User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive 2

Greece-Turkey relations
Hi

Thanks for your review of Greece–Turkey relations. One of the reasons you quick failed is due to failed neutrality.

This page has suffered edit warring and I tried my best to balance all the perspectives and all narrative is supported by sources. If I read the Wikipedia guideline, "It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each" and I believe it achieves that.

It would be helpful if you can explain where that so it can be corrected.

Elias (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . The article does not follow the recommendations outlined at WP:NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. The article consistently presents opinions from sources as fact, and is not helped by spelling/grammar mistakes, which generally confuse things even more. Examples solely from the contemporary history section (the most problematic one) include:


 * "There was a lot of progress but ultimately not on the issues that mattered."
 * "Greece's fear, often explicitly communicated by Turkey's politicians in the media, is that Turkey wants to renegotiate borders otherwise determined by international law." This one is sourced entirely by too many communications by Turkey's politicians, when in reality the source should talk about Greece's fear. Total WP:OR.
 * "In both cases, and in the words of former Greek prime minister George Papandreou, the respective nations would benefit if they treated the minorities as citizens not foreigners."
 * " Greece's hesitance could be solved if the Mufti's were stripped of authority of jurisdiction. Turkey's precondition to open the Halki Seminary is considered unnecessary: it's purely a political decision."


 * A good look at the WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines would be helpful. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. I will review those examples you identified and find better ways of presenting it. Elias (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also: I'm struggling to understand how the lead does not conform. I've skimmed over the guidelines and I believe it meets the criteria. What specifically do you have issue?
 * As for words to watch, I already did a review to remove them from that list but I will go through this again but it would be helpful if you can share what you identified. Elias (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . For an example of a superior lead section on the same topic, look at the GA article Serbia-United States relations. If you want more specific details, look at the lead section guidelines here and here. The first paragraph should "clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows." Your first paragraph, "Greece and Turkey have a competitive relationship with a long history and complex issues", reads like the opening sentence of a history writing project I would have written when I was at school. If anything, I suspect that it was, since the next sentences (when taken with the first) read like an answer to the prompt "Discuss the rise and current status of the Greco-Turkish rivalry".
 * The sentence "Greece and Turkey since their formation have used real and imagined trauma of each other to justify their nationalism" introduces three topics (their formation, real and imagined trauma, and nationalism) which are never talked about elswhere in the lead. This is a clear contravention of MOS:INTRO—there should be no hinting at concepts discussed later in the article. The lead should also cover the article's most important points, yet there is no summarisation of the Background and History sections except for the two words "long history". This is not sufficient.
 * As for words to watch, I think the ones to look out for the most can be found at MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:REALTIME. There are almost certainly examples of others, though. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @AirshipJungleman29
 * I appreciate the explanation and I will take this into consideration.
 * Since you keep bringing it up, no, I'm not a school student. I started editing this page because of how poorly done it was in January 2022, and then several months later I was inspired to do a course with the Economist to be a better writer and picked contemporary Greek-Turkey relations as the topic to kill two birds with one stone. Trying to condense this page of news reports and the reading of sources to come up with an analytical narrative was at first an overwhelming task. I did it with pleasure because it's a topic I've always wanted to understand for myself.
 * I put it through GA review because I needed fresh eyes to help improve the page as I was blind to issues and burnt out revising it. So thank you for your commentary, I only wish you did not quick fail as this feedback helps create a focus of what is otherwise a very well researched article. Elias (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand. Feel free to contact me here if you have any further need of help. I am willing to do a grammar/spelling sweep of the article before you nominate it for a third and hopefully successful time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @AirshipJungleman29 . Trying to create some time to do a fresh read and fixes for the article. As well as enlisting some copy editing help. I'll be in touch. If you don't mind, I'll shift our discussion to the Article's talk page in due course and ping you there. Elias (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Those articles
@HistoryofIran, @Srnec, @Mccapra, @Alexandermcnabb, @Iskandar323, @Kansas Bear:

Hello all, I believe we're all aware of this glut of terrible "battle" articles which seem to be constantly popping up, all following the same pattern: unclear references only citing offline and often-medieval sources; inflation of minor coverage into a "Battle of ..." title; fairly terrible prose often verging on plagiarism; and the consistent focus on how one side (normally the Turkic one) decisively wins.

