User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive 3

Your GA nomination of Shigi Qutuqu
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shigi Qutuqu 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 Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Shigi Qutuqu you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Shigi Qutuqu and Talk:Shigi Qutuqu/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Shigi Qutuqu you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Shigi Qutuqu for comments about the article, and Talk:Shigi Qutuqu/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 Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

iOS 10 GAR
Too bad you already closed it (though you couldn't have known). I had the article open in a tab, to come back to later today, and was about to remove the entire version history table based on consensus at WP:NOT and iOS version history that these tables doesn't belong here (and the table had mild copyvio, to make things worse). DFlhb (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the future, perhaps leave a note on the GAR page ? Even a suggestion that you might improve an article will mean the GAR stays open for much longer. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's common sense now that you mention it. I'll do that next time; it was thoughtless of me. DFlhb (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello hello there!
Hi, AJ29! I wanted to be the first to give you a warm welcome to the well-oiled dumpster fire machine that is DYK's prep sets and backrooms. Super excited to have you! Prep setting is a job that earns you a lot of trouts, but also lots of thanks – it takes a while to pick up, but you seem to be doing a fantastic job so far. Don't be afraid to make mistakes – I've yet to see anyone get integrated as a prep set builder without goofing up a ton, self included. I'll be around to see how you're hangin' in there – please let me know via talk page or ping (or honestly, just post at WT:DYK, i'll see it) if you have any questions! Happy building :) we have dunce caps if you get in far enough. cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I somewhat have the feeling of running right through a minefield and looking back at several dust clouds and lots of aggrieved screaming. I'll see how I get on, but thanks for this friendly message. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack Weatherford
I've noticed that you have used Jack Weatherford's works in numerous instances while working on Genghis Khan. While I would not write off his work completely since he contributes to shaping popular conception of the Mongols, this review of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Timothy May notes that Weatherford is not a historian and makes numerous mistakes:

It is quite clear that Weatherford is a brilliant writer, blending anthropological insight and incredible enthusiasm with a captivating narrative. It is easy to see why many reviewers and readers have been enthusiastic about it. Despite all of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World's acclaim, it is very clear that Weatherford is not a historian. In the general narrative Weatherford is sufficiently accurate. However, in the details, Weatherford is wrestling with material that he clearly does not fully appreciate.

Thus with Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, the reader is left in a quandary. Many may have thought of using this book in a class. Considering the numerous factual errors and misguided etymological speculations this reviewer cannot recommend using this as a standard text for a world history class with the exception of using it as a point of discussion on historiography. While the overall thrust of the book is on target and may promote new discourse on the influence of the Mongols in history, it is undermined by numerous mistakes.

Qiushufang (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of Weatherford's limitations (his lack of citations is supremely irritating) so up until now I had only been citing him alongside others. Do you think it best to remove all of his citations in the article? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I just want to make sure others understand his background and standing among historian given past arguments revolving around broad and reaching statements made in his works that have no citation or supporting material. Qiushufang (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Association football culture
I created the discussion again. Footwiks (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly capable of pinging me. There is no need for a new section every time you want to create more drama ... oh wait—if you only want to create drama then sure, go ahead. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a comment about version roll back on Talk:Association football culture. Please check it out, ThanksFootwiks (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Uncleriger on Eyewitness News (South Africa) (04:01, 25 July 2023)
Hello what is the problem --Uncleriger (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A very good question,, but I don't understand what you mean. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Association football culture
 * added a link pointing to Rattle
 * Tolui
 * added a link pointing to Surrender

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Kain GAR
Apologize if I used most of your time at that GAR arguing, especially after that content removal. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 01:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for PR
Hey AirshipJungleman29, hope you're doing well! I've recently done a complete rewrite of the Fuzuli (poet) article and am thinking about nominating it as my first FA. I was wondering if you could take a look and share your thoughts on the peer review I've opened. Your feedback would be really helpful. Thanks! — Golden  call me maybe? 15:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have some free time, so I'll get to that right now, . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey
Hey AirshipJ'man, hope you are doing well. I can understand the frustration, and the trigger for this comment... Yet, you are a productive editor, and ANI is a hit-or-miss place when one leaves such comments, as some admins wouldn't care less (or more) about the past contributions -- well, I do, and would leave this suggestion as a friend to not make this slip once too often. Best, Lourdes  08:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood . About your decline reason, you are aware that Timfoley50 has fully complied with COI guidelines since 2014, as acknowledged by BHG when filing the report? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes my friend. My request to him is to give him the opportunity and the community a reinforcement of his current views. Thank you for your generous response. Lourdes  08:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lourdes may I suggest you advise him to lay off the personal attacks when he's unblocked. I get that he's frustrated, but that's not a productive path to getting what he wants as editors will see how he reacts if they say no or opt not to respond (the tweets brought to ANI). For the record, @AirshipJungleman29 I took your comment as just a vent, which we all do as humans. Star   Mississippi  20:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Closure at ANO 2011 talk page
Hi @AirshipJungleman29. I clicked over from WP:CR and saw that you had closed this RfC. I was wondering if you would consider amending your closure to no consensus. Per WP:DISCARD, closers should "judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments", including "those based on personal opinion only"; additionally, editors positions should be substantiated by Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, !vote. Indeed, as was acknowledged in the framing of the RfC, the survey outcome should've been backed up by reliable sources. Here, only one user analyzed sources, for the purpose of reviewing sources that use descriptors other than "populist" or "centre" none of them substantiated the outcome of the RfC. As such, the numerical consensus was based on personal opinion, and pretty much the entire RfC should have been discarded. I look forward to your thoughts. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I interpreted the "backed up by reliable sources" in the RfC's framing to refer to the significant number of reliable sources posted in the previous talk page section by, who started the RfC—i.e., that the terms were already backed up by RS, and that there was no need to present evidence. Although you could argue that !voters should have reposted the sources to fully comply with policy, I prefer to dismiss the letter of the law in favour of the spirit. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide
Hey, just wanted to reach out and thank you for your participation on the DYK discussions regarding Sanctioned Suicide. I can tell that it's a meaningful topic to you personally... I hope you got all the help you need. Edge3 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, thank you . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Howdy
what's going on with the reversions in prep? something about DYKROTATE? Please advise, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what was going on with the removals of the hooks, and isn't it the case that if fewer than five queues/preps are filled between 00:00 and 12:00 UTC, then we revert to one/day? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a special occasion discussion going on at WT:DYK for women's football – that's what caused the moves. I don't think it would necessarily be bad to go back to one-a-day, but there's a reasonable case to be made. leaving your revert in place for now per BRD, could you make a note at the aforementioned discussion about the consequences of the special occasion moves? thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I left comments at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know.--evrik (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

