User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive 5

FAC nominations
Hi there, just drawing to your attention in case you can help rectify this. Your instructions and those on the FAC nominations insgtructions page say to click the red link in the box. However, the box says: Anyone who has not significantly contributed to or nominated this article may initiate a nomination. (My emphasis.) Just sayin' - these seem to be contradictory statements. Maybe someone who knows could edit it? Jim Killock (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct ; the "not" was added in error in November, and I have now removed it from the template (it might take a little while to disappear from the talk page). Thanks for noticing, and sorry for the confusion. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * lulz! Figured it was wrong but it certainly confused me! Thanks for rectifying. Jim Killock (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bigg Boss Telugu
Hi, The show concept and entire detail was mention in bigg boss Telugu (season 7) with sources. Why are u removing all those things and also in every bigg boss or big brother it is same way then why right now u are changing every thing by saying fans edit like this Pawan Sparkle (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is not fit for Wikipedia . If every other article is the same way you had better get to work fixing them. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as similar to other articles I used reference as well in bigg boss 7 Telugu page. Pawan Sparkle (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * References do not mean information has to be included . See WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." This is a central policy that should always be obeyed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I too understand but why only this kind rules were implemented for this pages, why not for others. I also agreed same kind of actions last year but this same thing was happening only for this show. Pawan Sparkle (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I haven't had the time to get around to the others, . WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a reason to stop improving Wikipedia articles. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @AJ29, I know these articles attract all sorts of crap but your responses here are coming off as a little hostile. The intricacies of Wikipedia policy are second nature to me and you but blue links in all caps don't mean much to newcomers. Try to remember that a lot of edits on articles like this might not be helpful but the editors don't necessarily mean to be disruptive. :) HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry; the area is always heated and I should've moderated my tone. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Volador Jr.
Hi. I saw you remove the update tag. Although his AEW stuff is updated, his CMLL career is still lacking far behind, see his cagematch. Unfortunately I don't know Spanish to help much. Thanks. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a remark
Referring to your advice, please read the message I received on my Talk page. As to your reference to the Middle Ages, I am convinced that if I indeed contributed to a stand-off with an aggressive editor who had filled the article with his own views ignoring the sources he was allegedly citing, I contributed to the improvement of working environment in our community. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and WP is not a social platform for people who want to spread their own ideas. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection, but I'm glad to see you've reached some stage of agreement. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to my experiences, you tend to protect people who do not need protection or do not deserve protection. Remember that you were blaming me for assuming that an extreme PoV-pusher is a sock puppet, and wrote comforting words to him. At the end, it became clear that he indeed had abused multiple accounts. Perhaps you could stop educating me how to behave. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you believe Jenhawk777 is a sockpuppet or otherwise excepted from Wikipedia's civility policy? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say or imply that he was a sockpuppet. In the comment for which you accused me of agressivenes, I suggested him that he should not ignore high-quality sources that do not support his agenda. After much unnecessary discussion, he accepted my proposal, and realised that his presentation of medieval church history was not supported by specialised literature. I only referred to the fact that you are tending to educate me how to behave although in at least two cases you were obviously wrong. That is why I ask you to stop educating me. This is a message about your acts not about other editors'. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid you are misreading my comment. If you go back and look at the peer review and the noticeboard discussion, you will find that I castigated Jenhawk for the exact same issues you mention above—a lack of specialised literature and a desire to push an agenda rather than reporting reliable sources.
 * My issue is not with what you said, but how you said it. is precisely the point I am making—if you had taken a more conciliatory tone, you could have got your point across quicker without any lengthy discussion. You are perfectly welcome to ignore this advice, but you'll be wasting more time in the process. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point: you are not in the position of educating, so stop it. Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving of DYK nomination
Re this So we should wait until the DYK runs and there's a link to the hook/date and nom from the box on the talk page then? Until today I've never had that edit reverted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I believe it's normal practice to leave the nomination section on the talk page, until it gets archived (if it ever does). I don't think removing it is ever really a thing. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This one had been archived, as they usually seem to be once the date for them to be on the Main Page has been set. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean until the section was archived to a talk page archive, not simply closed . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, since the boxing means you can't contribute to it anymore, I don't see the point of leaving it on the talk page once the nom is linked from the box at the top of the page. IME it tends to clutter up the page and make it difficult for newer users, or interested readers, to use it properly, especially on a low-volume talk page where it's unlikely to be archived for years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove tag
How do I "turn off" the peer review request? I am replacing those sections using a broader selection of sources and have tagged the article as under construction, so it doesn't need reviewing until that's done. If I can't just remove the request, what can I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , you can close the PR using the instructions at WP:PRG; alternatively, you can just leave it open, as I presume comments on the rest of the article would still be appreciated? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, yeah, I was actually going to ask you - but not yet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Fajia
hello, on the lede modification Fajia, while Oxford could be used just FYI I don't know that it's actually accurate.