I personally think it very likely that there is some connection to this thread at the admin's noticeboard, considering the timing.

Any thoughts on how to proceed? Either (1) just continuing to PROD and AfD these articles ad infinitum until their creators (rather inevitably) get blocked, or (2) take it to some higher authority, or (3) something else? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it should deffo be made more difficult for new users to edit these type of articles, like they have to do x amounts of edits before being able to. I think a similar suggestion was made not so long ago (towards Azerbaijan-Armenia articles I think?) but it didn't get enough support. This type of restriction should apply to anything Turkic, Armenia and Iran-related. And it goes without saying (at least to me) that the users affiliated with the discord should be indeffed. Several days have passed at AN and yet BerkBerk still hasn't replied. I will soon take my thoughts to the AN thread again. I also think users constantly creating these type of problematic articles should be dealt harder with, probably at ANI I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from implementing a 500edits/30days restriction over AA2 and Kurd articles(regarding the reddit/discord organization), I am not sure what else could be done.


 * "I personally think it very likely that there is some connection to this thread at the admin's noticeboard, considering the timing."
 * I would not be surprised, but proving it is another matter. Without proof, I seriously doubt any Admin will do anything.
 * I think HistoryofIran's idea, "restriction should apply to anything Turkic, Armenia and Iran-related", would be the best result, but again, without any prevailing evidence, will any Admin be inclined to apply it? Clearly, something should be done, since I feel this is just the beginning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Gokturklerr’s user talk page is a car crash of dodgy articles they’ve created going to deletion or draft. They’ve been blocked for incivility and they’re either going to give up and rage quit or get banned fairly soon I’d expect. With NPP under control I think we should just proceed article by article rather than trying to construct an ANI case. The end result will probably be the same. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What Mccapra said, basically. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so too. Thank you for sharing your opinions everyone. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of Arya Mahila Mahavidyalaya and 4 other colleges
Hello, thank you for your edits to BHU, however, you have removed 5 notable colleges of the city without asking anyone aware on the subject. I believe it was a bit of exceeding on editing Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I have reverted your concerned edits, you can take them to AfD, if you wish. But, in the interest of time constraints of everyone, as I said, they are notable colleges, all 8-9 or even 10 decades old, recognised by the UGC as public colleges. And, if you go by that yardstick of removing colleges, most Indian colleges shall be removed from WP. Thank you, User4edits (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , please see my response on the BHU talk page. Thank you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Varanasi
I am going to ignore whatever is was you were attempting to do in the lead of Varanasi, but please do not do it again unless you have achieved a consensus for your version. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:BRD, as you kindly mentioned in the edit summary. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That version has been around for a very long time. It is sourced.  It is written as an NPOV and DUE template for a rewrite of the rest of the article.  You are welcome to go to the article's talk page and attempt a new consensus for removal of the first two sentences.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my last post here. Your page is not on my watchlist.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ai-Khanoum scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ai-Khanoum History of timekeeping devices article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 2, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2, 2023.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that the first link is an error? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * sigh... guess what I scheduled for January 1? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