NATO
Hey, what, why did you just delist NATO from GA? What are the issues with the article? What the heck does "Not enough improvement" mean? You can't just open a WP:GAR, leave a line of gibberish, and then close it. I'm undoing this ASAP. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See my response on the GAR page, . In future, please try to prioritise good-faith discussion over bad-faith accusations. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow signal
Hey, I didn't get the rationale for the section blanking of popular culture section. Walk me through it please? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , see MOS:TRIVIA. In essence, the existence of a popular culture section encourages editors to indiscriminately add new occurrences, which "should not be included simply because they exist" MOS:POPCULT. The guideline goes on to state that popular culture entries should only be included if significant information was included in reliable, independent secondary sources. The items in the Wow! signal popular culture section fit none of these criteria. Hope that helps. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

!WP:REFUND on Kefka GAR
Hey, sorry for the lack of response. As you can see by my contribs, I've barely had time to edit this month. I have a bunch of sources lined up but just need a free afternoon to incorporate them. You said in June that I'd be given up to three months to work on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you would have been given up to three months if there was evidence that some work was being done. In the past (before the introduction of limits), editors insisted for many months that they intended to do work on the article, without doing any. Once you have that free afternoon, if it's in the near future, post a note at WT:GAR and the community can come to a consensus about whether to WP:IAR refund the closing. Honestly, since there was a significant body wanting to delist, it might just be easier to renominate at GAN. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the deadline had work requirements. I thought three months meant three months. As you can see from the article's edit history, I'm not even the only person working on it. Even before that, I never thought the article was in such an egregious state that its continued listing as a GA would offend the status of the institution. It's an older GA that just needed a little brushing up. Please reconsider. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The person who is now working on the article voted to delist at GAR. They seem to now be brushing it up. There was no egregious offending of the institution, same as if a really brilliant article isn't a GA yet. I am not going to revert my close; you can post a message at WT:GAR if you really want to. Personally, I would just work on the article and renominate. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here after I was notified this discussion was taking, but I agree with Axem Titanium: I didn't realize there was a prerequisite to the three months statement and feel that was rushed. While I jumped in afterward my edits shouldn't be seen as acceptance of the GAR results, and if Axem wishes to contest it further I would like to as well. Give it more time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, leaving out the work requirement makes it misleading. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would strongly prefer it if Axem found the free afternoon first, and then we discussed REFUNDing, but I will IAR revert the close. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's easier to delay a GAR closure than to renominate an article for GA status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in Cukie and KFM. I'm more than willing to find the time; I just didn't know that I had 2 weeks to do it rather than 3 months. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the DYK nomination of Robert Mallard
Yes, I would like the nomination to run, but the hook needs to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia’s standards. The source also needs to be changed into something more reliable.

The thing is, I don’t know if or how to edit a DYK nomination. Roasted (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * just edit the nomination like you would a normal talk page. Have you got the page number for the book available, or can you find it? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

