User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Mentorship questions Oct-Dec

Question from EnockNseke on Spanish Army

Can a foreigner joining army --EnockNseke (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Judging by this page, only if you are from a country that was part of the Spanish Empire EnockNseke ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Viviany De Oliveira

Como fazer pra receber --Viviany De Oliveira (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave a message on your talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Andrea shn87

Hey, so you know those "segments", don't know the specific name but those you do with ==name==, well I did some of them but they're in the wrong order and I don't really know how to change them, do i have to do them again? It's my first time doing this so I really have no idea 🤕

Sorry for the trouble and thank you in advance. --Andrea shn87 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there Andrea shn87; honestly the section headings (see Help:Section for more details) look fine to me. The bigger problem is whether the article meets the notability standards—it seems rather borderline at the minute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from PatHamilton47

Hey Fieryninja, I appreciate your help!

I'm having a lot of difficulty with the page for Sarah Jama. I'll send you a link to the version I created, which has been repeatedly sabotaged: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jama&oldid=1254559532

Some of my formatting isn't perfect, especially around dates for citations and so forth. But I think you'll agree that my content is objective, impartial, and well-substantiated.

I see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C locked the page and requires that extended confirmed users alone are allowed to make edits. While I applaud the protection, the problem is that the version implemented contains multiple very serious omissions, most notably MPP Sarah Jama's legislative work, which you'll see in my version, but not the page's current version.

Any help will be much appreciated, I only want the truth to be represented. Pat --PatHamilton47 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

PatHamilton47, while I am not Fieryninja, I will try to help. Unfortunately, I cannot agree that the content you added was objective, impartial, or well-substantiated. To start with, any information you add in the lead section should summarise material already included in the body.

Secondly, all information should be sourced to a reliable, independent secondary source; a list of all motions is not that.

Thirdly, even considering the unreliable nature of the source, you are taking significant liberties with what they say, and presenting them in a way that cannot in any way be described as objective or impartial. Please remind yourself of the central importance and the guidelines of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, User:AirshipJungleman29 - I'm new to Wikipedia so this is quite illuminating.

-Regarding the lead section, I didn't realize this part at all, I can see why my proposition was rejected.

-Regarding the motions, I absolutely cannot agree. The source is the Ontario Legislature central database, stating precisely what was proposed by the MPP in question. How does this not qualify as a reliable independent secondary source? It is not from MPP Jama's website, or even a news source, both of which could take significant liberties with their presentation of the motion. The OLA website presents *verbatim* exactly what was written.

-As for the third point, this is completely valid - I'll concede I was not appropriately adhering to Wikipedia's neutral POV policy.

If I polish up my phrasing to adhere to the above policies, would you be willing to help me edit Jama's page? I'd really appreciate it, and I'm trying my best to learn Wiki's policies in good faith.

Thanks for your help regardless. PatHamilton47 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

PatHamilton47, a database which "presents *verbatim* exactly what was written" is not good enough. MPPs are presumably free to write their proposals in whichever way they feel are most persuasive, no? Thus motion 106, for example, says that working with the selected representatives would "ensure access to adaptable housing for people with disabilities" and "benefit all Ontarians"—we cannot take that statement at face value and state it in Wikipedia's voice.

Even if the motion is completely correct, there is also the problem of due weight—if such a fact was not described in independent secondary sources, how much WP:WEIGHT do you give it in the article? Editors would have to make their own decision, which would be original research.

Of course, feel free to run any drafts by me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense! Thank you for clarifying. I'll put together a couple higher-quality revisions and send them along to you, you can see what you think. PatHamilton47 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from HAVUGIMANA Eric

Hello when there is a meeting of youths? --HAVUGIMANA Eric (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Afraid I can't help you there HAVUGIMANA Eric. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Geroge Droid

Hello Sir, my name is George, I am an inspiring editor from Minnesota. Anyways, when I tried to edit a page i spotted a typo in, Wikipedia told me "to upload a photo first", what photo and how do I do that? --Geroge Droid (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geroge Droid, there shouldn't have been any need to upload a photo before editing a page. Please let me know if it happens when you try again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Crimson.Loftwing 1996

Hello. How do I make a citation? --Crimson.Loftwing 1996 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Crimson.Loftwing 1996, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mongol invasion of Khorasan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mongol invasion of Khorasan 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 Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The article Mongol invasion of Khorasan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mongol invasion of Khorasan and Talk:Mongol invasion of Khorasan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1

Hi, you cant just wave away the concerns with a "no consensus". 210.10.0.221 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, if there is no consensus on whether concerns exist, there is literally no other path to take. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Uhm, no? You can leave the discussion open. 210.10.2.219 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not indefinitely. In this case though, sure, I can reopen it if you want, if you have views to share? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I have a few things to say. 210.10.1.210 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello, AirshipJungleman29,

I stumbled upon this discussion because there have been two noticeboard discussions about this article and the editors who contribute to it. But, for all of my editing on this project, I'm not familiar with the GA/FA process. How long does consideration of this article last? Will a GA coordinator or someone else close the discussion with a decision on whether or not this article should retain its GA status? Thanks for any information you can share. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HackerKnownAs. I'm not sure how this will affect the outcome of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, the GAR process is quite informal. It lasts at least a week and at most up to three months (if an editor has said that they are going to fix it up). After the discussion reaches its conclusion, an uninvolved editor assesses the consensus and the article, and closes the discussion as either "keep" or "delist". If the discussion is especially contentious or if no uninvolved editors are willing to make the close, someone pings the the GAR coordinators and they close, but they close probably 1% of discussions.