The Signpost: 1 January 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

DYK nomination of Alexandria Ariana
Hello! Your submission of Alexandria Ariana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 04:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexandria Ariana
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexandria Ariana 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 Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexandria Ariana
The article Alexandria Ariana you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alexandria Ariana and Talk:Alexandria Ariana/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexandria Ariana
The article Alexandria Ariana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexandria Ariana for comments about the article, and Talk:Alexandria Ariana/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
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) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Zytglogge/1
Hi, I believe you closed this discussion in error. To begin with, nobody expressed an opinion, and therefore ther was no consensus, Moreover, you wrote that "the general references are in German and are thus in doubt under WP:V". This is mistaken, because WP:RSUE, part of WP:V, provides: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." Please undo the closure.  Sandstein  16:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sandstein is absolutely right on the language front. Sandstein, are you aware of Wikipedia_talk:Good_Article_proposal_drive_2023. We're now in the gray transition period with the details of the new procedures being worked out at User:Premeditated Chaos/GAR proposal. In the new system, this close would be allowed as a WP:silent consensus after a week. In the old/current system, it would be an inappropriate involved close. I think it makes sense to undo the close if you want to work on the article or believe it's still a GA, but otherwise it may be best to just change the closure statement? Femke (alt) (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Femke (alt), thanks for your input. I'm not following any procedural discussion. On the merits, the GAR review request ("Some unsourced content.") is too unspecific to address. I'm willing to work on the article, but only if there are serious and specific concerns. The sources are physical books that I'd need to check out in the library again, which is a bit of a hassle.  Sandstein   22:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I look more closely at the matter, AirshipJungleman29, you have closed a review request that you opened yourself! This is absolutely out of order. Please undo this immediately.  Sandstein   22:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I apologise for misunderstanding WP:V. As noted above by Femke, the GAR process is transitioning; the new system allows closure as a silent consensus. I have reverted the close, as you have expressed a desire to work on the article. Per WP:NOENG, may I request quotations of relevant portions of the relevant sources? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks AJ29. Asking for quotations is usually done when something is either controversial, or there are worries about a specific editor around text-source integrity. That's not the case here, so let's not ask for that extra work and AGF. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Femke (alt) and will undertake any sourcing work only if there are specific and reasoned concerns. I've not seen any so far. Instead, the conduct by AirshipJungleman29 (making review requests without providing reasons, and closing one's own request, based on a manifestly mistaken view of WP:V) appears disruptive to me, and merits sanctions if it is repeated. I will therefore only respond to good-faith sourcing requests by other editors.  Sandstein   09:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems fair, Femke. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AJ29: I see you blanked the GAR. What that an accident?
 * Sandstein: there are 2 cn tags remaining; would you be able to address those? I could find the first one using Who Wrote That; it was originally cited, but the citation got lost due to shuffling. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how that happened, apologies. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy?
About your closing of. Is it common process to close such a thread within 3.5 days (Jan 21 20: -Jan 25 00:)? -DePiep (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , When there is strong general consensus, why not? GAR is being streamlined to remove complexity from the process at WP:GAPD23—keeping discussions open unnecessarily isn't going to help the backlog. It's not FAR, where regaining the FA star is a long and laborious process. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seven days. Why not? DePiep (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. I don't really mind, other than it seeming faintly idiotic to keep stuff like this GAR open for a week, considering its history. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
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) 23:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Ai-Khanoum

 * WP:BLUESKY thanks you too! – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: I present Ai-Khanoum, one of the greatest discoveries of modern archaeology, and sadly, one of its greatest losses. In 1961, the King of Afghanistan found a massive city founded by Alexander's successors in the shadows of the Himalaya, untouched for two millennia and lying just inches below the soil. But the modern world had to have its say—a team of French archaeologists got just a dozen years of underfunded excavation in before Afghanistan collapsed into chaos. Since then, the site has been looted, plundered, and ransacked almost beyond imagination. Such a loss."! Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Harput 1234
You may want to notice that your redirect of this article was reverted by a "new user". Rather intriguing that a "new user" knew to go to that particular battle and revert your redirect. Anyway, stay safe. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of these "new users" are almost spectacularly good at picking up on Wikipedia processes, . I wish you and I could hope to match the speed at which they grasp ideas and protocols. How disappointing it is that we will remain mediocre, when compared to their genius. Oh well ;) AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Owain Glyndwr
Hi, just questions about your edit about Glyndwr... Such as why did you delete relevant information and also why has the page been altered as such after being tidied previously?? There's plenty to discuss... Cltjames (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As to my reorganisation, per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." You will note that the previous layout of the article contained numerous such short paragraphs and sections, especially in the legacy section. Please reply if you wish to discuss further. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the WP: & MOS: guidelines. But in editing the article you removed plenty of good trivia about Glyndwr's legacy. Cltjames (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't understand the MOS guidelines if you think trivia is "good", . Have a look at the first line of MOS:TRIVIA. Then read the last line of the lead: "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, a list, or a table." AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It just seems this was all done without consensus, and I personally would have objected to removing some information. Cltjames (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , per WP:ONUS, as you wish to include disputed information, it is your responsibility to build consensus for that. In any case, a bold edit followed by discussion, as we are doing now, is normally far more constructive than a request to build consensus that never gets anywhere. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking on and off about the article for Owain Glyndwr. To build constructive consensus with you only I guess I would simply put it as I've stated from the get go. You've culled the articles facts about literature and family. I believe there should be more of a mention about modern literature as all.is mentioned from the 1700's are two books written in 1942, and '72. There is plenty of literature which is an ode of respect to Glyndwr which should be widely known to a Wikipedia reader. Also the family section had excluded a legitimate children list, can I ask why this list was deleted please ? Otherwise, I will go through when was changed and give more ideas in the next few days, again there was no need for such a drastic change ! Cltjames (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should there be more of a mention about modern literature ? It does not matter whether books are odes of respect or not—I could write a poem in celebration of his life but that would not make it suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Apart from the two books retained in the article, the previous list included books only tangentially related to the subject of the article, and which, in any case, were not described in reliable sources. For example, A Night in the Lonesome October and The Raven Cycle, two works featuring Glyndwr as nothing more than a very minor character. The list of children was not deleted, it was merely turned into prose: you can find it at Owain Glyndŵr. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I suggest that there could be a sentence simply explaining the popularity of Glyndwr in modern literature explaining how many books have been written about him. Cltjames (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find such a sentence in reliable sources, sure, why not. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Edit
Hi there,