N.S.-Funk DYK
Hi, did you see my query at Talk:N.S.-Funk? Please can you respond there. TSventon (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A cap for you! Bravo!
I was the June 2023 recipient so I am giving the award. Should you feel so inclined, I would love for you to pass this award along to whomever earns it next – you can find out who with this log. (If it's you again, either User:Theleekycauldron or I will give the award again :D) Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to remember this for next month. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Why
Hi. Why are you reducing part of my article... I added Cloud to my article and you remove it. Is it not part of information to know if someone what to visit the place. Bembety (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and no article on this site is "yours". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Bengal Sultanate
I have restored the sentence as well as the cited reference. A sentence cannot be undue emphasis - besides the links are to their polities, which are very interesting indeed. Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A sentence can most definitely be undue emphasis, —where do you think the boundary is ? Two sentences? Three? Interestingness has nothing to do with the central WP:NPOV policy, especially when the links provided violate WP:EGG (Turks /= Khalaj people, Afghan /= Pashtun). In any case, the WP:ONUS is now on you to get consensus to include dispute material, please take this to the talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me put back the question to you then. What is the limit for a due emphasis?  If a single sentence cannot even be due, then the limit is zero.  Which means you are allowing for no due emphasis.  That paragraph has 14 sentences now.  1 out of 15 is undue emphasis?
 * And why is it undue? The Bengal Sultanate is widely known as Turko-Afghan.  In fact contemporary sources identified these rulers by their ethnic identities.
 * So please do not make outrageous and outlandish arguments.
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course a single sentence can be undue emphasis—take the vandalism done to my talk page a few minutes ago. That was a single sentence that was so WP:UNDUE (and disruptive) that the writer got immediately blocked. The Bengal Sultanate is widely known as Turko-Afghan, yes, alongside Bengali-Abyssinian-Indo-Persian and every other culture in the region. Trying to emphasise one of these ethnicities over the others, while refbombing the added sentences with unnecessary citations that are indications of "an editor['s desparation] to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit." AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not conflate WP:VANDALISM with WP:UNDUE.
 * Sorry, your reaction is UNDUE. This is neither vandalism nor undue.  Two ethnicities are mentioned here, and if there are others they should also be mentioned. Chaipau (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the above ethnicities are mentioned throughout the article, from the lead to the references. I would suggest you read it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat familiar with the article and its history. I see a push and pull between ethnic, religious, etc. points of views in the modern context.  In the historical context the word Muslim or Musalman was never used.  The names used were "Turk" and "Pathan".  So in the context of this article, using these ethnic names, however many times they are used, are never UNDUE. Chaipau (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Indus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Indus 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) 20:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Battle of the Indus you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of the Indus for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of the Indus/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) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Milky Way
The article has too many unsourced statements, and it seriously needs some updates and help. Maybe send it to GAR. 64.226.58.104 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of physics/mathematics/astronomy articles that are in poor shape. I don't want to nominate too many at once—Force is already there. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations 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) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
 * Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
 * Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 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) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Britten
You promoted some hook to prep, about Michael McCown, that wasn't approved. I'm often told that hooks should not rely on knowing things. The key to that approved hook is the Britten/Pears partnership. Pears hangs in the air when Britten is not even mentioned ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All the information within the hook in prep is contained within the approved hook, so supplementary guideline J11 is met, . Personally, for someone who left the world of music behind a long time ago, the "luminous agility" mentioned in the review is the most hooky/interesting aspect of the original hook, which in my opinion spent too much time not focusing on McCown. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All the information is in the approved hook, yes, but by shortening you lost the interesting fact that McCown has the ideal voice for these roles (which you have to mention in order to explain that, - also "Temptor" is an interesting role, no? ... and even the Nebuchadnezzar II isn't the typical hero) because the composer wrote these roles for his partner. Their relationship - which was illegal for most of its time - is rather well known, but I doubt the average reader will remember without both being mentioned. Britten is a featured article which doesn't hurt to read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the "ideal voice" was in the original hook,, just that it was like that of Pears. I doubt the average reader will know who Britten even was—I only faintly remembered who Pears was (I think I read the Britten article when looking at old infobox disputes). I could incorporate "in the roles of the Tempter and Nebuchadnezzar" in the hook after "voice..." if you really want...? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The composer (who had commissions from Queen Elizabeth II) wrote the roles with his partner's voice in mind, - Mr. McCown has a similar voice. I doubt that any reader who doesn't at least know who Benjamin Britten was would find the article interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The DYK question isn't whether the reader finds the article interesting—it's whether the reader finds the hook interesting enough to click on the hopefully-informative article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And how do you expect a reader to find a hook interesting that begins (boringly) with "a reviewer", and then likens an unknown person's voice to that of another possibly unknown person? Pears not as well known as Pavarotti. I'd say that Britten is at least ten times better known than Pears, plus gives an idea of the kind of repertoire the tenor sings (contemporary, and lead roles - for those who know), which would say something essential and specific about him, imho. There are hundreds of tenor voices with lightness and agility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reader is expected to know none of what comes to DYK. The trick is not to capture interest with what they know, but what they don't. Pretty much nobody will know, as you do, about tenor voices or repertoire choices or contemporary/lead roles; neither will they know about a digression to church parables. I'll include the bits about the Tempter and Nebuchadnezzar—I think that's touch and go for interest—but the other digressions are too far, in my opinion. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having listened, and the changes. - May I suggest to link Temptor to the church parable, because this is not Carmen, where readers will immediately known its a character from Bizet's opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do I do anything more on the Maggie Tokuda-Hall DYK?
Hi, following up on your comment on the Maggie Tokuda-Hall DYK - I was the reviewer. Now that the changes have been made, is there something I'm supposed to do? (This is only my second DYK review, and I'm still learning the ropes.) Any advice would be appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , if you feel that all the issues have been resolved, simply substitute the tick mark on the page again (with a little comment like ALT0 approved) and the nomination will soon be transferred to WP:DYKNA. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, done! It's still in the "Awaiting approval" page.  Does it get moved to the "Approved" page automatically? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It will do whenever the bot wakes up, ; I think that happens every two hours, with the next occurrence in an hour and a bit. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I would say that it is good practice to keep the original question mark, and add a new check mark at the end—that way a promoter can get the outline of the history of the nomination at a glance. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Tokuda-Hall article still shows as "waiting approval". Shouldn't the bot have moved it by now? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As Michelangelo said, "I am still learning." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Glaudi Barsotti
You proposed this BLP for deletion since it had no refs. I checked Google Scholar; Barsotti is noted for helping to revive the Occitan language (or at least keep it from dying). I added 4 of these to an external links section. Some are passing mentions, some are more in-depth. There are more Google Scholar refs out there. (I'm traveling and didn't have time to do nicer looking citations). I expect this article would now survive WP:AFD.

Thanks for caring about our articles!

