User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

You're a magician!

Now, can you get User:Enterprisey/archiver to work? That's the real, since it really speeds things up when arching batches of threads (which is obviously what I want to do). I'd forgetten about it until just now. I know there was a time when both one-click and the multi-threads-at-once both worked at the same time. (Maybe you had to turn one off to use the other -- can't recall.) If I had to pick one, it would be the Enterprisey one. Any insight you can lend would be appreciated. I'm slammed IRL. EEng 00:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the Enterprisey archiver was caught up in the same change to section headings that caused a fault in the one-click-archiver, but I don't know if someone's made a fix for it yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What was the change to section headings? EEng 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

mw:Heading HTML changes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to find someone who can fix that too, would you? Your name would be honored down through the ages. EEng 16:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to honour someone else's name: User:andrybak/Scripts/Archiver should do the job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Works like a charm. I really appreciate it! EEng 17:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You can thank me by putting that script to work on a certain page... then I really will be a magician. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that would make you a Svengali. EEng 19:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

all the little flies end up in my web ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your closure on Tesla page is just terrible.

Let me start from the beggining

This RfC was a mess from start to finish Why should I care? Tell it those who made a mess. I surely haven't.

The foremost cause was probably the RfC initiator User:Trimpops2 and their opening statement, neither neutral nor brief, often incorrect, initially proposing outright plagiarism, and following none of WP:WRFC; then they proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion Why do I care about that user? I was there to review sources.

neither neutral Where exactly it lacks neutrality? You didn't bother to explain. What would be more neutral in your opinion?

nor brief This is just incorrect. It's more brief than most of RfCs I've seen. It must be below the average.

often incorrect Not often, but in some regards. That was corrected in the discussion.

initially proposing outright plagiarism Not true. It's allowed to quote directly from sources. Anyways, the purposal isn't set in stone and editors can suggest alternative wording and this all can be discussed.

and following none of WP:WRFC Really? None? I don't want to bother to answer that. I'm sure we can easily find one of WRFCs that was followed. If some aren't you should provide explanation instead of making such unfounded accusation.

then they proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion Again, why do I care about that used.

Truth be told, however, no-one came out of this discussion smelling like roses—poor editing behaviour was on show from nearly everyone. Not true. Discussions on contested topics are often harsh. No one stepped out of boundaries, apart from one editor who suggested that nationality should be considered when determining consensus which some have characterized as racist.

This is especially concerning considering the contentious topic designation: I could easily see WP:AE sanctions for half a dozen editors here. Again, why do I care about that???

I don't care about all that. Let's see how you determined the consensus.

I summarize this discussion as asking whether it would be a) correct and b) WP:DUE to add a sentence specifying the political circumstances of Nikola Tesla's birthplace at that time. Yes. But you didn't summarize that. That is explicitly asked in the RfC intro.

In such a discussion, making arguments from contextually-relevant reliable sources is essential. Ok, that is fair.

There was pitifully little of that though Not true at all. Sources were discussed a lot

especially little discussion on he problem of due weight Not true. Most of discussion was about due weight

he article should be changed came to no consensus You provided no explanation on how sources were considered when determining consensus.

the ill-formed opening statement Nothing was ill-formed. Please provide explanation on how the proper formulation should be.

the difficulties in evaluating consensus amid excessive POV-pushing You are here to resolve that. If you have difficulties , you can leave it for others.

Furhtermore, you have provided only the consensus on the due weight. You didn't touch on the first question.

93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

An intriguing message. Before I reply, could you please let me know which username or IP address you commented under in the RFC? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

5.39.134.145 93.141.181.3 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. You posted a single 20-word !vote in the 21,000-word RfC, somehow came to the conclusion that everything in the close should have been a response to you specifically, and got offended that the close was directed at the major participants: "Why should I care? Tell it those who made a mess. I surely haven't ... Why do I care about that user? I was there to review sources ... Again, why do I care about that used [sic] ... Again, why do I care about that??? I don't care about all that. Weirdly, those who contributed more than 0.1% of the discussion got more attention in the close.

Now, let's move on from your huffing.