It's information isn't intended to be accurate, it's intended to include original arguments. I tried looking up the Fajia and it's figures in the hanshu. They're not listed. Han Fei Shang Yang Shen Buhai are slurred but not under Fajia. Fajia has no one listed. On the other hand, it doesn't speak negatively of li kui.

The truth is I have never been able to locate a list of Fajia. The west always just speaks point blank about them. I even look for it in Chinese. They may not be listed anywhere.FourLights (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you, for once, try to write a comment that tries to be intelligible ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the Oxford may not be accurate and is not intended to be accurate. I cannot find a list of Fajia in the hanshu and I do not know where one is located.  The Hanshu lists Fajia as a school but no one is under it.  It slurs Shang Yang han Fei Shen Buhai but not under the fajia.FourLights (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Oxford claims there is a list in the hanshu but there isn't. You referenced and listed the people in the oxford.FourLights (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you seriously trying to say that one of the foremost concentrations of academic expertise in the world "may not be accurate and is not intended to be accurate" ? Where does "the Oxford" claim there is a list in the Hanshu? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * its intended to include original arguments about the future direction of the debate. While I don't think it was intending to argue about the Hanshu I can't find them listed in the hanshu. Page 63 Oxford han history.FourLights (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, a completely irrelevant book to anything I wrote. Good, good. Please also let me know how you expect anyone to know what you're talking about from "Page 63 Oxford han history". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, lede modification
I can make the original more readable, trim it down, without reference to Creel but it was also accurate and fulfilled certain demands originally made of the lede. For instance, it requests earliest thinker. I could run this by you.FourLights (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "it requests earliest thinker" what is "it" ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Han literature adopts Guan Zhong as a forefather of the Fajia. I have a reference in the original lede although I don't remember what it was without looking it up later. Sima Qian does not list anyone under the schools.FourLights (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I won't be replying until your sentences start making sense . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Only Shang Yang, Shen Buhai and Han Fei are only commonly combined or slurred. They're "the big three."FourLights (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slur &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is correct, the Fajia combination appears to be a slur. The Confucians did not like them. FourLights (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And that is relevant how? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * it would be relevant to the history of it, though it could potentially be relegated to the backend conclusions. It explains partly why the old history is inaccurate compared to modern day archaeology.FourLights (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. So far on my talk page, you have accused Oxford bibliographies of "not intending to be reliable", talked extensively about the fact you can't find a list in a 1st-century source, as if that somehow matters, provided the most laughably unhelpful citation I have ever seen, and referenced around five details which are either near-irrelevant or which you have proceeded to promptly forget about. I am increasingly convinced that you fall foul of WP:CIR. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really care at the moment, but the Oxford might be disputed later as a tertiary source, so in an ideal world lists can be found from non-tertiary. Here is about the Oxford. The Oxford is a review of contemporary thinking, which makes an original argument about the future direction of the debate. https://www.eifl.net/e-resources/oxford-handbooks-online
 * That may be the first sensible thing I've ever heard you say, . I'm not entirely sure what the rest of your comment is supposed to say, or why you can't type the third word after "the Oxford", but at least you show some familiarity with WP:NOR. However, because the Oxford Handbook is "analytical not just regurgitative material in a topical encyclopedia written by a subject-matter expert" (WP:NOTTERTIARY), it is considered a secondary source. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I include some sources for secondary detail demonstration, but in general I try to have an extremely tight regime of high-quality, reasoned sourcing.FourLights (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And an equally tight regime of making it as incomprehensible as possible. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We could make a new talk section on the talk page but I hope you will discuss with me the early content on the page?FourLights (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as you make an effort to adhere to style and editing guidelines. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am still making minor edits before beginning anything new. Assuming a certain amount of reason is used (I won't simply adopt his schemata), How do you feel about including Huang Kejian just a featured source, for interested reader of the subject, even if maybe an additional source should be found? He doesn't adhere to western scholarship ideas of the subject, but then, not all western scholarship is perfect either...  none of the early scholarship was really perfect, more like fuzzy slanted explorations even if it had good work.  I'd says Pines and Goldin modernly try to be good scholarship.FourLights (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mongolian language
Mongolian language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Misclick at Jimbotalk
Whoops, sorry about that. I have jimbotalk on my watchlist and accidentally clicked 'rollback.' Jip Orlando (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. I hate that rollback button. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have rollback rights, but literally installed a script to hide it whenever I'm not doing things that could benefit from it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Siege of Baghdad
If you're okay with the high-res version you should probably say so explicitly. It'll make the closing easier. Unless you object, though, it shouldn't be a big deal as there's five votes for it, which is quorum. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Olivia Olson (basketball) DYK run
Is it possible to delay the Olivia Olson (basketball) DYK appearance by about 2 days. I expect to see her play next weekend and we should have pictures of her in the article afterwards. I think it would be better for the reader to actually have pictures of her.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I will see her March 2 at 2PM. Oh wait the diff said PREP 7, but it seems to be in PREP 1. Maybe we don't need a delay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

you've got mail!
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/John Williams Reynolds
Do you think we could somehow add a hyperlink to James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan who was the superior in question? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of DYK is to showcase new/improved articles. If people want to know who the commanding officer is, they can click through on the page. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be interesting for the readers that the commanding officer was notable himself IMHO, and people do add such links in other hooks, but you are more experienced to decide 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:


