User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive 6

History of Christianity
I'm not here to nag, but before acting on advice given from my former GA reviewer Generalissima, I wanted to let you know she thinks it's time to submit to FAC. Substantive changes have been made to the article, but I want to know if you agree with her. Can you let me know today? If you both think it's time, I will submit it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ; On a quick look, I don't think the article will pass at FAC. It remains too disorganised, in both general and specific terms, with the detailing of both the broad and narrow themes and concepts varying widely and confusingly. I do not think I would be able to support the article's promotion at this time. I am sorry that this is probably not what you wanted to hear, and also very sorry that I have not been as responsive to you as I said I would. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, no, it's perfectly okay, really, I wanted your candid opinion. I am surprised to hear you think it's disorganized however, and would deeply appreciate some input on how to improve that. It's true that themes vary widely, but that reflects reality. How can I fix that? I accept your apology of course - you don't really owe me one - but you can make it up to me by helping me figure this out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so. I think perhaps more section titles might make things less confusing. I'm giving it a try. Please look it over. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally I think I'm good at organizing lots of little things into broad overarching categories. I have now given it a shot. I will not move to FAC without your support, so please respond with whatever you think. Please. I need to get this off my plate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can only speak with real authority on the medieval bits, so let's look at the basic structure of the beginning of the "Early Middle Ages (600–1000)" section.
 * We start with a single sentence, thirteen-word paragraph on urban bishoprics remaining "nerve centers". As far as I can see, not only has this not been discussed previously (the closest I think we get is ) but the word "bishopric" itself has not been defined, and it is not linked either.
 * Already removed - before I even saw this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, we have a paragraph on Christianity in the 600s (cited to Brown), but seems to me an adaptation of what Van Engen actually said (and just on p. 526; I don't know why there are three other page numbers). Our article says that religion was not unified, where as V.E says "medieval Christendom [was not] singularly unified"—not quite the same thing. The vaguely-alluded to "old beliefs" also compounded with the earlier mis-adaptation to produce the impression that V.E. (and Powicke, who he quotes) are saying that the Middle Ages were religiously divided, when in reality the point is that paganism and Christianity co-evolved:  (Powicke, 1935) As that sentence discussed both Christianity in the 600s and Christianity in the Middle Ages, the reader is not sure what period the "church of this period" refers to, and this particular reader is unsure why "simple folk" and "implicit faith" cannot be paraphrased. The final sentence is fine, except for Matter 2008 having an incorrect DOI and the last two page numbers being unnecessary, seeing as the sentence just cites the first sentence of the chapter.


 * Let me start at the bottom. The title of the section refers to both the Middle Ages and the period from 600 on. How is that confusing?  They are the same things. "simple folk" and "implicit faith" are summaries of much longer descriptions - not paraphrased. Two extra page numbers are gone. One thing ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but the 600s are not the same thing as 600–1000 or 600–wherever one thinks the Middle Ages end. If "simple folk" and "implicit faith" are summaries of much longer descriptions, they are ipso facto paraphrased and should not be in quotes (MOS:PMC).
 * The first sentence on Christendom has two references, both Brown and Van Engen. Brown is there for the first half of the sentence, is from Brown page 6. Van Engen is there for the rest. On page 519, Van Engen discusses older scholarship:  and on 521  Then he spends a few pages discussing scholarship of the last ten years till he gets to  Gabriel Le Bras'  So that sentence has both "singularly" and "unified", the first ref has "essentially", and the third example uses "predominantly". I summarized what I understood to be the point: that . I will happily rephrase using singularly instead of unified for you. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Um...okay... but piddling about with a single word and making the phrase less clear has nought to do with what I said. I repeat: in your attempt to paraphrase, you have produced something like &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the notions of previous scholarship claiming uniformity that were shattered. What exactly are we disagreeing about? Do you not think that's what Van Engen says? I have redone that paragraph. I'm unsure that it's any better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your next point: No they didn't. This is a misunderstanding of what V.E. says. First, page 526 is summarizing old scholarship, and not yet reaching conclusions. Second, V.E. quotes Powicke as saying  There was no  (page 537), there was no organized paganism capable of "co-evolving" with Christianity. Medieval religion was divided. V.E.'s conclusions begin on page 537: . They co-existed. They did not co-evolve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see how that might work, but the point that the previous references to a religion creates the impression that there was an  still stands. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay that's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, we have a section on the "Church and society", with a subsection titled "Christendom". Normally, we expect the bigger picture to be tackled first, so I am unsure why the—according to the article, "pervasive and unifying"—concept of "Christendom" is left until after a section on monasteries. It is not great that although this monasteries section has eight individual citations, only two are written by authors who could really call themselves subject-matter experts, and one of them died 90 years ago.