• The RfC statement was not short, being over 250 words, or neutral, as it was clearly arguing for the answer "yes" to both questions.
• I don't particularly care to pedantize over whether "often" and "in some regards" are meaningfully different.
• No, the copyright policy does not allow for direct quotations without attribution—see WP:PLAGFORM.
• Go ahead, find one bit of WP:WRFC that the opening statement followed.
• "No one stepped out of boundaries" ... yeah, totally. I suppose when you wrote "why do I care" about 8,500 words of bludgeoning, you really meant that.
• No, sources were vaguely mentioned, along with decade-old discussions on other talk pages, but no-one, including yourself, actually discussed them. Your "review of sources" actually consisted of saying "The sources are there"—no shit Sherlock? If you believe that the question of WP:DUE was "explicitly asked in the RfC intro", why did you not bother to address it at all? Your !vote was characteristic of the typical level of engagement with sources in this discussion—extremely superficial.
• "You are here to resolve that" If you click on the link I provided, you'll find a list of common RfC results, of which two are "RfC is not well-formed" and "Consensus cannot be evaluated".
• Since you ask, a better opening statement would have been the updated proposal (reached after a period of WP:RFCBEFORE discussion), reading something like: Should "At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia." be added after the first sentence in the "Early years" section? Then, the RfC opener would put their sources, reasoning, and conclusion in their first !vote. The guidance at WP:WRFC visualises why this framing is helpful.

I think that's about all I have to say. If you have any further concerns, please start a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, terrible answer. You didn't answer all my points and you feel you don't need to discuss anymore? I will go to AN, but it's protected at the moment, so I can't.

You posted...a single 20-word !vote It doesn't matter how much I posted. I could have been an uninvolved editor to call you out for terrible closure.

Weirdly, those who contributed more than 0.1% of the discussion got more attention in the close. Totally inappropriate thing to say. I didn't even identify myself, utill you asked, how could have I asked for more attention? I complained that you spent a lot of your explanation to address other editors insted of explaining how the sources were considered in determining the consensus.

somehow came to the conclusion that everything in the close should have been a response to you specifically, and got offended that the close was directed at the major participants You may write even more to major participants, but this isn't related to anything on how the sources were considered when consensus was determined. My point is that I was only interested on how sources were considered and that is why I said "I don't care about that".

You still didn't answer how sources were considered. And you still didn't answer why you failed to provide the consensus on the point a).

RfC asked 2 questions and the second question is the same as your purposed formulation: Should "At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia." be added after the first sentence in the "Early years" section?. The RfC second question: Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina" 93.141.181.3 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Both questions ask whether a sentece should be added to article. Only difference is that you used Carlson's sentece and the RfC uses O'Neills. You calim the RfC isn't neutral and your purposal is the same as RfCs? 93.141.181.3 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, if you think that a 36-word opening statement is the same as a 256-word one, I look forward to this close review! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you answering? On the point of neutrality? You said RfC is not neutral. I asked you to provide an explanation and/or example of how a neutral RfC would look like. And you produced the same exact formulation as the second question for RfC itself? Please explain how your forumation is neutral and second question from RfC isn't. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, do you realize that your formulation is the same as the RfCs regarding neutrality? Shall we go to dispute resolution board with both formulations to ask uninvoved editors which one is neutral and which one isn't? 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I have created a close review section at WP:AN. You are welcome to post comments below, and I will forward it on to that noticeboard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit there. It's protected. This is the post I'd like to post there.

The closure haven't provided any explanation on how the consensus was determined. No explanation on how sources were considered when establishing the consensus. No explanation on other points from the discussion. Improper use of SYNTH and OR and unsourced claims, Gish galloping. The RfC stated 2 questions and the consensus was provided only on due weight. I would like an explanation on how a group of editors who disagree with the sources can have a valid stand against presented sources without any sources of their own. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

From the closure explanation , I expect the following. Name all participants and name the points they made and sources they posted. Name couterpoints others have made to their points and explain how the points were evaluated in determining the consensus. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the AN thread. I still expect an explanation from you on the neutrality point, since your purposed "neutral" formulation is exactly the same as RfCs 2nd question. How do you explain your claim that the RfC isn't neutral 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to post this at AN? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29, as a slightly more involved participant than 93.141.181.3, my opinion is your closing was excellent. There's no need to feed trolls like 93.141.181.3, he's just looking for attention. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

DCWC September update

The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:

• Arconning (submissions) – 386 points, with several good articles primarily relating to the Olympics
• Vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 141 points, who created multiple articles about abortion rights and laws in African countries
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) – 126 points, who has contributed to several articles associated with the Phillippines
• Jaguarnik (submissions) – 125 points, with several good article reviews and an appearance in the In the news section of the Main Page
• Averageuntitleduser (submissions) – 119 points, and has written about several Haitian topics and historical figures.

Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Patterson DYK

Thanks for your comment on the 'First person to do hooks' on Mary Jane Patterson. Good point. Where should I leave my ideas for alternative hooks? Balance person (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Balance person, on the nomination is best. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Fishwick for an example of how to format the alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I hope I have done it correctly. I have changed the main hook and explained why. Have left ALT1 hook and explained why. If something else is, needed do let me know? Thanks for your help. Balance person (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you have done it correctly for me. Thank you. I couldn't see how to add a new improved hook. I usually use visual editor and find the other editor hard to do! Could you tell me what happens next? Does an administrator have to decide now? Balance person (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Just a note to say that I have agreed with the latest hook on DYK for MJP and have edited that first paragraph that was difficult to parse. Do let me know if there is anything else I should do? Thanks. Balance person (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We will see if another promoter feels it is interesting enough to promote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Armand Duplantis

Hi, do you have privileges to restrict the above page to registered users only, or how do you request that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Duplantis

Cheers Billsmith60 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have requested temporary protection at WP:RFPP—I'm not an admin so can't do it myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! Billsmith60 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FAC

You kindly made a suggestion or two on my talk page while I was preparing the article on The Importance of Being Earnest for FAC. It is now at FAC, and any further comments you may have will be greatly appreciated, if you are inclined to look in. Tim riley talk 21:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Will try to stop by. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

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) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Mohamed Aly Ahmed CSD decline

I felt it only polite to mention this personally. I rarely decline CSD nominations. This one I feel may be salvageable, though I half agree that WP:TNT would be a good place to start. I left a longish edit summary when I declined it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can a line about Hotula Khan be added to the Genghis Khan FA?

Hi, I recently read that Hotula Khan was the great uncle of Genghis, and was tortured to death by the Tatars and/or the Jin. The source said that this was why Genghis took revenge against these two states. Do you think this is notable enough to be added to the Genghis Khan article? I think it is but just wanted to confirm. Matarisvan (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan, if he existed, Hotula's campaigns and death against the Jin were in retaliation for the death of his predecessor Ambaghai, who is mentioned in the article and my most RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

Hello AirshipJungleman29:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

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) 21:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

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) 18:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Personal Attacks and false reports and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Potymkin (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you by any chance consider reading the guide to arbitration before opening a request, Potymkin? Serious question. WP:BUTT may have been useful reading prior to posting an AI-generated comment denying use of AI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The list you nominated, List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hey man im josh (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations! - Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with a DYK hook from 2010 and another from 2014, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Request

Although this is a little far stretched request, I would like you to review National Intelligence and Security Service if they meet the good article criteria. I have seen you been heavily involved, and it would be a pleasure if you could do so in this article I have heavily helped modified. CtasACT (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do so CtasACT, but the result will likely not be to your liking. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, being honest is a good quality to have! If I have changes to make I'll do so. CtasACT (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

GAR

Hello AirshipJungleman29, would you kindly undo this revision as I'm currently working on that GAR please. I'm gonna assume you did not go through the discussion. I'm currently tied up with school and work plus lack of mobile data so I cannot speed up the process. I don't think that article anywhere near GA status, and only me and article creator were discussing, obviously he would never agree to delist Thank you so much for understanding. dxneo (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello missy, as the project creator, would you please add your assessment and support as to why you initiated the GAR? dxneo (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would I not go through a discussion I closed dxneo? I have closed hundreds of GARs, and many article creators have agreed to delist. Why not start another GAR when you have more time to work on the article? If you are certain that that will happen shortly, I can reopen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding in timely manner. I guess I'll finish my review before reopening. I'll ping you to stop by when it's done. dxneo (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Siege of Baghdad

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Siege of Baghdad, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Mentorship questions Aug–Sep

Question from Kinish Tivane

How do i edit --Kinish Tivane (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinish Tivane, you might like to have a look at the Wikipedia Adventure, which should set you up nicely for editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I write and publish a piece of my opinion --Kinish Tivane (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinish Tivane. Wikipedia is not for personal opinions or original research. It is for encyclopedic articles on subjects that have been talked about by independent, reliable sources. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

i personally think pythons should be hunted to extinction because of the growing population of them. We might find ourselves hunted to extinction because of the pythons Kinish Tivane (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

i think we should hold a weekly debating class at Saturdays to address the problems affecting our world. The person who wins the debate gets points and virtual medals Kinish Tivane (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinish Tivane, this sort of comments are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you continue, please do so on your own talk page; otherwise, focus your attention on improving articles. I will remove any further such comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from JohnKristofferRamos