 * , who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
 * , who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
 * , who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
 * , who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
 * , who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
 * , who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to, who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Remember
I wrote a one-liner for Vami IV, Impact. What do you think? - My story today is about a person whose birthday was 18 February, - I wrote that one-liner in 2009. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather touching, Gerda; thanks for that. It's very saddening to know that he didn't know of his own impact; would things be different if he could see his current talk page? Who knows. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read a bit in the linked dialogue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He seems to have archived selectively. The "rose" mentioned was not archived, it looked like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. I also rewrote his obituary at WP:RIP, at the request of the original writer. What do you think? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw your rewrite and liked it. - I wonder if we could somehow get the rose that he designed when two editors left to his talk, but don't want to be the one to put a fourth QAIbox on that page, and also don't know how to say that he designed it. - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps save that for the WP:PRECIOUS anniversary on 18 April? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the day for Always precious. - It's also no solution to how to say that it isn't my expression of missing but his, especially the music. My expression was rather for User talk:Dreadstar: restoring the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (which he had left like this) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting Rudolf Jansen, - he "made it", meaning three names in the RD section one day, the second time this year, but I still haven't learned to stay cool. Seiji Ozawa was tough; yesterday I found (searching for something else) two pics I took of him in 1996. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

When I make a line of remembrance about a person who died I try to grasp at least something essential for their life. Milashkina's image is on Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried the rose of missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The (archived) image (croci in snow), taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. - Rinaldo (opera) premiered OTD, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Can I ask a question? I know you've often seen the people whose articles you create perform, but have you ever interacted with/spoken to any of them? If you ever told them you'd created a Wikipedia article on them, what did they say? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For most - like the recent opera singers - I never spoke to them. I spoke to one singer - years ago during an intermission outside of the barn the concert was in, determined to write her article because I liked her singing, and asked if I could take her picture. She said yes please, but then later got her agent to supply a better one. We exchanged emails, and she wanted her year of birth removed. I created the articles of most of my conductors, not the most important two though, one because he'd not want that, there's never a bio of him in a concert program, and the other because her choir would not be regarded as notable. I wrote the articles of the churches instead. Another conductor was so pleased with the article that he dropped plans for a personal website. He has - an excellent photographer - supplied pictures under his real name. I wrote the article of Werner Bardenhewer for his 90th birthday, DYK appearing on that date in German and English. He spent the day in Africa. After he returned he invited to a service in celebration of his birthday, and afterwards we (many guests) chatted, and he said to me that we'd have to talk about these articles. Then he died. I was soooo happy I had done it before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My first subject's mother has her 91st birthday today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your share in the obituary for Vami_IV! On Smetana's 200th birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYK Award
Bruxton (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, AirshipJungleman29. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversions
Hi, asking for guidance. I noticed at my reversions of a number of edits, noted here were reverted. Should the reversions themselves be here reverted? Ifly6 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the infobox regulations are clear. Feel free to revert. I have issued a level-3 warning on their talk page; we'll see if escalating interventions are needed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Ifly6 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And my reversions were reverted in seconds. If we continue at this, we'll be at 3RR promptly. Ifly6 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've hit 3. Could you revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_the_Ottoman_flagship_off_Chios&oldid=prev&diff=1211246830 Ifly6 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OTD
Thank you for completing so many OTD swaps. This really helps us out! Just a reminder that OTD now runs four entries in the birth/death template at the bottom of every date, so you can add a fourth name when swapping hooks. Thanks again! Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Socrates
You don't think Socrates is a good or relevant comparison? I could expand on Mozi and the Mohists, I just figured in this case it was better to keep it short and to the point. It's not to say it's a perfect draft, I am just surprised that you think I should talk more about them.FourLights (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does a comparison to Socrates say anything useful? Does our article for Socrates feel the need to say "Compared by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the Mohists"? What are they even comparing? Facial hair? Favourite foods? Ability to corrupt the youth? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Remember
Tell those who you love that you do love them. Remember his name. I swear I will never forget. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity
Okay, I think I am pretty much done adding and revising. I would love for you to take a look.

I have checked and rechecked the peer review to be sure every item was addressed as well as possible. The article is now a thousand words longer at 12,720 words, but it is without doubt more comprehensive. I hope length doesn't become the issue now.

I took out all the assessments of causes and consequences so often made by historians, since Gog said he didn't like that. I was not able to follow the Cambridge pattern in every section. I'm sorry, there is still too much not in this article to be able to do that comprehensively, but at least everything here is there.