I'd be interested to hear how you think adding Charles Darwin's coat of arms falls under WP:UNDUE - coat of arms are not in dispute, and do not represent any kind of fair or balanced viewpoint - they are simply owned by the armiger and many famous people on Wikipedia have had their coat of arms added to their page as part of WikiProject Heraldry. Further, Burke's General Armory is one of the standout and accurate sources for Crests and Arms from the period, if those were the grounds upon which you undid my edit. Please let me know. -Ben1we Ben1we (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I thought it fell somewhere under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially as it is just a variant on a common Darwin–Wedgwood family crest, or on similar grounds to MOS:FLAGCRUFT. On a second look though, perhaps it could be added. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, any member of the Darwin-Wedgewood family will have a variant of the family coat of arms, but the citation I use in my edit refers to page 264, where the specific arms of Charles Darwin are given: "Darwin (Charles Robert Darwin Esq., of Down, co. Kent)". If we both agree, I think the reversion should be undone, as it's specific to Charles Darwin, and there's precedent to other famous British people on Wikipedia to have their arms displayed. Ben1we (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of clean up tag
Several months ago you added a tag in Greece–Turkey relations under the "Contemporary history and issues". There have been [|several edits now] to improve this section (and overall copy editing of the article). Would you please remove, or agree to remove, this template now? Thanks! Elias (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not prohibited from removing it yourself, if you feel those issues have been resolved. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Association football culture
Hi, I don't understand what you mean My contributions in Association football culture article are adequately supported by reliable sources.

Some sources are from South Korean football magazine article and South Korea football Association announcement. Is this problem?

Anyway, I opened a discuss at talke page. Let's discuss in detail and listen to the opinions of other users. Thank you. Footwiks (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , if you wish to have a discussion at that talk page, use that talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Alexandria Ariana
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you !! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to make sure you're aware of User:SD0001/GAR-helper, which massively speeds up opening of GARs. I only discovered it a couple days back myself. Femke (alt) (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Blimey, that's helpful. Installed it immediately. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for List of cities founded by Alexander the Great
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, AirshipJungleman29. I'm just posting to let you know that List of cities founded by Alexander the Great – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 14. 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 ) 20:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1995 Quebec referendum
1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I closed the individual GAR as "Keep - no consensus" and set this a community review page. As a participant in the previous discussion, you are invited to comment on the community review page. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Draft:Siege of Aydusanc
Hello AirshipJungleman29. I am just letting you know that I deleted Draft:Siege of Aydusanc, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which didn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:European League of Football rosters


A tag has been placed on Category:European League of Football rosters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
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) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR script error?
Hi AirshipJungleman, I noticed that the Good article reassessment/Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña/1 closure did not remove the article from the GA lists. Others are being removed. Any idea what might differentiate those two? Best, CMD (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , was it ever in the GA lists at all? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's there now, in Good articles/History. Well, that gives some indication as to the likely cause! CMD (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the talk page said it was supposed to be a society GA. Someone must have moved it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, your comments made me suspect the script isn't picking up that mismatch and I found another example. I've raised it and expect it's a minor issue, so I wouldn't suggest looking out for it on each GAR you do. CMD (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oil in Turkey
This article is definitely easier for me to edit now it has been split thanks. I have put it in for a copyedit by the GOCE and may add more info while it is in their queue - will contact you when I nominate it for GA in the hope you will have time Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User name changes for users who appear to have few reviews
Hi -- I saw that Rhain's question on ChristieBot's talk page was prompted by a note from your suggesting they might review more. You might find the table collapsed in this discussion useful; it'll let you check whether someone has had a name change that would lead to a substantive change in their review count, and you could then modify the message you leave accordingly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Gas in Turkey/GA2
Hello AirshipJungleman29,

I hope you are well. Thank you for spending so much time on this. Your comments so far on this article have been extremely useful so I assure you your time has been well spent. I hope this article may have some small effect on the real world, perhaps by providing a jumping off point for journalists or academics new to the subject researching Russian energy influence or the proposed gas hub.