Regards, -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Baljuna Covenant
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baljuna Covenant 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 Golden -- Golden (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Baljuna Covenant you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Baljuna Covenant and Talk:Baljuna Covenant/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Baljuna Covenant you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Baljuna Covenant for comments about the article, and Talk:Baljuna Covenant/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 Golden -- Golden (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy to see this pass. Excellent work. Congratulations! — Golden  call me maybe? 12:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats!! –  Aza24  (talk)   03:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to both of you, . FYI, my rewriting of Genghis Khan is nearing the beginning of the end; everything up to the Death and Succession section, which I intend to finish tonight, is done. Then I'm planning a section on character, and I have some ideas for the legacy section. While I work on those, any attention you could give the earlier sections would be much appreciated, if you have the time. Thanks again, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's looking great so far. I'm surprised you haven't used Mote more. His survey is some outstanding scholarship, with a few dedicated Mongol chapters (and at least one for Genghis, if memory serves).  Aza24  (talk)   21:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ...I may have slightly forgotten about him. Oops. Right, let's go check him out. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Motivational note for myself: finish Tolui and get back to this... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Fuzuli
Hey AirshipJungleman, hope you're doing well! I've nominated the Fuzuli (poet) article, which you peer reviewed, for FA (Link). If you have time, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the nomination. — Golden  talk 14:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm quite busy at the moment but I'll try and get there in the next couple of days. Actually, while you're here, I've just put Tolui up for GAN; I would be very obliged if you review it as you've done for other Mongol articles. Anyway, if I don't get to Fuzuli by Wednesday, ping me. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, AirshipJungleman. I'd be happy to review Tolui. — Golden  talk 19:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've created a subpage to make it easier for friends and I to keep track of our projects that require reviews and comments. Feel free to add there anything that you would like reviewed or commented on in the future, and it will appear on my user page. — Golden  talk 19:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Noticed a coincidence
I saw your post on user:Gokturklerrr's talk page their creation of the article, First battle of Laghman. A relatively new user, Ajayraj890, has also made a First Battle of Laghman.

Would you be able to glance over First Battle of Laghman and see if you notice any similarities? Is it possible that Ajayraj890 is a sock of Gokturklerrr? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can see Gokturklerr's creation at this link, . I don't see many similarities at all, and indeed the references (at first glance) seem to be of a much higher standard than what G used to produce. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please readd this
=== Chemical experiments on Indian troops ===

British military scientists sent hundreds of Indian soldiers into gas chambers and exposed them to mustard gas, documents uncovered by The Guardian have revealed. 103.39.128.89 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, not a war crime. Please familiarise yourself with the definition. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * why are many non armed civilian massacres added in Japanese war crimes but Amritsar massacre can't be added in British war crimes? 103.39.128.89 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the Japanese war crimes occurred during ... wait for it ... this will come as a major surprise ... WAR. I know, I know, totally unbelieveable right? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I will come after one week of some research. 103.39.128.89 (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tolui
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tolui 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 Golden -- Golden (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Tolui you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Tolui and Talk:Tolui/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Tolui you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Tolui for comments about the article, and Talk:Tolui/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 Golden -- Golden (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Hi there. Baljuna Covenant is probably going to run as a TFA in October. Would you care to have a go at the blurb, or prefer me to? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article/requests, . ;) AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks. I shall point the October scheduler in that direction. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Sanctioned Suicide
This close seems a bit premature, and since you were the one to promote the article's DYK, you are likely involved. Would you consider undoing your closure? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't really see how I am involved—it's not a discussion which I have !voted in, nor an XfD discussion and the ensuing furore at WP:ERRORS has nothing to do with the GA-quality of the article (FYI most GA discussions are closed after around a week, and I've closed the vast majority of them in recent months). Could you please expand on your reasoning? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that has not been active since filing the GAR on August 6. I think closing the GAR was appropriate because there were no other concerns that needed to be addressed. Edge3 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, seems like it's not a big deal then. Thank you both for addressing my concerns. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  23:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude, @Edge3—it's my understanding WP:GAR is a process where a particular GA is brought up and then discussed similar to WP:AfD so I don't think it'd require any particular level of activity from the Wikipedian who opened it? The close was likely appropriate regardless of outcome, I just thought it should have some re-review Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

UAA
Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note that some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example, the German wiki is another. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to remember that. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, 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!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 16 September 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RfC
You recently closed a RfC on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article. You claim that there "is consensus in favour of solution 2 (removing the term "propaganda"), on grounds that it pejoratively implies deliberate deception", though the majority of editors voted to keep the term, and a number of people stated that they were fine with both terms. Even if that were not the case, RfC's aren't decided by majority vote. Can you please elaborate how you came to the conclusion that there is consensus in favour of not using the term "propaganda"? Cortador (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I closed that RfC a month ago, so my memory might be slightly wonky on the intracies. I do not believe "a majority of editors voted to keep the term"—the RfC was on a lengthy phrase in the first paragraph, not just the word "propaganda"—but in any case, as you somewhat contradictorily note, discussions are closed by consensus, not majority vote. There was a significant proportion of those who !voted in favour of keeping the phrase who were not satisfied about the term "propaganda", on account of the implication of pejoration. Because the discussion was on a WP:BLP, which naturally "requires a high degree of sensitivity", I considered these arguments to be more stronger and relevant than they would be on an article about tadpoles, for instance. I think that was generally my reasoning and it seems to have stuck well (I note a subsequent talk page discussion under the heading "Propaganda"?). Hope that helps. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The original question of the RfC was "Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP?" A majority of editors voted to keep them, and delivered arguments why to do so - the term "propaganda" is used by three out of four sources for that sentence. I'm afraid I don't get your reasoning based on this; BLP isn't a reason to exclude information from reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very true. Consensus is, though. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. That is specifically what I'm disputing here. Cortador (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears we have come to a fundamental impasse; you are of course free to start a closure review at WP:AN if you think my reading of policies is incorrect. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Mentorship Jul-Sep 2023
How can I change the profile picture of Lee Jin ah in this page ? --Unleashgift (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , if you find a suitable file on Wikimedia Commons you can change the image in the infobox. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. How so I cREate a wikipedia page for an individual? Thanks. --TamraPierce (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, please see Help:Your first article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for being a mentor! I’m here to learn but also to help the wonderful world of wiki keep providing sourced info! --Bearkitty123 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. Feel free to ask any questions, or you can place the template on your page.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, How can I publish an article but there are no external links that can support it because it is something new and almost nobody knows about it, thanks. --Eron Lushaj (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . I assume you are talking about Draft:Militrex Kosova Defense? Unfortunately, if something is not covered in reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. However, if it is notable, I can almost guarantee there will be sources released in the next months. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to publish a page for our college's cultural festival, but I'm not able to get how to create it --Dev2907 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, please take a look at Help:Your first article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have created a draft for an article but while trying to publilsh it I'm getting an error of "No stashed content found" --Dev2907 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can ask the Teahouse. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello So where would you suggest that I start? --Malluisgreat (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