I removed several of the Matthews and Platt citations because that source was questioned. Their book - in its sixth reprint since 1992 I think - is not an art history book per sé, it is a history of the humanities which includes art and architecture, philosophy, religion and literature, but it is correct that it is not solely a history of Christianity either. So I researched "Best histories of Christianity" as well as I could, picked about a dozen, re-researched everything in the Middle Ages, and cited several of them as sources instead. It was the same facts in different words in every case, but that's okay, all material is now sourced to more readily recognized authoritative historical sources.

I removed all references to corruption. There is now only one sentence saying "the failings of successive popes..." If that becomes a problem as well, I give up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In order to be sure I have dealt with any issue of bias in History of Christianity, could you tell me what kind of bias you saw there? I think Borosak meant anti-Christian, but I am unsure. I have asked him as well. I can't be sure it's fixed if I understood incorrectly. Peer review is still open as you suggested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Made suggestions at the GAR. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I so appreciate that too, thank you. Since the concern was western bias, I took the suggestion of moving the page to reflect that. I hope this resolves the conflict. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

FA
I was going to ask you to help with a possible first FA, but I noticed your specialty was not a match so I asked the Epicgenius. Have a great weekend! Bruxton (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * considering the topic area, you might also want to ask for their thoughts. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Bruxton (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Alaska GA review
I'm not sure what's going on, but this review seems to be moving at a glacial pace and now has an oppose vote. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Resolved, one way or another. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Thomas & Friends (series 1)
Hello, AirshipJungleman29,

You set up this bundled nomination incorrectly and so it will be a pain in the a$$ for any admin who tried to close it. You can't just put articles in a list, they have to be formatted correctly according to the guidelines at WP:AFD. Could you take care of this immediately? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Gothic War (535–554)
This article is a mish-mash of Eastern Roman and Byzantine terms. Any idea which were used when this article was reviewed as GA? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See here: Byzantine . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

GAN Process
I thought this was discussed during the GAN reforms from (?) a year ago, but maybe it wasn't. Do we know why the bot doesn't include the nominators name on the GA nom page?  Aza24  (talk)   01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right ; the nominator's name is always there at WP:GAN. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm talking about how something like Talk:Tolkien's artwork/GA1, says "Reviewer: Aza24" but not "Nominator: Chiswick Chap".  Aza24  (talk)   16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. I don't believe it was discussed at WP:GAPD23, but it would probably be fairly simple to implement; perhaps ask Mike Christie? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

March 21
Hello, hope you are well. I noticed your changes at Selected anniversaries/March 21 and wondered if it might be possible to tweak it slightly. A few months ago, I added in an entry from 1874 (inaugural Scottish Cup final) as this will be the 150th anniversary of the event. As far as I'm aware, it's never been included in OTD before so it would be appropriate to include this year given the significance of the anniversary. I'm not fussed if the photo is used or not but I would really appreciate it if we could include this year. Thanks, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I can do that ; sorry, I had thought that it was on OTD last year, and so swapped it out. My mistake, and thanks for being attentive. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's easy done. Thank you, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing Mistake on Mixtotherium DYK
Hey there, and thanks for promoting one of my DYKs! I accidentally left "the scientific name of" in the hook, so the sentence doesn't go as smoothly, so may you remove that for me in the queue? Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/notices given
Any thoughts on the potential usefulness of this? I modeled it off of the FAR version. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it doesn't have to be a separate page ; it could just be inserted at Good article reassessment/guidelines. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking for tracking which articles have received the talk page notice - I for one, am fairly likely to remember most of these unless they're listed somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got that; I'm just saying that the box could be transcluded onto the main GA page. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sobá DYK promotion
Thank you for promoting the DYK for the article that I started! I noticed that I didn't use the lang template in my main hook (as to MOS:FOREIGN), so could you update "sobá" to "sobá" for me? I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to make the change myself. BaduFerreira (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bro what is your problem ?
What is your problem if I put detail in a info box Vishgor (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The more detail you stuff into infoboxes, the worse they become; if readers want specific details, they can read the prose. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bro I not putting whole large information in a info box. I am just put some specific detail in the info box Vishgor (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * let's see if you do; so far, your only contributions have been edits like this where you make stuff up or this where you insert links to non-notable subjects. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it is matter of your perspective Vishgor (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is a matter of WP:CONSENSUS, which Wikipedia is built upon. If you like, we can ask other people who have reverted you whether everyone else's perspective is wrong, and Vishgor's is best? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about who is right or wrong. Vishgor (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, glad we've cleared that up. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It about information like time duration (years), which state breakaway from from larger state Vishgor (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * nothing Vishgor (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ariq Boke was a nominal khagan of mongol empire from 11 August 1259 – 21 August 1264 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariq_B%C3%B6ke

Kublai Khan reign start from 21 August 1264 – 18 February 1294 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kublai_Khan