 * Why do you consider the bigger picture to be the idea of Christendom? I can certainly flip the order if you prefer. ✅ I don't understand this however: The subject matter being the Middle Ages or monastics or medicine or what? James Westfall Thompson was an expert in the history of medieval and early modern Europe. He did die in 1941, but his book has been reprinted several times, and the version I used is dated 2016. Blainey was an expert historian, and if you recall I was previously chided for not using more general histories such as his "Short History of Christianity", so that's why he's there. Koenig is an expert on the history of medicine. Butler was an expert on Benedict. Dunn is expert in history of religion. All works referenced are dated in the 2000's except one. What reference would you prefer? I don't mind adding or removing any - according to what they actually say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Geoffrey Blainey's specialisation is "Australian economic and social history". Matthews & Platt are art and intellectual historians. Tom Woods, when not being a political commentator, focused on early-modern to present Catholicism, and his co-author is a cardinal specialising in catechesis. Dennis Dunn is a historian primarily of diplomacy in the modern era, who has a side project on the history of political thought. Koenig, King & Carson are all medical practitioners; Koenig's article says he received a B.S. in history, but that is unverified by the source. Finally, Haight is a professor in modern theology. I am unsure why you have brought up Thompson, who is not cited in the monasteries section, or falsely attributed expertise in relevant topics to Koenig and Dunn.
 * Harold G. Koenig has a wikipedia page. He is an MD with an interest in religion and its impact on mental health. Roy T Matthews degrees are in history which he taught. Platt also has degrees in history with a focus on the history of religion. In universities, religion is in the humanities department. Their book is award winning and they are award winning educators. Religion is part of culture, right? I find their book excellent for tying cultural, social and religious threads together. But I won't argue further, I will just do my best to redo this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, looking at the "Christendom" subsection, that whole block of text which purports to be cited from V.E. p. 540 ... mostly isn't. Don't have time to analyse more than that.
 * I am missing page numbers. That's bad, I don't know what happened, but the content is there. On page 539 it has Page 540 has Christendom was  and on page 541  Page 543 has  The rest is on page 546:  Boy I'm glad you found that! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I don't understand how any of this contributes to a "general disorganised air". Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above dialogue is 1,700 words (so far) of dialogue on five paragraphs of under 400 words. We are all volunteers on this project, and the most valuable resource is time. Going to FAC, where you can expect similar levels of scrutiny on every single paragraph and citation, and not having stuff like page numbers, WP:UPFRONT, or MOS:QUOTE well in hand, is not saying to reviewers "your time will not be used up sorting out basic issues, you can focus on just making sure this is some of WP's best work". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the above criticisms are not criticising what's not in the text (so no word count issues), it's what is already there that contributes to the general disorganised air. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it seems I've annoyed you, and I am unsure why. I thought I had to respond to all disagreements with quotes from the sources. I thought I was doing the right thing. I guess you are saying there should be no errors like missing page numbers before going to FAC. I will try to ensure that. But how does that impact organization? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am not annoyed, but perhaps channeling the strictness of the FA criteria. I do not know how to explain otherwise—but perhaps experience is better than words? It might just be best to nominate at FAC like Generalissima advised, to get an idea of what others expect from the article. I may be entirely wrong with my assessments (rare, but it has been known to happen)! Just be prepared, in case criticism and opposition does come up. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I am not annoying you with "basic issues" then it's all good. I would like to get as much of this out of the way as possible before nominating. Familiarity causes me to overlook things that jump out at you. I find you an invaluable aid. Please don't abandon me! I am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reworked Christendom and resourced Monasteries. Go ahead and be strict. I apparently need it  Tell me if this passes muster. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's okay if you don't feel like going over the same section again. You gave me your advice and I did my best to follow it. Maybe we could just move on to the next section? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time at the moment, and in any case I can't help with most of the article, so I think you should be WP:BOLD and go ahead and FA nom. At worst, you'll get pointers on what to work on in the future for the whole article. At best, the article will improve and be promoted! &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will you downvote it if I do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can !vote, because I think I'm too involved with the article, so I'll probably leave the comments to others. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you won't uphold it either. Well, thank you for all you have done. Do you know of other Middle Ages experts I could ping and ask? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you've met Borsoka ;) I know of many Middle Ages editors, but most don't especially focus on theological-adjacent avenues, and they're much more likely to just turn up to poke at the stuff they find interesting in an FA nomination. What I think could be more helpful, before said FAC, is asking people who have previously improved broad-concept articles to a high-level what they advise on weighting and length. could be helpful, but maybe also  or ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I love Buidhe! I will ask them and contact the others as well. As for Borsoka, I have done everything they asked, but when I asked them for an assessment of how well I had done that from their view, they declined to respond at all, because, they said, I "live in a different world" than they do. I have found their comments to tend toward the overblown and extreme. They accused me of OR over a sentence that had the wrong chapter in the citation. When I corrected it, they did not acknowledge that correction, or withdraw or strike the accusation, mark it done, nothing. It was left as if it was accurate - as if I never responded at all. They do not admit error when the mistake is theirs. They make big broad sweeping condemnations of an entire article - "it doesn't deserve GA" - as if any flaw of any kind, instead of being corrected, is cause for failure or even deletion. The drama, from what I have seen, is their universal response and not aimed just at me - it's not just women - but it is their "norm". I am assuming they must have a good side somewhere, but there is no doubt I am now on their bad one. I do not think they are capable of being fair and reasonable about this article, but I don't know what I can possibly do about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shagdarjavin Natsagdorj
Hello! Your submission of Shagdarjavin Natsagdorj at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA
Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A soprano with leading roles at the opera house of the years 2022 and 2023 (after several others) is notable. Kindly remove that tag. I can add a few sources. I hoped to get a Bach cantata ready for its 300th birthday on Sunday, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically, the sources which demonstrate notability should be cited in the article,, rather than vaguely floating around the internet. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ... "should be" - yes. I try again: it's not sources what make her notable, but what she does on stage, facts that is. Sorry, I had a busy week, concert, plenty of guests, and on Wikipedia, too many RD articles over several weeks + a weekly Bach cantata that turns 300.
 * several reviews at different houses
 * similar
 * She'll give a lieder recital with a tenor and the music director of Oper Frankfurt Opera end of the month.
 * I'll travel all weekend, - there's life. Today, I gave priority to the memory of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any significant coverage in there, unless I'm missing something. , as another opera specialist, what do you think of Magdalena Hinterdobler's notability? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I should go to bed because travel will begin extremely early tomorrow, but will add recordings because I feel under pressure. If Leipzig Opera, a public municipal organo zation, says which roles she performed there, they report facts. She sang in a world premiere there. Can we agree so far? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Did they provide significant coverage, ? I wish you the best with your journey. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be distracted. I'd travel better if you'd take that tag away at least for the few remaining hours on the Main age. It discredits our content. - First recording added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Second recording added. There are more. Nite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @ It is borderline. She is the main subject of the first cited source which is a print magazine as well as an online one: This is really the only source with significant coverage. I was unable to locate anything else, which is a mark against notability. One thing is for sure, the article uses way too many non-independent sources, which I have pointed out to Gerda at several DYK noms, most recently Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Kerck. I suggest whenever you see  using opera company, theatre, or orchestra websites which use PR created non-independent bios (often self written or written by the subject's paid management) that you tag the article as I have done. Using these is unacceptable and a clear violation of WP:BLPSOURCES policy.