There is no rush from my point of view but I am just dropping you this note to remind you not to forget to finish this off with all your other activities.

Regards Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Good timing for the good as media are discussing possible gas hub again - thank you very much Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Otrar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chagatai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Genghis Khan in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genghis Khan in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Genghis Khan in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Zama
It's up and running. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice ! I'll be honest though, I'm still a bit unsure about the weighting of pre-battle events (what Harrias and I mentioned at the other FAC), but obviously a vast improvement for one of the most famous battles in history. Hope everything goes well! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be frank, me too. I tend to write them on the expansive side and get few grumbles. And if anyone does want them cutting down I don't mind and as a TFA blurb writer I am pretty experienced at trimming. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For my Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire series (progressing at a much slower rate than yours ) I'm trying to do a slightly altered background/prelude section for each event (see difference between Siege of Bukhara and Siege of Otrar (unfinished) for example, and of course Irghiz River Skirmish is just rather different entirely). Do you think it would possible to exclude everything not directly relevant to Zama from the article? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be possible, so long as you could clearly define "directly relevant". And, depending on how you define it, so long as I don't want to nominate it for FAC, where "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" is a thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried about "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail", which is also, sadly, a thing. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Always a dynamic balance with lots of room for honest disagreement. If there is a consensus to trim I am happy to, if an individual reviewer wants to point me at a specific area I am happy to consider it and will more than likely trim. I tend to do a bit more background with the big, "popular" battles compared with those that only the aficionados are likely to read in full. Let's see what comes up with. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Spoiler for later in my review. I'll be recommending that the Invasion section is trimmed. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree. Possibly would also recommend that the background/prelude sections be combined and trimmed, but I'll leave that for PR or FAC. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Trimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For your perusal, I have rigged up an extra-concise version of the background/prelude/invasion sections at User:AirshipJungleman29/Zama, which cuts around a third of the original 1800 words. Too far? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would be happy to go further. I like 's style, as seen at his recent FAs, Battle of Helena and Battle of Van Buren; a few paragraphs of Background, summarising when the war started, and then briefly covering the major points in the conflict pertinent to the area / participants. We can then get detailed in the Prelude, which should deal with the actions immediately leading up to the battle in question. One of my issues with Zama is that the "Prelude" is actually the prelude to the invasion, rather than the battle, which is where we get into the same murky waters as the previous FAC. For this battle, I would consider the "proper" prelude to be what is currently the "Pre-battle manoeuvres", "Movement to contact" and "Numbers involved" maybe also including "Initial dispositions". But a lot of this is personal preference rather than anything covered by the FA criteria, let alone the GA criteria. WikiProject Military history/Content guide, which is an essay, not a formal guideline suggests this basic structure:
 * Background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously? What was the geography of the battlefield?
 * Prelude. What forces were involved and who were the commanders? How well prepared were they for the battle? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan? Were there any preliminary moves or operations?
 * Battle. A description of the battle. What tactics were used? Which units moved where?
 * Aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?
 * Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but I do think articles in this campaign have become far too caught up in detailing the whole campaign, rather than letting that take place in a parent article, and then focussing on the battle with only very core background given in the battles articles themselves. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 19:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have some major issues with that essay in many situations, but neither the time nor the enthusiasm to go into them here. I agree that some articles in this series have got a little over excited: I withdrew Cirta promptly for a fundamental look over, and have trimmed the "Invasion" section of Zama pretty thoroughly with little prompting. Can we save the "How to write the perfect battle article" discussion for when we are all together over a pint. (When I shall insist that opinions are weighted according to how many FACs one has had promoted.) For now can we - more or less - stick to the usual procedure and the criteria. I am, as usual, content to take on board assessment against the FAC criteria at GAN and to field robust criticism. AJ, calm down. I thought you had an article of your own to write. No wonder progress is slow. Can I book my reviewer's place now? Seriously, thanks for your input, but chill a bit, huh? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure it fulfills criterion 4 to the absolute max. It's going to have to, I don't want WP:PAGESIZE brought up... also have you seen what I've picked for WP:TCC? Hopefully this airship won't self-combust from overload...  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm. I think you will need to release some ballast. I could trim it to <1,025 characters for you if that would be helpful? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bucephalus
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bucephalus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bucephalus&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1152038174%7CBucephalus%5D%5D Ask for help])