Also thank you to edit the kheshig article I should not copypaste sentence from the website Vishgor (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , during the Toluid Civil War, there was no one recognised khan. Kublai was crowned in 1264, and was then undisputed. Once again, you try to put as much detail into infoboxes as possible without understanding the facts. That is not helpful for the reader or for Wikipedia. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It is about consensus. But when it is one vs one, seek other view rather than simply revert. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D095:D753:37B2:D5B7 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, when it is one vs one, and no reliable sources are provided, consensus is deemed to be the previous, stable version. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please slow your roll a bit
You seem to be pretty irked, but you need to take a moment and remember that civility applies even when someone is having their behavior discussed at ANI. Comments like Do us all a favour and grow up, I don't know why Tony, formerly "one of the outstanding mathletes in the nation", needs his hand held to this extent, and If only you were this cautious about pushing work onto the people you're supposed to be working with are only going to make an amicable solution more difficult to find, and when things are going poorly for them at ANI it's a needless kick in the teeth. This isn't bad advice, but what's the likelihood that they'll be receptive after the hostility? Try and keep that in mind when engaging with someone that you're disagreeing with. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the above comments came before Tony was called to ANI and after a week of stonewalling, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, tendentious and disruptive editing by an editor with an an edit count heavy enough to sink the Titanic and an account old enough to buy alcohol. If you look at his talk page, you'll see that friendliness was tried, extensively; ? probably higher than without it. That said, I acknowledge your point, and will not engage in the same manner from now on. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hö'elün scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. 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 it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages 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) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is GB£300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

A question
Hello. What is this "WPO" that you and others refer to in this ANI? Thanks in advance.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipediocracy,, a Wikipedia criticism site. It has a bad reputation on Wikipedia, because editors have been outed/attacked on its forums and blog posts by people blocked/banned onwiki (hence why editors refer to it as "offline" and "WPO" and I mock this pseudo-Voldemortism). However, because of its lack of unwillingness to eschew topics which can't be discussed on Wikipedia, it occasionally comes to the forefront when discussing issues such as COI... &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review for MS Dhoni
Hi! Greetings! I had nominated the article MS Dhoni for GA review. A user had taken it up for review but neither did he complete the review nor he reviewed the article according to the laid out guidelines/criteria. I had asked for a second opinion from a different reviewer as the review was not complete which seems to be well within the guidelines (Reviewing good articles) since there was a dispute with the POV comments raised by the reviewer. Let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there was no dispute, just an incomplete review . Second opinions take a long time to arrive, so the original reviewer completing their review is preferable both for you and the GA process. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I guess so. Reviews have a huge backlog. Let me see if the original reviewer is completing the process. If the original reviewer does not complete the review for more than a month or so, is there any option other than initiating a re-review? Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

March flowers
in memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. The DYK I made was real, one of his operas, the one where I met him per chance, just because he - talking to another during intermission - looked like his pic on Wikipedia ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

GA reviews page
This should be accurate as far as it goes, but as you can see it stops in April of last year. Evidently some internal logging stopped around then; I'll have to track that down anyway, and then will rerun this and drop you a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Depromo
Sorry for the depromo of the Guadalupe cypress hook. I was moving it manually when someone else snuck a quirky hook in the same prep spot I was targeting. I was then miffed enough that a depromo worked better to move the hook to another set. Bruxton (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also filled up the last prep sans image slot. I think a set will free up tonight. Bruxton (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries ; everything's a bit chaotic at the moment. While you're here, there are a couple of hooks at WP:DYKNA I nominated/approved and can't promote, so please consider promoting them when you next fill a set out? Many thanks, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do as as soon as a set opens. Bruxton (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated . Also, I just noticed that there's a hook in WP:SOHA for 4 April; as the April Fools' set will be 24 hours long, it'll need to go in either prep 5 or 6, so some rejigging will be needed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I promoted and then depromoted this hook. I think it may be in bad taste to promote it during Ramadan which ends April 9. Did you have another one that you needed promoted? I did not see another. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum, . Much obliged, and yes, I agree about Ramadan. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Emmanuel Depraz DYK hook
 I can accept removing "current". If you absolutely insist, I could even accept "two years previously", though I think "in 2021" actually conveys more information and is shorter. (Yes, I am a computer programmer, why do you ask? ) But "weeks" would just be wrong! --GRuban (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies ; I was clearly more tired than I thought last night. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Block
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Block 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 Harper J. Cole -- Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article Michael Block 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:Michael Block and Talk:Michael Block/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harper J. Cole -- Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article Michael Block you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Michael Block for comments about the article, and Talk:Michael Block/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harper J. Cole -- Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK promoter of the month
Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