 * That said Hinterdobler is performing lead roles at significant houses. Her performances are getting reviewed routinely, as are her recordings; but I can't say they put much focus on her... She is getting a significant volume of media coverage, but it isn't particularly in-depth. For example The Guardian review of Die Loreley doesn't even mention her other than in the title's list of lead performers even though she is one of the leads... Gramophone mentions her in passing. The Leipzig Ring review lists her in the cast but doesn't have a thing to say about her performances. This review praises her briefly which is sort of typical of what's out there. Here is another example. One could literally dig up dozens of reviews of this type in opera magazines and reviews in local papers where she gets mentioned in passing; usually with a positive mention of her singing or acting. She doesn't get more than a sentence or two though. I think it could go either way at an AFD. I suggest taking it to AFD and seeing what others have to say. My guess is that there is a slightly better chance that it would pass an AFD, as opposed to failing it, given the large number of reviews. I would support deleting the article unless another source is found with in-depth coverage because I think she fails WP:SIGCOV based on the current evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it ; we'll see how it goes. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We'll see. I entered the train after 2 1/2 hours of sleep, and it had no WLAN connection. Very briefly: I am not afraid. I created the article to have Der Traumgörge on the Main page, because some people including 4meter4 prevented that for Liviu Holender, - mission accomplished (and there even was interest). What these two singers perform is note-worthy, whether there are "deep" reports about it or not. (Opera is teamwork. A fair critic can't devote deep coverage to all performers when there are many important roles, as in Meistersinger and Traumgörge.) If a consensus will think differently, I won't care. Holender had his recital, and Hinterdobler will get hers soon (28 May), with a tenor and the music director at the piano. I'm sure she'll receive the coverage you seem to need (and I don't understand why). Now I'll turn to preparing a meal in company, and enjoy the weekend, and better not even think of it. I will not create a new story for today but will leave hers "on". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like on so many things, it seems that we disagree on how WP should function here as well. Still, you may be right. Enjoy your journey! &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doom (2016 video game) - today's TFA is again by Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hö'elün - today's TFA is by you, introduced: "I intend to write a series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire. There is no better person to start with than Hö'elün, the mother of Genghis Khan and thus the progenitor of the House of Borjigin. Her life was tumultuous but very interesting. I hope you enjoy."! - I enjoy, the article and the intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (listen to the sample, perhaps) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. Ms. Hinterdobler will get her recital next Tuesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rejected and closed DYK nominations
Hello, I'm wondering whether DYK nominations that have been rejected and closed (e.g. Talk:Kanye West) are supposed to remain archived at the top of the talk page indefinitely? Can it be moved to the talk page archive? Seeing that it's been closed for half a year, I don't think there's much interest in re-opening. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Such sections are normally archived normally ; I don't know why this one has not been. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Statue of Hö&#39;elün at Tsonjin Boldog.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Statue of Hö&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

May music 2
Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk, yes about shortening that hook --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I would call a single Frenchman and four Germans a broad view of music, but perhaps some see it differently. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had little time yesterday for fine-tuned wording, sorry, out 10am to 11pm. I seriously missed Vierne, as an indication for a broader view than German mainstream only, + really his (planned) focus in recording. I wonder why it was so important to cut those 7 characters. - I also missed the (almost) blind Vierne on a personal level, after just having met Graham. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 Core Contest has ended!
The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. –  Aza24  (talk)   00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Narwhal
Hi, can you help me prepare this article for FAC? The peer review is here. Thanks, Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 05:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace
Hi AirshipJungleman29,

You reverted my edit on Ludwigsburg Palace. Would you mind to redo it with a cropped version of my intended image? –Tobias (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have much image skill. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I can do it as well. –Tobias (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sending regards
Saw your edit summary comment on a watchlisted article. Hope you heal up soon, Rjjiii  (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent Featured Article Revision
Why have you reverted my grammatical revisions in the article to their previous state? The sentences lack coherence and do not align with the overarching structure of the paragraph in each of the sections I've reviewed. I want an explanation please. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , we both know perfectly well that none of your changes were "grammatical", and that the article was perfectly coherent before your superficial changes. Please, drop the charade where you have to look up a thesaurus for every second word, as mentioned here, and go and make some actual improvements, not superficial modifications, to the project.
 * Alternatively, if you want to continue this charade, please outline the parts of the previous revision which lacked consensus, with appropriate evidence from style guides as the article has already gone through a formal review process (WP:FAOWN). &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believed that the Manual Of Style was incorrect in the article, so I came and fixed it. It's correct both ways if you do "in particular", too. I am uncertain as to why you are criticizing my lexicon when it is not pertinent for this. I believe that engaging in a dispute with you is futile, as it will merely precipitate additional complications in the future.