hi --Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) How can i add a new page on wikipedia with the company name? --Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I would highly advise not doing that. See WP:PROMO and WP:COI for details. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not doing Advertising about any thing, we just want to create our company's page on wikipedia. this is the only reason. Is there any possibilities to create our company page over here ? Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PE. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

hello --RICHARD ADIKPA (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Silo34 (21:36, 5 October 2023)
Hello. My question is, how can I change images on articles? --Silo34 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Legislative Council of the Autonomous Kurdistan Region
AirshipJungleman29, has the provided source information addressed the issue you had with this nomination? Please stop by when you can to respond. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK prep building
Please note that in the last available prep, the image slot and one other slot must remain empty so that there's room to shuffle things around. It appears that you filled the last available image space in Prep 6. That makes my life harder as I have to shuffle things around at present.  Schwede 66  08:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 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) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Tolui

 * Another outstanding contribution to the coverage of Mongolian history on Wikipedia. Congratulations! —  Golden  talk 10:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Lewinsville: Thanks
Thanks for promoting the DYK for this article. It has just finished its run so I think it is too soon to see the page views but I think they should be up later today. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

William Nixon (obstetrician)
Thanks for promoting this one but I think you need to re-open it as the selected hook needs improvement. (I will add an Alt). Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it does, . Care to explain your reasoning? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bald statement of fact with no context and which implies that there was something exceptional or possibly illegal about the abortions he carried out, otherwise why would we be saying it was before a particular piece of law? Since that hook was formulated the article has been expanded to make clear that he was acting completely legally and there was already case law to support his actions. That being so, what is the point of the hook? I think we could develop a hook around the reasons for which he did the abortions which was to protect the health of the mother. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Mato Grosso do Sul
Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for moving my DYK into one of the prep queues. I wanted to include the image in the DYK though, but I guess that wasn't apparent because I hadn't included (pictured) in the hook. Could my hook be moved to another queue so that it can be accompanied by the flag shown in the nomination? BaduFerreira (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , it was apparent, but as the promoter I decided against it. DYK receives around twice as many picture hooks as there are available slots (as the first slot receives the most attention), so around half of picture hooks can't run with an image. A promoter thus has to judge which images are more captivating than others. While your hook was interesting, I didn't feel that the image added that much to it, especially considering that as a "mockup" it is only an approximate representation of the original design. With all that in mind, I judged that it would be better suited to a non-picture hook slot. Hope you understand. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, that makes sense. I'll keep that in mind for future DYK submissions! Thank you for your response. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK tweaks
Hiya, AirshipJungleman29! I noticed you edited the hook for 1989 (Taylor's Version) 'cuz...... you pinged me. You moved "in less than a day" to later in the hook. I feel like that kinda makes my eyes glaze over it now. I think maybe "within a day" could work instead since it's less wordy. You also linked Taylor Swift, but I feel like linking it would take attention away from the 1989TV link. If readers are really interested, they can find Swift's link in the first sentence of the article. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

GAR closure
Regarding Good article reassessment/Tesla, Inc./1, the instructions at Good article reassessment don't list 'no consensus' to delist as a possible outcome, rather consensus should be found to keep the article as a GA. Having only just realised, I ask that the reassessment be reopened so that consensus can be established. I have come here to ask as you were the one to close the discussion. Cheers, Willbb234 19:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I will not be doing so, as no consensus is a very common result in discussion closures. The instructions at WP:GAR do not prescribe all possible results, as can be seen from the fact that there was no clear consensus and no lack of objections to delisting. Discussions can't be kept open indefinitely in the hope that a consensus might develop. You are of course free to ping the GAR coords or ask at WT:GAR if you disagree with my reasoning. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the obvious problem here is this would allow a small number of editors, even just one, to block a GAR simply by objecting and not enough other editors participating to form a consensus to delist; a very frustrating outcome for a nom who might choose to place the article on review for a second time and which would require more input from others in an area which seems to be already short of editors willing to participate. Looking at AFD, the system tends to work as their relist process tends to generate further responses (and it also doesn't require the nom to present another argument/go to the effort of creating another discussion). I would also note that 'no consensus' is neither an accepted outcome at the GAR log or at Template:Article history. I completely understand that the discussion must end at some point, but I don't agree with the current approach taken to the process. Willbb234 19:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not see "no consensus" at the GAR log or at Article history because they do not refer to the discussions, but to the GA status of the article . yes, that is intended. The same happens at AfD, and at every other discussion venue on the site.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not the "intended" effect. Also the same does not happen at AFD as, as I've already mentioned, the relist function allows for further contribution to the discussion, something not present at GAR. WP:GAR says that If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time., which, in a manner similar to WP:ONUS, implies that the side wishing to keep the article as a GA must find some kind of consensus. A simple objection from one editor does not constitute consensus to keep as a GA. I would also disagree that the 'Results' at least at the Article history template refer to the status of the article. The template lists the outcome under a 'Results' column, which specifically refers to the results of the discussion, not the status of the article. Either way, WP:GAR doesn't support the idea that an article can be 'kept' as a GA without consensus to do so. Willbb234 20:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not my interpretation—you can see my reasoning above. Again, you are free to ping the GAR coords or ask at WT:GAR if you disagree. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing edited volumes
Hi. Thanks for your kind note about my effort at a more balanced approach to the factuality of The Old Man and the Sea. Question for you: Can you point me to the proper template for citing an essay in an edited volume, such as the Cambridge Companion series? If I knew that, I'd have done better with specific page cites to Sylvester. And, I intend to do some touch up on the article on Ibsen's The Wild Duck, drawn from the Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Having the proper template would improve those future efforts. (Ironic aside: You appear to have a deep interest in Mongol history.  I spent some decades focused on modern Chinese affairs.  But we've  met in Cuba!) Pechmerle (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You run into people all over the place in Wikipedia, it's rather funny sometimes. As for citations, I typically use whichever of the the CS1 templates is most suitable in combination with Template:Sfn (shortened footnotes). So to take The Old Man as an example, as long as you have the reference for Sylvester somewhere in the article (here in the Sources section: * ), you can write  or  and Wikipedia will automatically make the connection. Hope that helps, and good luck with The Wild Duck!  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lead to the general cite templates. What I did for Sylvester looks serviceable. But I note with astonishment that an edited collection in book form is tucked away in the "cite encyclopedia" template. Well, at least now I know.--Pechmerle (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Clara Schumann
Thank you for your interest in Clara Schumann. Please find a better way of access to her talk page archives that Talk header, - it was meant for contentious pages (only, see for example ), which still shows, and hers looks like visitors already know to assume good faith ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 1: can we please avoid to have the Myrthen hook right below Pin-up, pictured? (Best in a different set, if you ask me, or towards the end.) Where does "fiancèe" come from? Not from the article. He gave it to her on the eve of their wedding, - why not bride? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the hook from the prep, ; you'll find "fiancée" in the second sentence of the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - I am sorry that I missed that the term entered the article, . Please teach me language. I understand that a fiancée is someone to whom you became engaged, and that would have been most often a formal ceremony in Germany, and Robert Schumann's article tells us that he was engaged to another woman before, but nothing about an engagement to Clara Wieck. Her father was against their marriage, and they chose to legally fight for being married. While I think it's kind of justified in the article for the time during which he composed it (if we can say it about just their private promise to each other, nothing towards society), it seems no longer correct for the time of the giving to her which was for the wedding. I may have a wrong understanding of the term, please let me know. For my limited understanding, "bride" in the quote is enough, and doesn't need to be duplicated, nor contradicted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the hassle, this is about the RfA of 0xDeadbeef. Fermiboson (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