General Motors EV1
Hello AirshipJungleman29, I’ve realised you’ve reviewed and nominated a large variety of topics for GA, from Drake (musician), to Siege of Bukhara. So I was just wondering if you’d be able to initiate the good article review of the General Motors EV1 page? Please don’t feel obliged, I’m just looking for anyone to do it. Thanks. (Nb1; I plan to take this article to FAC) (Nb2; When do you plan to take the Genghis Khan article to FAC? Just wondering.) Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  05:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you are looking to get the article to FAC, it may be worth waiting to see if someone with interest/knowledge of the topic comes along—that would really help an FA nom. I also prefer to review older nominations which have been waiting a while; if this nomination is still unreviewed in a couple of months, feel free to drop me a note. I'm planning on nominating that article in the next few weeks, once I've finished tidying it up a little. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I’ll wait a bit. Thanks for the response!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Akshayapureeswarar Temple
Observed that a tag for tone was added on the Legend section. Request you to kindly elaborate on your concerns or suggest on the improvements required. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I would suggest that attribution to the legendary events is more clearly defined, and if possible, more reliable sources should be found than and . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * About legendary events, the entire section is labelled "legend". Also, have added "as per Hindu legend", "is said", "is believed" to indicate the Legendary nature of the info.
 * Dinamalar and Maalai Malar are established leading Tamil news agencies. The temple is of regional importance, primarily in the Tamil sphere. Dinamalar's Tamil temple site (https://temple.dinamalar.com/) is very active with Tamil temple info and also publishes a weekly magazine on the subject https://ipaper.dinamalar.com/#anmegamalar.
 * Happy to incorporate more of your suggestions on the subject. Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi AirshipJungleman29, request your inputs. Redtigerxyz  Talk 03:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity
Yes, I'm back. I know you're thrilled. I have now added some on Eastern Christianity in every section up to the 1500s. I have not completed the Late Middle Ages or the modern East yet, but I will. My concern now is that the article is once again getting too long - with even more to come. It is now 13508 words. I'm sure there are details that can be edited down, but that is not my strong suit. I need help. Would you be willing to partner with me? Please don't say no just because I occasionally disagree. I will always go check and come back and admit error when I am wrong. You are reasonable and fair and seem to genuinely care about quality, and in my mind that's what matters most. I can, do, and will cooperate on that basis. Your input has already made this article better. It's a really big topic - too much for one person. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to, that's fine, no hard feelings, but I would appreciate a response so I can ask someone else if needed. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, completely missed this. Yes, I'm willing to help, but I'm quite busy at the moment, both in RL and on-wiki. But this will be a many-month process (if not more) so I don't think that will be a bad thing, and I know other editors are available to consult in their various specialities. If you like, I can take some time in the next couple of days to note down some general issues. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Praise the wiki gods, hallelujah, and amen! I am so glad. I have already spent more time on this than any other article I have ever worked on, so what's a few more months? I would love to have editors with specialized knowledge tell me what's missing. The Middle Ages is not an era I know much about - although I have learned a lot from working on this article, I have made a few errors in the process, and while I think they have all been caught, having an expert review it would be grand. I know that I don't know, but I don't know what I don't know - if you get my meaning. I include you in that category of experts, so any of your general issues will be valuable. I am well aware the article is still far from what it should be, but I need input not condemnation, so I have high hopes for a good result working with you. I am looking forward to it. Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Where should I look for this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can leave it on the talk page, or you can reopen the peer review/start a new one . Which do you prefer? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, I would just like it to be clear we are starting something new. On the talk page as a new topic is fine, but a peer review is also fine. I don't suppose the format really matters, I just want it to be a fresh start. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you open another PR I'll try to leave comments today or tomorrow. In any case, the previous PR closed rather quickly; it is normal for them to be open for months, so that people have a chance to notice and leave their thoughts. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no idea! I was all stressed because it was just sitting there! I kept trying to fix everything quickly, as if it was a GA review or something, and I couldn't! Well, duh! Okay, in that case, I don't mind just continuing on with that one then. That will give others the opportunity to input as well, and that's - almost always - a good thing. Is that cool with you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OOPs! I just went there and saw it's closed. What's the proper protocol now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, I am trying to be accommodating, and you are trying to be accommodating, and if we aren't careful we will become a Henry James short story... :-) I will go open that new PR and bring a link to it here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

here it is: Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you ; sorry, I have been rather busy the last few days with family visiting.
 * Not relevant to the article, but very relevant to you getting it to FA: you must try to review a few other nominations at WP:FAC. Not doing so is a sure-fire way to ensure that your nomination will likely fail, because in addition to you getting to grips with the FA criteria from the other side, through reading the reviews of others and seeing where they support/oppose, your own nomination will more likely be successful. Every experienced FAC nominator you ask will say the same thing (example). Nominations currently up which you may find interesting include for Cross Temple, Fangshan, and Crusading movement, both of which have attracted reviewers you may recognise. I would suggest that you read over both nominations; you don't have to comment yourself, but of course you can if you have something to say. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done GA reviews but never an FA. I guessed - wrongly apparently - that I needed to be able to write one before being qualified to review other's work. I am happy to go look and make comments that I feel able to make. Don't apologize! I had family this weekend too, and that's a good thing - though often exhausting. You are doing the favor here. Do what you can at your own pace. I will never complain.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now done a PR of Existence and am going to Crusading Movement next. Thank you for this suggestion! It's a nice break. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I made two whole comments! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice start! &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