Hello sir, just done an edit but I don't see it in my draft, it's 1979 but I only see 1973-1976 --JohnKristofferRamos (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi JohnKristofferRamos, I believe the problem is that you did not close one of your in-text comments using --> on the line that starts "1976". Can I ask if you are related to Trovador Ramos Sr.? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am, he's the Filipino Man that defeated bruce lee, JohnKristofferRamos (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are related to him, please follow the steps outlined at WP:COIEDIT JohnKristofferRamos. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Steven R. Bolton

My "user name" is Steven R. Bolton, but I would like to be listed and searched as "Steve Bolton"

Is this possible? --Steven R. Bolton (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steven R. Bolton. If this is in relation to your userpage, please note that advertising and promotional text, such as you have placed there, is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles on notable subjects. As such, your userpage will shortly be deleted.

If this is unrelated to your userpage, no, your username is how you will be listed and searched by on Wikipedia. You can however change your signature—see WP:CUSTOMSIG for how to do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Eking2930

I need to edit some details related to me the person. --Eking2930 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Eking2930, do you have a Wikipedia page? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Williamsr73

Can schools make you pay a fee for fundraiser you did not participate in --Williamsr73 (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Williamsr73 that seems a little unfair, but the schools might have terms and conditions that force you to pay a fee. Always read the small print! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Abdulrahman mohammed usman

Has kebbi state university of science and technology have start applying for civil Engeeneering --Abdulrahman mohammed usman (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to ask them Abdulrahman mohammed usman. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Singhgarima.295

hi, i have added an article, and have edited some. it says the pages have published but the new article I wrote does not pop up when I search for it. Can you please help? --healer27 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Singhgarima.295, the big problem here is that the page you wrote is AI-generated, entirely promotional, and completely against what Wikipedia is for. I will leave some helpful links on your userpage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Appreciate it. Does that mean the page will not be live? When you leave the links can you please add links for some company pages, so we know how to write these pages?

Alos, why does it say my title on the top of the page? I would like my name to be anonymous. healer27 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to request a username change, you can do so at this link Singhgarima.295; until then, your username is visible to all. For company pages, please see WP:NOTPROMO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Petefrlin

Hello, I just read the "Three Percenters" Wiki page and realized most of it is debatable or inapplicable since the SCOTUS decision on 18 USC 1512 (c) 2 (et al) largely dismantled all the Felony Conspiracy and Obstruction of an official proceeding charges against J6ers. (Links below), It sounds like the guys are already out of prison. Unclear how each was held, pretrial confinement perhaps allowing time served. Is it common to just put a disclaimer at the top-mid-bottom of the Page to warn readers that SCOTUS disallowed charges (with better wording)?

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-rule-for-jan-6-defendant/

https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-sarbanes-oxley-prohibition-on-obstructing-official-proceedings/

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11126

Pete --Petefrlin (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Petefrlin. I must admit that not being an American, I don't understand most of what you have written. But that is the good thing about Wikipedia—people who know more, such as yourself, can update the article to match reality. You can do this by removing the information that is incorrect, or rewriting it to make it clear that it has been superseded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Luyabd

How do I create an article --Luyabd (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The links on your talk page might be helpful Luyabd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdraw

To be frank, that discussion was not a fair evaluation of your merits. The more I looked into the diffs and discussions the opposes raised, the more indignant I became about how much context had been blatantly omitted. I can't imagine how much more frustrating it must have been on your end. I hope it doesn't get you too down. – Teratix ₵ 09:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry. Some of it was frustrating bullshit, sure, but so is a lot of the stuff on here. I judge my time on WP by the impact I've had on the readers, and there are only a couple of editors in the opposes who can say they have done a similar or better job. At the end of the day, I'm glad that I chose to ran the gauntlet, and the consequences of failure aren't as high as they are for these guys. Now though, I have articles to write and a WikiCup to win. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Despite the opposers, you deserve one of these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SC. Signed, a grumpy content editor ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Name

I missed your RfA but will take this opportunity to inquire about your user name, if I may. "AirshipJungleman29" sounds like it means something such as Can a new airship unlock the Amazon? but I can't really place it. I've looked through your userboxes but they don't seem to help. Please oblige us with more details. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a game I played as a child set in a sort of steampunk world, where you used an airship as a base to explore a jungle. I've tried to find that game again, but no luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth

In the situation that I asked about in the question, my concern wasn't that you called the image dull or that you cared about systemic bias. It was that you unilaterally removed Bruxton's use of the image. You're both very experienced at DYK and that interaction left me feeling like maybe you two have a history? It's possible that I'm just completely missing the point but that's what it seemed like to me as an outside observer. I will say that DYK is an area that sorely needs admins. It's why I !voted neutral. I will say that I understand why people have temperament concerns, even if you may have been right on the merits of some of these situations. But the way these situations are approached matters too, especially as an admin. I will say that I didn't see anything problematic with your responses to mentorship questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have a "history" and certainly not about promoting. It's normal to have disagreements at DYK, but they normally resolve well (see e.g. here, or the Christmas set Lightburst brought up). I enjoy Bruxton's article's on old photographs, I remember one on Babe Ruth that was especially powerful. Also, would you really say that the response at #September 2024, to an editor using AI generation to bring an arbitration request denying use of AI generation, is unworthy of an admin? If it is, then I am 100% happy the RfA didn't progress very far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe you don't realize that it's more than normal disagreements. But that's not for me to share. I will say it's a large part of why I could not bring myself to support your RfA. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As for Also, would you really say that the response at #September 2024, to an editor using AI generation to bring an arbitration request denying use of AI generation, is unworthy of an admin? If it is, then I am 100% happy the RfA didn't progress very far, please reread what I actually said. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I know what you wrote Clovermoss, sorry for the misunderstanding. I am asking a different question, one which focuses on the #September 2024 section above, which another admin feels I should have responded to in a more civil manner. I don't know what your first comment is getting at, I am genuinely sorry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would've left out the link to WP:BUTT but I don't think that comment was otherwise out of line, no. As for my first comment, I hope you understand what I mean by it someday. There's not much I can say without betraying the confidence of other editors. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. See you around then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Kokejin

Stumbled across Draft:Kokejin and saw you declined it. As someone more familiar with the related history, is the first empress dowager of Yuan not notable? Obviously the draft could do with better writing, but is that it? Right now it's been resubmitted with no changes. Reconrabbit 14:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, the issue is of significant coverage. If you look at the article itself, you'll see that most of it focuses on events surrounding the Yuan court in Kokejin's life, not of her herself. The source are similar: there is little more than "she was the senior wife of Zhenjin and the mother of Temur". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing that there is very little said about Kokejin herself. I just assumed that I wasn't seeing something in the sources, most of which I can't read, and it doesn't help that the name keeps changing within the text. Will decline as no improvement. Reconrabbit 15:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		That definitely didn't seem like a fair assessment, as Teratix mentioned two threads up. I had planned to elaborate my support rationale this morning, but woke up to a disappointing early withdrawal instead. I must not be a particularly good judge of communication, because apart from one or two comments snipped out of context by opposers, I didn't really find anything wrong in the surfaced diffs. A sizeable minority of the opposition seemed to be people who don't like hearing about their own shortcomings, with an additional subset of people reading diffs out of context and making assumptions based on limited information. At least it's over quickly, but still indicative of a community prioritising style over substance. Best wishes, and I'll try to do a better job in crafting an appropriate support rationale for your next attempt instead of what I did this time round. Some nominators would probably be good next time too if you ever decide to run again. Folly Mox (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry to say it was all over by the time I got to the PC. To paraphrase, "It would have been a hard Support from me x 10 per Lightburst". Best of luck for next time. SerialNumber54129 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Folly Mox and Obi-Wan Kenobi ;) for the kind words, but I don't anticipate there being a next time, so sorry to disappoint on that count. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

    That is sad (but perhaps you can revisit the question in a year or two). The whole thing went a bit fast (I only noticed it after it was over) and does not look like a fair assessment of your contribution to Wikipedia (and of your possibly even better contributions if armed with a mop) at all. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1 The diffs were minor issues or only made me support you more. Wikipedia needs admins who can call a spade a spade, but I understand your decision to not run again. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello @AirshipJungleman29, could you provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection? PadFoot (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi PadFoot2008, I'm fairly certain that this sort of notification is a violation of WP:CANVASS. I do tend to patrol history AFDs, so I would have probably noticed it anyway, but this sort of notification makes it difficult to !vote unless I disagree with you (which you and I know has happened but others do not). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the above-mentioned AfD was my first AfD. I am new to these, so I wasn't aware of this. I'll will keep this in mind in future. PadFoot (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 Lebanon strikes