mos:circa
AirshipJungleman29, i thought i might raise some finer points about mos:circa with you, since i know you are receptive to constructive criticism, and thought it would be helpful to address some minor issues in the "Boukephala and Nikaia" article. there are two instances in the article where i am unsure if you are using the circa template correctly, since they include an unspaced en dash in a date range. also, there is one instance where a space appears to be missing. anyway, please let me know if you have any questions about any of this, as i know that mos:circa can be very confusing. i actually don't think i understood it myself until a couple of years ago, and am still not positive that i fully understand it. dying (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * when "c." is used with a date range, each instance is associated with only one of the endpoints. notably, this is different from how the words "about" or "approximately" may be used.  "about 1353 BC – 1336 BC" may suggest that both dates are uncertain, but "c. 1353 BC – 1336 BC" implies that the second date is known with certainty.  to signify that both endpoints are approximate, "c." should be used before each date: "c. 1353 BC".  (this was  at the "circa" article, but the explanation was deleted after an afd.)
 * if "c." is used with a date range, the range generally uses a spaced en dash.
 * if you use the circa template with an argument for the first parameter, a thin space is automatically added after the "c.", and css is used to prevent the line from breaking at that point. sometimes, people miss the thin space and mistakenly believe that an additional space is required (e.g., " c. &amp;nbsp;1353&amp;nbsp;BC ") or that "c." is generally not followed by any spacing (e.g., " c. 1353&amp;nbsp;BC ").
 * if a tooltip has been provided in an earlier instance of "c.", there is no need to provide it again in later instances. the tooltip can be suppressed by passing "no" to the "lk" parameter (e.g., " c. 1353&amp;nbsp;BC ").
 * "c. 320–185 BC"
 * did you mean "c. 320 – 185 BC" (" c. 320&amp;nbsp;– 185&amp;nbsp;BC ") or "c. 320 BC" (" c. 320&amp;nbsp;BC ")?
 * "c. 170 BC–10 AD"
 * did you mean "c. 170 BC – 10 AD" (" c. 170&amp;nbsp;BC&amp;nbsp;– 10&amp;nbsp;AD ") or "c. 170 BC" (" {{{circa|170&amp;nbsp;BC|10&amp;nbsp;AD|lk=no}} ")?
 * "c. 150 BC"
 * did you mean "c. 150 BC" (" c. 150&amp;nbsp;BC ")?

The Signpost: 6 November 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

1807 in Chile
You said you wanted to be notified when Articles for deletion/1807 in Chile closed. Everyone besides the closer seems to pretty much be on the same page (that page being 1800s in Chile). Like I said in the AfD, this is an area where I'm particularly active and have some experience with. Cleanup is long overdue.

Given that these articles are stubs with only a few views, I think we can safely say that merging them would be an uncontroversial merge that doesn't need a formal RM. But then that opens new questions. What about 1810s in Chile and 1820s in Chile? What about 1800s in Spain and 1800s in Ireland? If it's an appropriate merge for one set, it's probably appropriate for all of them, but that's a much larger undertaking. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'll be honest, I hadn't really thought long term. I'll just do this one, and see where it leads. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello AirshipJungleman29:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 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) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC comment
Who or what are you trying to address with this comment? Peter Isotalo 20:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I was addressing Harrias' disinclination to provide more examples and your seeming irritation they wouldn't. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it's up to a reviewer to reply to a question or request from the nominator. In this case I haven't tried to contact the reviewer directly because I'm assuming there's no rush to do so.
 * I'm confused about why you've commented on this directly in the FAC and I'm even more confused because I don't know what point you're actually trying to make.
 * Can you please explain more clearly what you're trying to say? Peter Isotalo 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I commented with a link to WP:FIXLOOP because I thought it summed up the reviewer's position nicely. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I'm getting the sense that you've not actually understood my side of the argument or are simply not acknowledging it. Peter Isotalo 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have an argument? I thought I was the one trying and failing to make a point. Can you explain yours, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-


 * BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
 * Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
 * Epicgenius with 1518 points
 * MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
 * BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
 * AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
 * Sammi Brie with 520 points
 * Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
 * BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
 * LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
 * MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
 * Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
 * 🇺🇦 Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (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) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! - Perfect timing - I just wanted to bring November thanks anyway, having updated pics to 24 Oct. I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Unleashgift
Hi, please help me. What should i do to approved the page that i created for Zhou Yiran (Chinese actress) and how to add a picture in her profile ? Thank you. --Unleashgift (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, What should i remove and add to this page ? Thank you --Unleashgift (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Do you have suggestions so that the article that I created will be accepted by the reviewer? --Unleashgift (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would suggest using the |trans-title and |quote parameters in your citations, to make sure that the reviewer is satisfied that the draft meets the verifiability policy (see for details). I would also suggest removing sources such as Douban, Weibo, and Baijiahao Baidu, since they are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Finally, I would concentrate on making sure you have at least three sources that meet all the requirements at WP:GNG—at the moment, I don't see that in the article.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" and "trivial" list
Hello. I think a large edit like this should require consensus to be removed. Fair enough, you made a bold edit, but as I've reverted it now because I disagree with your reasoning for its removal, I think any further issues with it should be taken to the article talk page to get consensus for its removal. Before it was shut down, the server had a limited number of streamers who regularly played on it and whom had "visited" it. That's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, that's a limited scope. As the streamers' popularity was one of the reasons as to why the Minecraft server became as big as it was, it's also not "trivia" (WP:TRIVIA)—it's one of the key components of the topic. It would be like removing a cast list from a TV series or film article. In no way am I saying it's the best way to present the information nor am I saying the article is great, but also, several of the streamers' names (or all? I'm not sure as I didn't make them) redirect to that article. Anyway, please get consensus to remove it as I think this is a contentious removal. Thanks.  Ss  112   09:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I don't have any skin in the game. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK
There is a discussion at DYK:ERRORS regarding a hook you promoted. Primergrey (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, the request has been removed. Details can be found here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jalal al-Din Mangburni
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jalal al-Din Mangburni 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 Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Jalal al-Din Mangburni you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Jalal al-Din Mangburni for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, AirshipJungleman29. Thank you for your work on The Mongol Khan. User:The Night Watch, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

The Night Watch    (talk)   22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hö'elün
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hö'elün 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Hö'elün you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hö'elün for comments about the article, and Talk:Hö'elün/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tolui
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 20 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Edward Said
Thanks for tightening up the article. Please review the last paragraph of the "Career" section. I believe it is WP:UNDUE. Also, the source, an article in Jewish Currents, contains numerous errors of fact. For example, the article claims that Silvers banned Said from contributing to the New York Review of Books during the 1980s (though he later wrote for the Review and also wrote for its spinoff, The London Review of Books) because his brother Edwin lived in Israel then, but Edwin Silvers lived in Middletown, New York, continuously from 1958 to his death in 2000 (his obituary was published in the Times Herald-Record in July 2000), so the premise of the statement is nonsense. I do not feel comfortable in removing the statement myself since I may be said to have a COI. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The GA diatribe CABG.
As you seem objective - and I am not sure if you are an Admin.

I am new to WP - and you seriously need new technical editors - so I think this worth reading.

I feel I was rather 'set up' - my credentials are on my page and I wondered if this was ever a great idea - to be so public, personal ego perhaps.

I noted the patterns as I described - GA status seems a goal by many, certainly not by me - I am actually just happy to contribute here and there.

I know of no colleagues of mine that would go to WP for advice - some other specialties might.

I noted a few editors targeting older articles in the med/science/biochem areas - I note floating them into a GA pipeline is super important to them. I do understand there are indeed multiple perceptions of this - and I even collaborated on a few articles.

Being direct - sure anyone can edit WP - it is a core tenet. But when non-technical editors build off an older document - and have no real knowledge of the topic - it might be a problem, and I do think I got sucked into something - I was more than a little gullible in the GA reviews - and I was specifically asked by other editors - I now see there was an agenda - my perspective.

Enough said - I learned something without getting burned too much - but I was surprised - as an aging Physician I didn't think I'd be so susceptible to flattery.

I will be far more guarded moving forward.

I will tread very careful and might dilute my credential listing.

Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , it is perhaps a mistake to come in expecting that your proclaimed credentials will do the work for you and you don't have to read instructions/advice pages, yes. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, ideedy - certainly is one perspective.
 * The tone in the note likely tells all though.
 * Cheers.
 * Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 19:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comment sadly does not address the pattern though does it - but this is not your role or inherent skill set to judge - is it?
 * Many thanks for clearing the GA nonsense.
 * Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 19:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , to be perfectly honest, I think the problem is less with a pattern and more with a person. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the comments meaning - a snide unclever jab - - seriously?
 * Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Less snide, more scientific.
 * The reasoning is simple. From your perspective, you see that three reviews you conducted met with complaints and undignified ends. As you know you did nothing to deserve such a reaction, the logical conclusion is simple—there is an endemic pattern in the GA process that you were unlucky enough to get on the wrong side of.
 * My perspective is rather different. I see three article writers who have received four tick-box exercises from an editor who can't be bothered to read instructions and who comes to a seemingly-sympathetic talkpage to complain about being set up and agendas, and my logical conclusion is that Hanlon's razor is in full effect. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it is disheartening to witness the effort you invested in constructing this irrational diatribe. Two paragraphs devoid of meaningful contribution, accompanied by a display of concerning personality traits. The more you persist in engaging, the more evident it becomes.
 * Enough, I am sure you are a very smart and well educated soul - this is really at the heart of your continuing ad hominems - just stop it now.
 * I kindly request that you discontinue the personal attacks in adherence to WP:CIVIL. This diatribe appears rude and hostile; perhaps, it is worth considering whether you are inadvertently documenting your own insecurities.
 * A more mature approach would involve recognizing the situation for what it is and refraining from perpetuating personal attacks. I have already requested twice for you to desist, and it seems as though you may be unaware of the impoliteness and incivility in your communications.
 * The subject matter is secondary; the primary concern is the abusive nature of the diatribe.
 * Really sad you unravelled like this - I thought I was dealing with an smarter fellow.
 * Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 21:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Civility Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You probably should have noticed that policy before you accused others of having agendas to set you up, . Of course, if you actually believe that you are tge subject of agenda-ridden diatribes, you are free to make a complaint at WP:ANI. Be warned: they might come to the same conclusion as I, which surely means they're part of the anti-BeingObjective Cabal too. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it will not change the reality of your overt hostility. Kind regards Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 04:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope that is the end of you diatribe - hope it is - it has gone on a long time. Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 04:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