 * Also, I've seen in your edit summary that there was some repetition in the sentences I've edited, can you point it out for me? I've seen no repetition whatsoever. GoodHue291 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . I criticise your lexicon sigh because it hinders clear communication, which is necessary on Wikipedia. If you believe that the article violates the MoS, you should clearly state, preferably in the edit summary, what parts of the MoS it violates. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Following up on WP:GANMENTOR
I wanted to check in regarding the mentorship request at Good article mentorship and your message on their talk page at User talk:48JCL/Archive/2024/May. Did they ever reach out to you after the review began? Because I don't see anything like that, and the review at Talk:Npm left-pad incident/GA1 doesn't look like a finished review. There seem to be a few like this, and they've just begun working on another two of mine (Talk:Federalist No. 8/GA1 and Talk:Fear of bees/GA1) in addition to the one that they failed previously. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They may just not have much to say about non-source stuff. I'll drop a line on their talk. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Tiger
Hi, could you continue the review? LittleJerry (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had significant health issues last week so my WP schedule went out of whack; will continue shortly. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Get well. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hope you are better. Could you continue? Its getting closer to a month since I nominated and have no finished reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do tomorrow . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick Note
Hope you don't feel like I'm taking over your review! I don't expect to bring up much else at this point.  Aza24  (talk)   18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, your comments are always welcome. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 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) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

On closure
This comment is not sensible. Threads in archive can be closed and these requests should be handled by an admin, not non-admins. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sadie O. Horton
I found four reliable sources with the hook stated as a definite fact, and three of them were already in the article. I removed the last sentence. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick look at our conversation on my Talk Page
Hello, I'm certain I have probably done a poor job of pinging you over on my page.

Could you please take a look and appraise my response to your feedback?

User talk:Mikepascoe

Thank you! Mikepascoe (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything 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) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2
How are you doing @AirshipJungleman29? I hope you're fine. I was thinking of getting more feedback/comment/review on Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2. I also know you are busy, but in any way you're free, don't forget to walk in. Thanks. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!


Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, AirshipJungleman29! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:


 * Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
 * Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
 * Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
 * New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
 * Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators:, , or. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Timurid Banner
Hi, the banner shown on the Timurid page is described as such by the source. If need be I can send scans of the book to show this HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the source describes banners with a variety of cut-outs, but always topped with a tugh and the Islamic crescent. The banner previously shown at Timurid Empire showed a singular, seemingly-randomly-chosen cut-out, without the tugh and the Islamic crescent. It is thus a pretty poor representation of a Timurid banner, seeing as the two things which most defined him as a ruler (his Mongol heritage and his Islamic religion) have been excluded.
 * There is also the question, to which I don't know the answer, of whether this banner was used only by Timur, in which case it is out of place on a Timurid Empire article, or by his successors too, in which case an argument can be made.&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The source shows both a tugh and Islamic crescent, but being unaware of their importance in Mongol heraldry I didn't add them. I can add these in to better reflect the Mongol and Islamic aspects of the empire. The red banner shown is described as one of a variety used by Timur, I used it since that is what the accompanying illustration shows.
 * As for the scope the banner was used, I don't see this as a problem. Almost no banner or flag has been continually used by a country or state since their inception yet this does not prevent symbols from a specific time period being used. Even if the banner was only used during the time of Timur (I don't know either) it still forms an important part of Timurid heraldry that should be added onto the article. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It probably should be in the article, the question is whether it should be in the infobox. An infobox is meant to summarize the entirety of the topic; putting a banner possibly only used for much less than half of a historical state's existence is actively misleading. There have been similar discussions at Talk:Yuan dynasty and Talk:Mongol Empire. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox should reflect more what scholarly sources say about the topic. If studies of the Timurid Empire focus a majority of their effort on the time of Timur Khan rather than his successors then the banner in Timur's time period should be shown. However I'm not knowledgeable on Timurid historiography so I won't press the matter. Would adding the banner in the "Symbols of the state" subsection, with the changes discussed above, work? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think they would. Thanks for this productive discussion . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same to you. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Mentoring GA review process?