Hi there, I think perhaps the snow closure you made here could use a bit more discussion. The new title definitely had the most !votes, but I believe that the other proposed titles and rationales behind them warrant a bit more time to be discussed as reading through the discussion I'm not seeing very many policy-based comments that support the new title over all the others. Thank you, :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of September 2024 Lebanon strikes. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't see this earlier—the below messages distracted me. Considering the events of the past week and today, however, I don't think there is any real reason to think about overturning the close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A nice reminder. You got any plans for the Women in Green event, Gerda? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but more than I can handle. Actually all women still on my user page in the 2024 section (until 15 September, - the others are just not yet archived) would be good for it, but I'll have to check what can be done. The Ukrainian conductor and the Turkish-German director would be my first wishes for a possible DYK, but I don't know their articles well. The Russian ballerina would be great just to counter her rejection on DYK, but it's a sourcing problem, - I feel I need someone willing to help who knows Russian and have failed so far to attract someone. There's also the German director who changed the Pussini plot, and the French violinist, but one was on DYK already, the other will come tomorrow, less incentive - and the month will have the usual four Bach cantatas to bring to GA (if they aren't yet), and too many bios of people who recently died and should be improved promptly. We'll see. Nothing ready to be nominated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is a next time ...

... I would expect to support. I don't ever plan to go through RfA, so I certainly understand if you don't try it again, but I think you'd make a capable admin and I would trust you to manage your tone if you did get the mop. In the meantime I look forward to reading more of your content work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't forsee it happening again, but thanks. (and you know I think you'd pass easily.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I could probably pass, but I'm just not involved in the tasks that require the admin bit, so there's no reason to apply. Maybe that'll change one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing that content disputes are somehow chiefly relevant to a user becoming an admin, yet content creation is apparently meaningless... I hope you change your mind in the future Aza24 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

+1. I came across the RfA after it closed, but on looking at some of the diffs from the opposers I found them really weak. You've done a lot of great work! Sdkb ^talk 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Thank you so much for reviewing the new Black Lesbian and Gay Centre page through AfC. This was the editor's first page from scratch - the speedy review was much appreciated as it came in time for the end of a 5 hour wikithon! Please accept this friendly 'trout slap' - I saw the category on your user page and just had to use it. So, not for doing something silly, but a silly way for me to say thanks on behalf of the feminist library wikithon editors. Medievalfran (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome Medievalfran—and thanks for the trout, too! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Help needed on Byzantine Empire FAR

Hi AJ. Your help is needed on the Byzantine Empire FAR, which was opened on 30 October 2023, and thus will complete a full year in 23 days. We should try to make a last push and have it kept before this month ends. Your work on the rewrite has been immensely helpful, and I have hit an obstacle which I think only you can resolve, what with your comprehensive knowledge of history. The issue is the sourcing for images. I have resolved this for most of the images, but am finding it tough to do so for the remainder, about 5-6 in number. Please let me know if you are ok with working on this, if so, I will reply with a list of the images which need work on sourcing. Matarisvan (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan, there is no way the FAR will be complete before the end of this month, but I am certainly willing to work on the images. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, these images are File:Byzantine Empire animated.gif, File:Tetrarchy map3.jpg, File:The Sasanian Empire at its apex under Khosrow II.svg, File:ByzantineEmpire867AD4-en.svg, File:Byzantiumforecrusades.jpg, File:LatinEmpire2.png. As you can see, all of these are maps, which need sourcing for the territories shown to be under the control of each state depicted. I managed to cut down the images which needed sourcing from 11 to 6, but these are proving to be quite hard to source. Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Jochi

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Jochi, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Bronze W Award

		Bronze W Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Bronze W Award for your contributions to each long-time section of the Main Page: a Featured Article at Today's Featured Article and 5 articles listed at Did You Know. Your contributions to Wikipedia put you in a class of prolific, highly skilled editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You qualify for 5 Bronze W awards but I don't want to spam your talk page with many awards so here! You can display this award by using Template:Bronze W UBX.

TFL notification

Hi, AirshipJungleman29. I'm just posting to let you know that List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 11. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And happy prep to queue promoting! (I am sure you are aware that it requires different checks than promoting to prep; see e.g. WP:DYKAI). —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hi AirshipJungleman29,

This is to let you know that File:Sarlyk Yak2.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 29, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-10-29. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The yak (Bos grunniens) is a species of long-haired domesticated cattle in the family Bovidae. It is found throughout the Himalayas in Pakistan, India, the Tibetan Plateau of China, Tajikistan, and as far north as Mongolia and Siberia, Russia. Yak physiology is well adapted to high altitudes and cold weather, featuring larger lungs and heart than other cattle, a greater capacity for transporting oxygen through their blood and a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Yaks have been domesticated in areas such as Mongolia and Tibet, primarily for their fibre, milk and meat, and as beasts of burden. Yaks' milk is often processed to a cheese called chhurpi in the Tibetan and Nepali languages, and byaslag in Mongolia, while butter made from yaks' milk is an ingredient of Tibetan butter tea. This yak was photographed near the river Chuya in the Altai Republic, a region in southern Siberia.