baljuna covenant
AirshipJungleman29, i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. dying (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * do you know how it was determined that the portrait shown in the blurb was painted in 1278? the description on commons states that it was taken from a 14th-century album, but does not seem to mention when the portrait was painted.  it appears that there was a portrait of genghis khan completed in 1278, but i am unable to conclude that it is the same one that appears in the 14th-century album.  some (possibly unreliable) sources state that the original was lost, and that the one in the album is a copy.
 * the way that temüjin is described as "khan of the Mongols" [links removed] in the blurb and "the khan of the Mongol tribe" [links removed] in the article lead suggests to me that there was one such khan at the time, and that temüjin was that khan while he was serving under toghrul. is this accurate?  i could not find anything in the article body confirming this, though i did notice that the "Genghis Khan" article mentions that he was "acclaimed by his close followers as khan of the Mongols" while he was serving under toghrul.  however, i don't know how accurate a description of temüjin by his close followers would be.
 * , I can confirm the second one immediately—Temüjin's acclamation by his close followers (the leaders of the Mongol tribe) is all that was needed to be the Mongol khan, and this was not incompatible with him also serving Toghrul. To my recollection, there is a lengthy discussion of this point in Ratchnevsky 1991. I cannot give a similarly immediate response for the first question, so I'll have a look at that in-depth when I have time in a few hours. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, wow, thanks for the explanation. i admittedly would have never guessed that about the title "khan", as i had previously thought that the unique title was "khagan".  also, have you had the chance to look into the issue with the caption yet?  if the statement is unsourced, we could always fall back on what is stated in the article, and replace the caption with something like "Genghis Khan, from a 14th-century album".  dying (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to find the related text (although I'm pretty sure it's out there), so that might be best . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if the album really did contain the 1287 painting, though after a bit more digging, i found one source reporting a historian describing a dispute between taiwan and china over who has the original, and speculating that the two similar paintings might actually both be original, so perhaps we'll never know. thanks, AirshipJungleman29!  dying (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "The year is 1203. A middle-aged tribal chieftain has been betrayed by his lord; his meagre forces have been annihilated in battle, and he's been forced into headlong flight with a a small group of loyalists. They camp by a nondescript body of water (lake? river? does it matter?) to gather their wits. The chieftain looks around at the men who have followed him, even into these desparate straits, and knows he has to reward such loyalty. He takes a drink of the dirty water and swears an oath of mutual fidelity; his companions return the gesture. They take for themselves a title–not a noble one, but something ignominious, reflecting their situation. The Baljunatu, the "Muddy Water Drinkers"? That's really all they are, for the moment. - Mere decades later, millions of people and half the world live in awe of the power and name of that minor chieftain, a certain Genghis Khan. His empire spans Eurasia, and his generals wreak devastation on the greatest cities of the world. And he honoured the oath he swore on that dirty shoreline all those years ago—all the Muddy Water Drinkers belong to the highest nobility in the largest land empire the world has seen or will ever know. That is the story of the Baljuna Covenant."! - Enjoyed! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2883 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Glad you enjoyed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats!  Bobherry  Talk   My Edits  21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for Boukephala and Nikaia, introduced: "From the adventures of Genghis Khan, we move to the life of another Asiatic conqueror, Alexander the Great. Two cities, founded either side of the river where he took one of his most famous victories—one named for the battle, the other for his horse. Alexander died only a couple of years afterwards but the Alexandrias live long in the memory of men."! - Did you see yesterday's story, sad but great? Today's is poetic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! You may be interested to know that yesterday I was invited (at very last minute) to see La forza del destino. As a complete novice, I greatly enjoyed it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I love to hear that! The last time I saw it was at Oper Frankfurt, and while in the plot, he is of color, and she is white, the real singers were just the opposite, and while they played, there was a pair of actors in videos with the colors as in the plot, and you really understood that it should not matter. Powerful music with a lot of passion. The director was Tobias Kratzer, who had offered two pieces for one competition, one under a woman's name, appearing in both identities ;) (that was an easy DYK) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that one looks much more contemporary than the one I saw yesterday at the Royal Opera House ; looking it up, I see that yesterday's was directed by Christof Loy (whose article you created) with Sondra Radvanovsky as Leonora—any thoughts on either of them? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Directors get a lot of freedom, at least since Patrice Chereau had the Ring cycle play in 19th-century industrialism (Jahrhundertring), 1976 that is, 100 years after the premiere. Never heard of the soprano, sounds interesting! Of Loy's work, I saw the one the DYK tells you about, and liked it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * More pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , you may be interested in my first opera-related article, Tale of the Moon Cuckoo—I quite enjoyed writing it, and I hope you'll enjoy reading it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, enjoyed, extraordinary: plot, duration, history. Will review for DYK if nobody beats me to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)