Hi! I saw you offer mentorship for GA reviewers and thought I would reach out. I recently reviewed Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss/GA1 and I wanted to ask for your input on the review: is it too detailed/too shallow? have I overlooked some important aspects? Broc (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks like an extremely thorough review . Looking at the article, its tone is immediately suggestive of WP:PUFFERY, and I am glad to see that you have extensively detailed that yourself. I also think that its length of 11,000 words (excluding the selected writings section) is quite large according to WP:TOOBIG, especially for a biography; it's good to see that you have called out e.g. the anecdotes section for being possibly WP:UNDUE (this comes under GA criteria 3b) and 4). All in all, I have strong confidence that you will complete the review to a high standard—and, if you don't think it is being sufficiently improved, do not hesitate to fail the nomination. If you want to ping me again before you end the review, please do so! Best wishes, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Human history/GA2
Hello, can you show me where you can hat reviews? It seems like you just disregarded and "closed" what I wrote. Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm the GA reviewer, so it's my decision what aspects are important enough to warrant passing/failing a nomination. In this case, I felt that your comments, under their own subsection, were unduly prominent in the review compared to their importance, so I hatted them. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hatting seemed overly aggressive and dismissive to me. It could have been reformatted. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that's aggressive. Your objection is really not fitting for a GA review, at least not in the way you phrased it: "massive systemic bias" is an enormous charge and really a serious accusation. I'm not removing it from the talk page, where you also placed it, but in the actual review, no. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hatting was overly aggressive compared to allegations of "massive systemic bias" and "biased coverage" directed at the article's authors? Sure. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that way to me. No colonial genocide by Europeans are mentioned. So it fits with Systemic bias Wikipedia tends to show a White Anglo-American perspective on issues due to the preponderance of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. By the way when I say systemic bias, it doesn't necessarily mean something on purpose. I don't think anyone is purposefully trying to mislead. Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't need to be explained what systemic bias is, but clearly you are pointing at the written article, and the article is written (and reviewed) by actual humans. Plus, it's a general article; it can't mention everything. If you have a proposal for a sentence or two to qualify that European colonization resulted in the deaths of millions of people through all kinds of factors, including slavery, genocide, disease, that's fair, but that's a long way from the claims you made. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol, sorry, maybe I was a bit dramatic, but it did indeed feel massively biased to me. I mean not even a single sentence on indigenous genocides. Bogazicili (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you had approached with some courtesy, maybe you would have been received better. Immediately assuming theres a conspiracy by well-meaning volunteers is not a good look.  Aza24  (talk)   18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Iron Maiden article
Hi! I have read your changes to the article and will try to leave descriptions of any changes I have made. Generally, I can agree with your way of argumentation regarding specifying artists who were inspired by Iron Maiden at some stage of their career. Over the years, I have literally read about thousands of cases of this type, among artists representing completely different subgenres of rock and metal. The rest is mentioned by the experts mentioned in the article. In view of all these opinions, the number of examples given seems trivial and completely inadequate to the actual situation. Another issue is what does the term "directly influenced" mean here? How can you determine with absolute certainty which artist is more or less inspired by Irons' work? Yet another matter is that in the case of describing the influence on artists posted on the websites of groups stylistically similar to Maiden, it was enough to specify a number of names, even without detailed links, or to assign to this group artists who in interviews declared their fascination with someone's work and influence. That's why I included examples of many artists representing various subgenres of music, including some of their statements. Is this incorrect? It looks as if slightly different verification standards were applied to Iron Maiden compared to similar artists. THX for your time and patience RALFFPL (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you will find lots of referenes stating that Irpn Maiden's contribution to the genre is massive and incomparable. So cite those! There is no point in having sentences like "Bands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N were influenced by Iron Maiden." There is no point. You should instead have sentences, cited to independent, third-party reliable souces, that all heavy metal bands were influenced by Iron Maiden. That removes the need for sentences like "Lady Gaga was influenced by Iron Maiden", when all that the source actually says is "I attended an Iron Maiden concert". I and others have previously warned you about ownership of content and similar disruptive editing; let's not have similar here. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. THX for your reflections. I must admit in the case of a band as Maiden there's no need to cite too many other bands influenced by them. Some of them (not necessarily only metal performers) we could notice as an example. Yes, we can easily find many sources bringing references to Iron Maiden's undisputable contribution to the genre. And there are still some subjects not described in the WIKI article: Maiden's lyrics and the literature and cinematographic inspirations. It's worth writing a little more about the visual aspects of the band's cover illustrations and the shows. Once again - thx for your advice! RALFFPL (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can find high-quality reliable sources talking about lyrics and cinematography (i.e. not just random tabloid websites with names like metalcrypt.com), then sure. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! Once again you've deleted the info from the IM article. No, it's not about attending the concert - SOAD music was influenced by galloping style of Maiden so same as most of rock bands back in the day. It's clearly stated in the source, cited from Tankian's statement. Once again you deleted links because it's about IM you probably ignore it. RALFFPL (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @RALFFPL, please assume good faith and avoid this kind of attack on other users. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I was looking at the wrong source. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but (I must admit) some of Your decisions I found misunderstood especially when I tried to check the articles on Wiki dedicated to the aforementioned artists inspired by IM - and there are TONS of info about them being strongly inspired by the Brits or so. Please - if you decide to cancel my work - just discuss the problem. Once again - maybe my words were too heavy. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've talked about this above : probably most of rock music, and certainly all of metal, has been influenced in some way by Iron Maiden. We could have a list of thousands of bands, or we could have one sentence saying "thousands of bands were influenced". Wikipedia prefers the second way. Apologies again for my mistake above. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, once again - I wouldn't like to make you feel insulted. You are right, sometimes less is more :) RALFFPL (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Nominations and Awards
Hi. I've noticed you deleted some awards from an article, including a large list of Japanese Burrn! Magazine annual Awards. Burrn! Awards are annual fan voting accolades honored with statuettes and many bands on Wiki noticed those as their notable awards (see: Megadeth). Restore this one PLEASE. I don't know why in Maiden article we couldn't notice those ones. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because these annual fan voting accolades are not worthy of inclusion. Anyone can create a magazine and start handing out accolades. If you see them on any other pages, please remove them . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So same with the American Metal Edge magazine Readers' Choice Awards? It looks like the equivalent of Burrn! Awards, and the creators of WIKI articles dedicated to awards, have been including those especially if we talk about metal bands... RALFFPL (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure! I didn't have time to evaluate all the sections individually. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Puzzle designer
The hook was in the article. “The puzzles for the game will be designed by a group named QuizKnock, as Akira Tago, the puzzle designer for the other Professor Layton games, died in 2016.” SL93 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SL93 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sort of puzzle designer. I thought that the puzzle designer was an in-game thing, otherwise how would the game "feature" it? Anyway, the hook was withdrawn hours before I even commented, so that was moot. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointy
Your RfA vote is. As always I think these public votes are a problem. You and I work together, and I try to get along with everyone. We have different thoughts about who would make be a good admin; it is not a reason for us to be enemies or to get pointy. I think someday you may want to be an admin, and I would hope you would try not to make antagonistic votes or belittle editors with different ideas about governance. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yoda. WP:POINTY refers to "disrupt[ing] Wikipedia to illustrate a point". What disruption was caused to Wikipedia by my !vote? The arguments in your oppose are so weak they convinced me to support—that is the honest truth. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You were making a point by mocking my vote and rationale. I can tell you it feels disruptive. I reached out to you as a colleague who shares larger project goals with you and I thought it was worth a try to contact you directly. I will try to avoid interaction with you going forward. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I am dismayed (1) that an experienced editor such as yourself feels that simple disagreement is disruptive, when in reality it is the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia, and (2) that you take it personally enough to commit to non-interaction with me. It was not personal in the slightest—for example, I have previously (for the benefit of your privacy alone) requested and obtained oversight deletion of certain comments on-wiki. My !vote was simply commenting on the sheer weakness of your rationale. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I came here and you continued mocking me by calling me "Yoda" and saying that pointy means something else. How about WP:AVOIDYOU if pointy does not work. We can disagree about who is a good RfA candidate without personalizing and your vote was 100% personal. It only bothered me because I thought I knew you. You literally mocked me and then said, "Who me? But I did nice things for you... it was not personal". I do my best to work with everyone and I try to have a short memory about perceived slights. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) "Pointy your RfA vote is" is about the most Yoda phrase it is possible to say; (2) if you want to say that another editor has breached a behavioural guideline, make sure you know what the guideline actually says (this applies to both the above and the RfA); and (3) "per [username]" has always been regarded as a valid !vote because it clearly refers to the person's argument, not their identity. I maintain that no mocking was intended or POINTY disruption made. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant pointy because it is it is WP:POINTY. YMMV Isn't that what you did? You say no. It is an incongruent vote, like me saying "oppose per a AirshipJungleman29" which is designed for you and others to get the point that your vote is wrongheaded. But if I make that my rationale this point it would be a pointy-cancelling-loop. Lightburst (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am in perfect agreement with the edit I made—I supported the RfA and your comment was the reason why. I made a point with it—that your argument was self-defeating—but its purpose was to support the RfA, not to draw attention or provoke opposition. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I will try to stay out of your line of fire. It is always worth trying - especially if it only shows another editor that there is a real person at the other end of a username. Lightburst (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 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) 12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)