Photograph credit: Alexandr Frolov

Recently featured:

• Le roi d'Ys
• Acer negundo
• Greater white-fronted goose

Siege of Baghdad

I will be scheduling this for TFA on 20 Nov. Fancy having a go a the draft blurb? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFAP: 10 Feb Gog the Mild, sorry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have finally nominated the article. Please take a look if you can: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Jenhawk777, my RfA last week went equally badly, so please don't feel you're alone with embarassing rebukes from the community. Please don't feel too discouraged—your work for Wikipedia has been excellent, and FA isn't everything. If you do intend to try again in the future, I would get another article to FAC first, but obviously it's your choice. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanx for the encouragement. That's got to be one of the fastest fails ever. I understand taking criticisms seriously, but I don't understand accepting comments uncritically without fact checking. I worked on this for over two years, carefully documented everything, and it failed in about 6 hours with not a single comment checked for accuracy. Several comments indicated they didn't even bother to read a whole section before questioning it since answers were in the text. Not a one checked what the sources said. But it was all simply accepted. I wasn't allowed to "fix" anything. I wasn't even allowed to respond. I'm disappointed in how this was handled, but I'm not embarrassed by the work I did. They don't like it, but this is what current scholarship looks like, and there is only going to be more of it. But I'm done. I won't try this again. Good luck and good wishes to you too. I'm leaving for awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am over feeling sad and depressed and have moved on to pissed off and proactive. I realize looking over their comments that I was so focused on being concise that I cut and combined too much. It ended up looking like sweeping claims without support. So screw concise. I'm going back to thorough, which I'm actually good at. I will fix what they complained about and renominate, and if it fails again, I will do it again. This article needs to be FA. I do have a question for you though. I liked your redo of the lead paragraph, but why is it better at the end than at the start? My thinking was, for those not interested in Christianity, it's interesting and explains notability. Thank you again for your help. You're a sweetheart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

An example of a problematic section...

(#Christianity and polytheism)... and how to formulate your line of thinking to fix it Jenhawk777:

"Twenty-first-century scholarship has largely turned away from the idea of an epic “conflict between pagans and Christians” in Late Antiquity." This is not Historiography of the history of Christianity: it is not your job to chronicle the dates and eras of historical thinking. Then, why is the quote needed? It is easily paraphrased into plain and concise text. And why three citations? I have only checked the last, but it seems to verify all the needed information.

"Traditional cults continued to flourish in some areas, for enough years, that scholars have no agreed upon date, or even decade, to say "when paganism ended"." You really feel you have to quote "when paganism ended"?? And why are there so many qualifiers: in some areas, for enough years, date or even decade? Come straight to the point.

So, perhaps, "There was no polytheist–Christian conflict in Late Antiquity: in places, traditional cults flourished for long enough that scholars cannot determine their end date." Simple, no? But is it correct for Wikipedia purposes? Let's read on...

"Still, Constantine did write laws against sacrifice using language that Peter Brown describes as "uniformly vehement" with "frequently horrifying" penalties, evidencing the intent of "terrorizing" the populace into accepting its removal. Under Julian, the Christian populace tore down sacrificial altars. Sacrifice, a central rite of virtually all religious groups in the pre-Christian Mediterranean, largely disappeared before the end of the fourth-century."

Be careful. Now, you cite a source that openly propounds the theory of a "mighty conflict". Why is Peter Brown worthy of citing for Constantine's vehement and horrifying laws, but not for his views on the bigger picture. The whole paragraph, going on about sacrifice, smacks of "I want to convey viewpoints that the "anti-conflict model" does not utilise, but I don't want to acknowledge that, so I won't talk about it at all."

So, how about the following, summarising the first two paragraphs: "Some scholars have argued that a widespread polytheist-Christian conflict occurred in Late Antiquity. They cite evidence such as laws issued by Constantine stridently prohibiting the practice of sacrifice, a central rite of nearly all religious groups in the pre-Christian Mediterranean, but which largely disappeared before 400 AD. Others argue that such a conflict never occurred, and that in places, traditional cults flourished for long enough that scholars cannot determine their end date."