, the Crusading movement FAC has now been archived. This is a nice learning opportunity for us. What did you learn from participating in that FAC, which may be relevant when you nominate HoC (or another article) there? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

GA reviews page now up to date
I've fixed the logging issue; let me know if you see any errors in this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

DB9
Hi User:AirshipJungleman29. Hope I'm not bugging you or anything but could you possibly leave some comments on this peer review about the Aston Martin DB9 article? Thanks (and don't feel obliged to.) Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One comment I have upon immediately looking at the article: it needs to make much better use of the books in the bibliography section. Web sources are great for ease of access, but they make it difficult to ensure that the article is a) comprehensive and b) balanced in its coverage, both part of the FA criteria alongside c) well-researched. I would recommend trying to get your hands on some of the books (Loveys 2015, Noakes 2019 and especially Taylor 2024 are the ones most essential to my eyes) and incorporating them into the article. Hope that helps . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that this article focuses on a very modern automobile (produced from 2004 to 2016), and particularly considering the scarcity of books centered around cars produced from the 1990s (the nominator of the Holden Commodore (VE) WP:FFA stated that he could only find one book), locating books on this subject can be challenging. If necessary however I could certainly look around for any more books.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  19:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think there will be any shortage of books on Aston Martin, one of the most iconic British brands of the modern age. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll take a look around.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have substituted a few of the web sources with books? Like I did say, I can’t most sources books since this is a newer car, but I’d like to know what you think right now. (This isn’t sourced by random sources, it’s sourced by established magazines and newspapers, with only a few websites included).  750h+ &#124;   Talk  19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There definitely isn’t a shortage of books on Aston Martin itself, however, focusing on modern individual models, such as the DB9, there is.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now begun!
The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

April music
Thank you today for your nice DYK which escaped this page already, but it is featured also on Portal:Germany, - welcome to that. We run a beauty contest in the same set, and yours will win because it's a woman, - that's the impression I get from reading the recent stats there ;) - Congrats also to another GA! - Can you help me to a hook for Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, perhaps? It doesn't matter too much what we say, - key fact is that they still exist. The founder and conductor is a miracle and deserves to be mentioned. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Something as simple as "...that Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, founded by Oksana Lyniv in 2016, toured ten European festivals the summer after being evacuated from the Russian invasion of their country?" could work. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll suggest it, but - as you know - I'd rather link to music than the invasion again. Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A hook similar to your suggestion is found to be approved, but I have to make drastic changes to the article - help welcome --- plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you have made no edits to ANI, please explain this message . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it is up now. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I first created the notice on the talk page and then the ANI notice, but should have done this simultaneously :-( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of dropping a note regarding your posts in the WT:GAN discussion a couple of days ago. At any rate, in that spirit, while I don't think you've crossed any red lines, comments like this one don't help per se. I think you've made the case clearly already. Best, CMD (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Message received CMD. Thanks, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Zuckerberg
Thanks for removing the nom, although I wish I'd seen it in time to make an alterative suggestion re. its authorship. ——Serial Number 54129 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

DeLancey Gill FAC
Howdy Airship, sorry to bug, I was just wondering if you had a chance to see the fix-ups I did for the DeLancey W. Gill FAC from your prose review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:~delta submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate AirshipJungleman29 for Editor of the Week for their tireless work on Mongolian history articles. Airship has improved vital articles such as Genghis Khan,  Tolui and  Ai-Khanoum throughout their Wiki-career, and have written FAs such as  Baljuna Covenant and  Siege of Bukhara. They also work in promoting hooks to prep areas in DYK and regularly participate in GA and FA reassessments/reviews as well. Their frequent FAC reviews are notable for their incisiveness and thoroughness. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild, Hey man im josh and Generalissima

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Crikey. Thanks all! &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Christianity in China reversion side-issue
When recently reverting some substantial sock-puppetry in the above article, you also - apparently accidentally - reverted a couple of more modest subsequent edits, both in a quite different part of the article from the sock-puppetry (though not from each other).

As I have had past experience of such side-effects from otherwise needed revisions damaging the comprehensibility of articles and as a quick check confirmed that they had no visible connection to the sock-puppetry and they both seemed to improve the article, I have taken the liberty of editing them back into the article while taking care not to do the same with the sock-puppetry.

