others, that you don't even care to discuss with them.

Customary practice, usually, is to use the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia uses, rather than use the same exact shade the party uses (as long as the color is similar to the one used by either the party or the media). That is so because parties frequently don't keep using the same shade of a given color and keep changing it, within the range of different shades of their corporative colors. So, instead keeping constantly changing party colors (unless a given party changes from blue to red, to say an example), the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia purposes are frequently used. Sometimes that color may coincide with the exact shade used by the party, sometimes don't. Just check Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Syriza, Democratic Party of Japan, Labour Party (United Kingdom), Conservative Party (United Kingdom), Social Democratic Party of Austria, Forza Italia (2013), Socialist Party (France), Socialist Party (Portugal), Freedom Party of Austria, etc. Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: You know what's the difference? That the templates or the color that is written in the infobox doesn't have any references about the color. In the case of UPyD and Citizens (not PP, i'll concede you that they could use different shades) I give very reliable sources (the graphics identity manual used by them), and I don't see any about that in the parties you mention as examples. You see? If they have or don't any manual that states their colors, that's not my fault. In the case of UPyD and Citizens, they have one and states clearly the color. The precission is a thing that we should consider here in Wikipedia, and if we have references that support that, we could apply it. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I have to support the position of least disruption here. If the colours on the charts are not obviously visually wrong then keep them. The only time I fee we must stick to a party's MOS is when we explicitly state what colour they use ie if we were to say X party uses #ABABAB in an place a reader would see whether or not we are actually using #ACABAB in our graphics. There is no reason to go changing pre-existing and consistent graphics unless they are visually problematic nor do I see a problem with making a clean break, keeping the old graphics as is and moving forward with the MOS colour in the future so long as at this point you select one colour and stick with it moving on. Jbh^Talk 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfs90: In the case of Citizens, you will see that I accepted your change without serious discussion. The only issue arising then was that the source was unclear on the color that they were using, but was solved by using the hex provided by the party (also because differences were minimal and weren't noticeable to the naked eye, either).

You just told it. "if we have references that support that, we could apply it". We "could", but we are not forced to.

Anyway, I may concede on changing colors of small parties that have strict manual of styles and whose colors do not damage consistency, specially because changes are not difficult (there are few charts were UPyD color should be changed in order to accomplish this, for instance). I'll have to make further tests on UPyD, but I could concede on changing it. But, definitely, changing the color of major parties, such as PP, which don't even clings on to the same color shades, would require serious discussion and consensus because it would mean serious and major changes in consistency in charts between the different election articles and the such.

However, next time you are to do something like this, if you see that the edit is disputed go and discuss the issue before trying to push your disputed edit forward. I tell you because you have these issues with many people, not just with me, and someday you may end up reported by someone who hasn't the patience I or others have. Impru20 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving {{hab}} down a bit.) @MacRusgail: If you wish to engage with me please do so on the appropriate talk page or, if you like BOOMERANGS at ANI. Good day sir. Jbh^Talk 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...that discipline does not always carry over to Wikipedia since I edit as a hobby and to relax.. You too? WTF is wrong with both of us? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: LOL! Yes, maybe it is intellectual masochism :) ... I always find interesting people and topics which I might never have looked into when I edit Wikipedia and compared to RL it is almost impossible to get upset or angry for more than a few minutes here. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The updates from 97.100.252.46 appear suspect. Providing an FYI as you've worked on the page in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Technical_University

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.11.193 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have warned Conklinj about the wrong article. I suspect that you meant Oil Content Meter rather than Oily water separator. I would have changed it myself but didn't want to incur the wrath of another editor complaining about re-factoring the comments of others!. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Thank you for letting me know. I will add a note on their talk page. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]