I don't know if Constantine's laws are the best evidence for the pro-conflict viewpoint—that's something you'll have to decide—but you cannot simply ignore the writings of Brown and those agreeing with him simply because they were published before the turn of the century. And don't even ask me what that bit on Julian is supposed to be conveying.

"Christians of the fourth-century believed Constantine's conversion was evidence the Christian God had conquered the Hellenist gods in Heaven." Let's look at the citations here. Stark has nothing to do with this sentence; don't know why he's cited. That leaves citations to two works by Peter Brown. Neither of them verify the text in the slightest, and indeed argue against it. What's going on?

"This "triumph of Christianity" became the primary Christian narrative in writings of the late antique age despite Christians representing only ten to fifteen percent of the empire's population in 313. As a minority, triumph did not, generally, involve an increase in violence aimed at the polytheistic majority." Focus! Where is the focus? It's like you're trying to use as many words as possible. You've said very little here, but taken 50 words to do it. Is this related to what comes before/after—the conflict model? Is it just a random interjection about Christian self-identification? And even more fundamentally, are you sure that the sources verify the text?

"Constantine's policy toward non-Christians was, in general, "toleration with limits", and conflict between these groups was more rhetorical than actual, with a few exceptions. Constantine was vigorous in reclaiming church properties that had previously been confiscated by the state, and he used reclamation to justify the destruction of some Greco-Roman temples such as Aphrodite's temple in Jerusalem." for some reason this is two paragraphs away from the previous sentence on Constantine's policies. Also, once again, utilising two separate groups of scholars without acknowledging they fundamentally disagree, leading to a paragraph that will leave any non-specialist reader completely confused.

"There was no legislation forcing the conversion of pagans until the sixth-century, during the reign of the Eastern emperor Justinian I." four citations for this? Really?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Bless you a thousand times. I will fix all of these. Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This was tremendously useful. You are completely right that I don't stay focused. I get so wrapped up in all the interesting things in all the research that I want to include them all. I can see from the above that all that does is obscure meaning.

I have now redone that section, though not exactly as you have here. Hear me out. I cannot in good conscience include Some scholars have argued that a widespread polytheist-Christian conflict occurred in Late Antiquity. as a current majority theory. It isn't really even a minority theory anymore. However, I gave more attention to legislation and just left out the triumph thing. (It's kind of background-ish rather than main-point-ish - if you know what I mean...) So, I hope it's better balanced and clearer and not confusing. I think it is. I hope you agree. If so, I can take this same approach and apply it to the rest of the article. Thank you! I deeply appreciate this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Much, much, MUCH better Jenhawk777! Focused, precise, clear to non-specialists. Still needs work on prose quality (I've noticed you tend to lose subject-verb correlations), but a really good improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I may be getting too old for this. You have been so wonderful and I am truly grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

re Special:Diff/1250995944

As long as the source is reliable and independent of the government (is it?), I don't think the hook needs more attribution than that, no :) cc Polyamorph theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the "allows visitors 'to appreciate the uniqueness of the city'" bit is kinda just puffery. I think that should just be struck. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Chagatai Khan

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Chagatai Khan, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References in captions

Hi AirshipJungleman29! My understanding is that it's probably better not to delete references from captions (see here), since Wikipedia considers captions should be referenced as appropriate, just like any other text: "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article" in Wikipedia:Citing sources Best! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi पाटलिपुत्र; the issue was not the references but what they were citing—intricate details of clothing of are not really relevant to an article on the Mongol invasion. Actually, per MOS:IRELEV, I'm not entirely sure that the image itself is that pertinent to the topic in the first place. I'll be rewriting that article in the near future anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It is intended as an illustration of what the military class looked like at the time and place covered by the article, which is documented by the references. But I am looking forward to your rewrite, and feel free to remove the image if you think it does not fit. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Slime

I actually kind of liked the IAR caption, in a bizarre sort of way. RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So did I, but it seemed a bit too meta. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Checheyigen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Checheyigen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The article Checheyigen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Checheyigen for comments about the article, and Talk:Checheyigen/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome AirshipJungleman29! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 3rd opinion

Hey there, sorry to bother you. Just let you know, both of us have so far summarised our opinions on Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar. You can take your time. Thank you for your valuable time and wish you a nice day! Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 09:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

your message issue (Buniyatov and Khwarazmian)

Moved to Talk:Khwarazmian Empire ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

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)

Atlanta Braves GA Nomination

I did a manual revert after reading the instructions. I also decided to give it a more in depth review of the page. Thanks! Paytonisboss (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)