Genghis
You might have guessed already from my minimal contributions, but due to IRL business and other WP commitments, I don't think I can assist with Genghis's article. I will be more than happy to review the content or advise on any obstacles along the way though, please let me know. –  Aza24  (talk)   22:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries . I'm planning to work on it alongside Silk Road, as I should have more time over the next couple of months. How about I ping you for your comments before/after I nominate it at GAN? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A fitting duo, those two! Yes, feel free to ping me then, that would be great –  Aza24  (talk)   02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Irish nationality law
Hey AirshipJungleman29, I wanted to ask if you would possibly be interested in reviewing the Irish nationality law article at FAC? You promoted my other article on Philippine nationality law to GA recently (thanks for going over that as well by the way) and so I thought I'd reach out since they're similar in subject matter. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Boukephala and Nikaia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boukephala and Nikaia 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The article Boukephala and Nikaia you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Boukephala and Nikaia for comments about the article, and Talk:Boukephala and Nikaia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

OTD, and thanks
Hi AirshipJungleman29. Thanks for your reply about OTD. My comments were (quite reasonably) reverted... By the time everyone got around to it, it was inarguably no longer an error (outdated). And even on the correct date, it was only arguably an error (matter of opinion as to relative notability). But I didn't know where else to mention it... Moreover, tks for your kind words about BF43. Cheers. &sect; Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome ; I hope very much that you will produce works of similar quality in the future. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On that note, do you intend to participate in WP:TCC ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * M-a-a-a-a-y-b-e. But the only articles I've seen so far that interest me are Martin Luther King and Elie Wiesel. Both are potentially controversial, and one is already GA. Controversy leads to POV warriors pretending not to be POV warriors, which leads to unhappy editing... I dunno, then. Before I saw the contest, I was planning on finishing up Black Monday (1987), which I already wrote most of anyhow. So I dunno what I will do. Economics. Philosophy. Human rights. Poetry? Poverty? No idea. So I dunno, maybe. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update, see my Query in Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/Entries. Also, I see you're in WP:GOCE. Would you be willing to CE the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre article? It also needs some trimming... and if you're too busy, could you recommend someone...? Thanks!!....Ooops! Just noticed you'll be busy with Silk Road. Sorry I bothered you with a request for CE... and if I may ask, can you recommend anyone? Tks! &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, I'm perhaps not the best person to copyedit that article . My go-to for Chinese history is usually, but they and I normally focus on topics a millennium or two further back (also see below, they're pretty busy at the moment). Still, maybe they'd be able to recommend someone. My instinct to the query is that it'll probably be fine (the article in general is fairly mediocre), but like myself with Silk Road, you'd only be in with a shot of winning if GA/FA standard was reached. You'd also want to copyedit it yourself in that case. Hope that helps. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! Cheers &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
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) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Goddy Junior (08:23, 16 May 2023)
How do I download my biography on Wikipedia? --Goddy Junior (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , generally speaking, you don't. See Autobiography: writing an article on yourself is a clear conflict of interest—a violation of the central neutral point of view policy. Quoting this section: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Adminship
I belatedly saw your request at WP:ORCP. I'd like to offer some opinion, which is worth every coin you spent in paying for it :)

You shouldn't ever approach your contributions here with the idea that you are writing your resume for adminship. If you are interested in doing administrator type things, there are plenty of ways to become involved without being an administrator. A long time ago, somebody accused me of doing nothing on the project. That irritated me, so I started keeping a log of most of the things I did. It can be viewed at User:Hammersoft/log. That's almost entirely things I did before I became an administrator. Much of it has been replaced by me using admin tools. I'm not suggesting you develop a page like that. Rather, it's perhaps some inspiration for how you can contribute in admin related things if that is what interests you. After a while of doing things like that, it eventually will get to a point where it becomes annoying to not have the admin tool set. That's what happened to me.