If I have been mistaken in doing this, please let me know. Thanks and best wishes. PWilkinson (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention, no worries here. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Isandlwana painting
Hi, just wondering what exactly are the problems in The Last Stand at Isandlwana which led you to put the Copy edit tag. I reread the page multiple times before publishing it to be sure it contained no errors or such, if you could be more clear I'll work on fixing the remaining issues. I normally don't edit on en.wiki so if you could guide me it would be mostly appreciated :) Cosma Seini (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , as I noted in the tag, the main problem is capitalisation—words like "British" and "Zulu" are often uncapitalised. You also have minor grammatical/spelling errors, such as, , . Other than that though, the article seems generally good. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll look into it as soon as I can. Cosma Seini (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Big Ten Basketball
At Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1, you were disappointed in the prose content when compared to other GAs such as 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. As I look at Big Ten Year in review summaries like https://web.archive.org/web/20240424202443/https://bigten.org/news/2011/5/11/Big_Ten_Men_s_Basketball_Season_in_Review.aspx https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltca750cef518bc6e4/blt6b5f4cc63e11b4a9/65ed1c7fc26d91c404539666/2011-12_MBB_Season_in_review.pdf and https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltca750cef518bc6e4/blt689776fb6c477d75/65ed1d16a99186453fe7bd8a/2014-15_MBB_Season_in_review.pdf I realize that the Big Ten year in review does not even contain the granularity at the level you seek. Although there are many subjects within the Big Ten that I noted when I wrote the 08-09 and 09-10 articles, maybe they truly belong in the season articles about the teams.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a bit odd that you talk about "granularity", seeing as there is no prose description of the 2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season in the body. To ask for that is not "seeking granularity", but "seeking a basic level of detail". That seemed to be the consensus at this discussion you started.
 * While we're on the topic of what Big Ten year-in-review summaries include, I note that all of them include some description of the season, but for some reason none of them include exhaustive listings of coach tables, preason watchlists/teams/polls, rankings, players of the week, or every single award given to athletes, coaches, and teams. Can you explain why such "granularity" is necessary in, for example, 2014–15 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus of what content is wanted in a conference season article probably should come from a discussion at WP:CBBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects have no authority over content . You can have recommendations, but unless they are formally upgraded into policy like WP:VGMOS or WP:MILMOS, a WikiProject discussion cannot form a consensus on content. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may have a point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. the discussion you pointed to is an agreement that table content should be put in prose. However, I thought you were also supporting the monthly highlights from the two articles that you pointed out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am, yes, : the monthly highlights would essentially prosify the content currently in the tables in the "Regular season" section, with additional relevant facts and details. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
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) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest is halfway through!
Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

education in Saudi Arabia
Hi, just saw your message on how my edit to the page didnt oblige with the NPOV. For my information the only source i have used yet is the OECD which would be a neutral source. As far as i know i have been neutral with my information, but i am new to wikipedia so if you could tell me what exactly was not neutral/encyclopedic about my work i would really appreciate it.
 * Hello (please remember to sign your messages using four tildes). Using neutral sources is only one aspect (WP:BESTSOURCES) of remaining neutral. Other aspects include: maintaining an impartial tone and avoiding certain expressions, correctly weighting sections according to their prominence in RS, and structuring articles to avoid undue focus on particular aspects. You will want to keep these links in mind. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello thanks a lot for the help and explanations. Preciate the effort! Hamza.bbs (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Destruction under the Mongol Empire
There's a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring reporting an IP user but not you. However, you have been involved with reverting this user's edits, so I must notify you. Air on White (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Wyrdsong
Hello, AirshipJungleman29. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wyrdsong, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor review addendum
I see you saw me write "No italics, per the ref" on the ol' T.J. Berry. As a Canadian who agrees wholeheartedly with your User Page's opening line, I'm deeply sorry for that. Just had a moderately long day, partially involving the removal of bona fide italics. I know what initials are, seriously, and will try harder to write right tomorrow. Hope you understand and keep up the good reviews! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Michael Harris-Love
I have added some responses to you comments on my user page for the movement of Michael Harris-Love to Draft status. Thank you for taking a look when time permits. Mikepascoe (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time
 Hello :

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

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! 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 20 centuries 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! You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about reliability of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World
Hi AirshipJungleman29. I saw your revert of my edit adding Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World as a source on Töregene Khatun. I'm not an expert on this subject matter, so I want to get some more insight if you would not mind. The book is used as a source for a lot of pages so I assumed it would be okay to add here. Can you point me to where I can learn more on why the book is considered unreliable? Arcturus95 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good question . The reason that it is widely used as a source is that it was probably the most circulated source on Mongol history for around a decade after its publication. However, today, twenty years after it was published, there are loads of high-quality sources on Mongol history, so it is not worth citing a source that has errors in it. Kaplonski noted that "there are some parts of the book that are simply wrong", and recommended it only to total novices to Mongol history, while Timothy May has written that "it is very clear Weatherford is not a historian", "the general narrative is correct, but the finer points are simply wrong", and that "the book is rife with unsubstantiated historical speculation". May concludes that he would not recommend it as a text suitable for scholarly analysis, and suggests that it is suitable for those who aren't interested in histoey. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Arcturus95 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson
I just wanted to say a big thank you to you for removing the GAR on this article, which many others including myself have contributed to over the past couple of years. Prspiring (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, but as it was merely a GAR request tag, there is no guarantee that it will not be nominated for GAR. For myself, I don't really see the need. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Prspiring (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)