That said, there are things you're going to have to check off for the occasional naysayers. I would wait until February 2024 before running; that'd be two years since you became truly active. Increase your activity at WP:AFD. Also, make reports to WP:AIV. I find the user creation log and filtering the recent changes report like this finds a number of vandals. This is the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of ways to contribute. But, again, it's all about that you want to contribute in that way, not that you want to write your resume to be an admin. It's the other way around.

Let me know if you have questions. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , don't worry. I'm perfectly happy with my content work at the moment, and I now have pretty much no intention of running in the foreseeable future—the only thing that could maybe prompt me sooner (and was the cause of the "whim" at ORCP) is seeing the constant WP:SEALIONing around. Thanks for the advice though. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

The Signpost: 19 June 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Nomination
Hello, I see you removed the GA nomination for Wind Turbine. I am wondering how much you need to contribute to be considered a significant contributor. If I fixed all the citations you talked about would that make me one? Or do you need to contribute whole paragraphs and so on? Also, I want to fix the citations. Could you provide a few examples. I appreciate your time, Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay. I see you have been doing some good work on the article, and so you are now up to 6.6% authorship; you have done some good work, and I would recommend continuing in the same vein. Things to focus on: making sure every paragraph has at least one citation; that all statistics are 1) up-to-date (post-2015 is ideal) and 2) directly cited; that sections are proportionate to their importance in reliable sources; and that there is no advertising/boosterism covered by WP:WTW. Once that is all done, not only would the article be ready for the GA nomination, but you would naturally be a significant contributor as well. Good luck! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 So I did these things, anything else you notice? Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Wiki page changes. Proposition
Hello! You've been regularly removing content from the Iron Maiden group site for the last few days. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that you have removed a lot of valuable information and sources. For thousands of people, the group's website has been a treasure trove of PROVEN knowledge about the band and these types of ignorance and actions are not seen as positive. I assume that you have good will and do not deliberately act to the detriment of the group's image. So I have a proposition. You could restore all the content and move individual page sequences as separate articles. There would be a link and a short description on the main page, which can be found in a separate article. In this way, the theme and content would be preserved and the size of the main page would be significantly reduced. I understand it's more difficult than deleting everything (you cut out half a page), however, respect someone's work and its results. Please think it over. RALFFPL (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See my response on Talk:Iron Maiden. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I've just noticed you trimmed and cancelled some infos on Iron Maiden's accolades page. Could you tell me more about you motivation?! In the introduction to the article, you can get acquainted with the principles of its creation and the approach to the topic. Why did you completely cut out information regarding Iron Maiden's business awards. I mean Trooper beer. The information has disappeared from the band's website as well as the prize page. This is an important part of marketing activity - and this is also the area of the group's activity that deserves a description. On other pages dedicated to the group, we have these descriptions. You removed them from the English wiki. We worked with a few people to describe the facts related to Trooper beer (2012 - 2023) in a simple way, it was necessary and interesting. Did it have to be removed as it is a very important part of Maiden's marketing activities!!!??? RALFFPL (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by "marketing activity"? Could you explain who you worked with "to describe the facts related to Trooper beer (2012 - 2023)", and why "marketing activities" are relevant on an awards and nominations page? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Thx for your response. Iron Maiden (so same as KISS) are the bands highly focused on merch, promotional products, and the other items branded with their logos. It means the albums, shows, merchendise offer and the Trooper Beer are just the products branded with Iron Maiden logo as the whole offer available on the worldwide market. KISS & Maiden are probably most known from vast line of branded products among all hard rocking artists in the world. It means Trooper Beer line is so same important for musicians and their management as the next albums. You may check how many times they've mentioned about the beer variants and the awards via their social media - it's really important and that's a product of the band. And refering to the people who worked on Wiki to "describe the facts" - me, the other users - consulting the activity. It's worked good and I can't understand now - why in the case of KISS we may read on Wiki about their merch and success on this field, but talking about Maiden - NOT?! That's Weird! So same about the other accolades - the state awards which the band were prised with are more important to them than Grammy or RnRHoF. Just think about Royal Mail's Official Stamps - only five Brtish music groups were honoured with this kind of award so far! I hope you'll think you activity over and over before you delete the data from Wiki. Greetings! RALFFPL (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "why in the case of KISS we may read on Wiki about their merch and success on this field" please tell me where in List of awards and nominations received by Kiss you find discussion of marketing products ? Wikipedia does not care about Iron Maiden's social media, it cares about notability and reliable sources. This is why your contributions are of so low quality—you fail to recognise what Wikipedia is not about. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but you may find info in the main article about KISS. So I can't understand why you've delete infos about state awards given to the band as the whole and the particular musicians. It was an original idea of the Iron Maiden article and their awards sub-art... RALFFPL (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What info in the main article about KISS ? Please try and provide examples instead of stating easily disprovable statements. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No that much but, you have deleted info about this one: https://www.ironmaiden.com/news/article/iron-maiden-to-be-honoured-as-visitors-of-the-nation-by-congress-in-argentina
 * But I understand that this distinction does not come from the US or UK, so according to "standards" it is "not important" Idiocy. I won't let it go! It is important. RALFFPL (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , you will note that I removed around five "accolades" starting with the word "British" alone, not to mention around twenty others from the UK. But sure, I'll add back the information about government honours. You will additionally note that the Miscellaneous section is, somehow, of even worse quality than the rest of the article. If you have no objections, I'll start removing parts of it. Should we take this discussion to Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Iron Maiden? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, don't remove anything from Miscellaneous section - if you wanna do something just move it to the separate article with a link on the main site. We should do something similar on Iron Maiden main site with Trooper Beer. It's a pity that info about this one was delete with no trace. Maybe you could recreate the data and share the content as the subarticle as Iron Maiden Trooper Beer. Sorry but I was a little upset about this issue. And I would like to mention about two state awards: Argentinian
 * Relief Salon De Los Pasos Perdidos and El Salvador Ministry of Tourism, even the band mentioned thhose ones as unique and prestigious. I'd like to write just a few sentences in the introduction to List of awards. RALFFPL (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is your last chance to understand WP:NOTADVERT, . If you continue to advocate for advertising commercial merchandise on Wikipedia, I will be forced to report you to administrators. I have placed every guideline in the world in front of you and you refuse to listn, and you keep going "I don't understand why you don't want to mention how many times social media have mentioned Iron Maiden beer, because obviously Wikipedia needs to know how many times I've mentioned it on my facebook fanpage!" Can you contribute to Wikipedia productively or not? Adding everything Iron Maiden-related to create overweight messes IS NOT PRODUCTIVE! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what's about mentioned state awards, I just wanna write some words about in awards intro article. RALFFPL (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think quite a lot of your contributing issues stem from "I just wanna write some words about", . Newsflash: Wikipedia doesn't care if you just wanna write words about Iron Maiden — you can go to the fandom wiki for that. That lead section is one of the worst I've ever seen, and no wonder, because you probably don't care enough about Iron Maiden's image to even think about improving it. Think about it—twelve thousand people look at that mess of spelling, grammar, and confusion every year, and go away thinking worse about Iron Maiden because some internet guy thinks "I wanna write some words about it lol" and doesn't care about what anyone else would think. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so I won't edit the site. Thx for your thoughts and words of truth. RALFFPL (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from MimicaOhayra (21:36, 23 June 2023)
Eu quero cria uma página falsa --MimicaOhayra (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Não crie uma página falsa. Além disso, fale em inglês,  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boroqul
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boroqul 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 PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Boroqul you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Boroqul for comments about the article, and Talk:Boroqul/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:GAR/72


A tag has been placed on Category:GAR/72 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

RE: Pikachu GAR assessment
I feel that might've been a bit pre-emptive, as looking at it none of the projects were notified it was ongoing, especially given only one person voted. I think it should be reopened and at the very least a message left on WT:VG that it's ongoing so it can get both a proper assessment but also garner some work fixing it up. It's too high priority not to encourage that, I literally didn't know it was a thing until I saw it removed.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies ; I had warned GlatorNator for mass-nominating video game-related articles on their talk, but I didn't realise that they had also failed to follow the instructions and notify relevant WikiProjects. Reassessment reopened—I'll do the project notifs shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, will do it on next GAR. The other older GARs like Gravemind, and/or Kefka Palazzo has been notified by primary author already. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 13:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)