In this case, I previously closed the discussion as "no consensus"—so the article was kept as a GA—but was requested above to reopen it, which I did. I think that Caeciliusinhorto's comment at the bottom of the GAR summarises the current situation quite nicely, but I'll wait to see what happens with the unblock requests before closing the discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AirshipJungleman29,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain this all to me. It's very helpful information for an area of the project I haven't worked in. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Paid editors must disclose affiliation

Welcome to the world of small jurisdictions. I am sorry but anyone who is employed by the Jersey government who is writing on wikipedia on Jersey related pages is required to disclose this. RichardColgate (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is expected RichardColgate. Did you have anyone in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Baghdad Seige Edit

Hi AirshipJungleman29,

I came across Hulegu Khan's wiki page yesterday and noticed that a portion from an Arabic book about the Seige of Baghdad can add a lot of context, so I translated and added it. You then removed it, so can you let me know why? Is it some wiki policy I don't know about? I'm relatively new to editing, so some info would be helpful. Thanks! 2001:56A:7D81:5E00:21B9:6379:1705:3F42 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, we try to avoid quoting from primary sources because they tend to provide a biased, unbalanced view of events which likely contains errors or misconceptions. Short quotations are sometimes fine, but several paragraphs are almost never okay. Citing reliable, modern, secondary sources is always preferred. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks, I thought it was the other way around (as in, primary sources would offer a biased though interesting view that adds a lot of context).

I'm working on a project that requires me to read a lot of primary sources, so I was planning to go on an editing spree to add translated quotes from primary sources. I'm glad you stopped me after the first edit! 2001:56A:7D81:5E00:21B9:6379:1705:3F42 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A thanks from a french-speaker

Hello from Belgium,

I'm actually reading a lot about the vast area surrounding steppic trade, and of course, steppic states. It obviously led me to the mongol empire and its forming. Someone on discord just gave me your name and i noticed that my recent traduction have been facilitated thanks to your good work.

I simply wanted to send you this message to thank you. Your articles are very thorough and precise. Sometimes, I have nothing to add. The state of French-language articles on the steppes, in general, is particularly neglected. Thanks to you, things are improving. The article on Jalal ad-Din, for example, was as comprehensive as the source I use on the subject (*The Conquest of Khwarezm by Mongol Troops (1219–1221)* by Dmitry Timokhin, from *The Golden Horde in World History*, Tartaria Magna Series).  

Kind regards, and I look forward to reading and translating more of your work! Nanoyo88 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm really quite gratified to read that Nanoyo88; I love the idea of the articles I write being translated into other languages. I haven't heard of that book/chapter before, but having managed to find an online copy I might draw upon it in the future, so thanks! If there's anything I can do to make your work as a translator easier, please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the difficulties encountered in the translation mainly concern reference templates that don't exist on WPfr. For instance, the multiple SFN template doesn't exist in our version. This means I have to retype everything manually. Similarly, the RP template is rarely used, and we generally prefer the SFN template, which is linked to a complete bibliography at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the source, I find it interesting because it involves Russian-speaking researchers supervised by renowned international specialists on the peer-review committee. From the outset, they are clear about their goal of historical reconstruction based on recent research on the Golden Horde, a topic that was censored during the Soviet Union. Just for this perspective alone, I find it compelling.  

I haven’t progressed much in it yet, but I’ve already used a lot of its content to improve WPfr. Compared to the state of articles on WPen, I assume most of this information is already covered there. Nanoyo88 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm finding the source quite interesting for its composition and sourcing. I recently rewrote our en.wp biography of Jochi and it probably would have been easier if I had access to this source's detailed exploration of him, but I don't think there were too many new detail provided. Sorry about {{sfnm}}, it's just a lot more professional-looking for us here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give translating Genghis Khan into French a go? I've had a look at the fr.wp version (with my schoolboy memories and Google Translate), and I think the en.wp version is a thorough improvement on most levels. Obviously, it's a much bigger task than other articles, so don't feel pressured. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry for this late reply. Apparently, I must have clicked on the notification without reading it, as I just found it while intending to reach out to you again.

Indeed, I am considering improving the article on Genghis Khan using the English version as a basis. However, the scope of the work is massive, and as you can imagine, it will be closely reviewed by other users. Some are quite wary of translations, which can lead to excessive or even aggressive behaviors. That’s why I’ve been keeping it "on the back burner," as we say in French.

Initially, I came to you for a completely different topic. I’ve started translating articles about the various Uluses of the Golden Horde and their respective Khans. I’ve noticed that another user has done substantial groundwork there, but it suffers from significant issues with the formatting of references and bibliographies. Take, for example, Tokhtamysh. The reference citations attempt to follow an SFN model but lack proper formatting. While this is obviously much more complicated when translating (since bibliographies are translated as plain text rather than templates, requiring everything to be traced, linked, etc.), I believe it’s also an issue on wikiEN’s side.

So, I took the liberty of bringing up this small issue, which could probably be resolved at its root (from wikiEN).

Thank you again for your feedback.

P.S.: An archaeologist friend of mine is going to share a significant part of his library with me concerning the history of the populations of the Tarim Basin. He has already sent me quite a few archaeological documents. If the topic interests you, I’d be happy to keep you updated on my small projects on the French side, which could, this time, help improve wikiEN :) Nanoyo88 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nanoyo88, good to hear from you. Yeah, I can understand the difficulties with translating an article like Genghis; let me know if I can provide any assistance when you do. Sadly, I haven't quite got around to working on articles on later rulers like Timur and Toktamysh yet; they are (as we say too) on the back burner. I don't know if the previous editor was trying to follow an sfn model—en.wp allows quite a few citation styles, and this just seems to be a variant. Without overhauling the article itself, I'm prohibited from overhauling the citations per WP:CITEVAR (because in the past people have really edit-warred over their preferred citation styles). If the documents are relevant to the Mongol Empire, I'd love to read them—otherwise I'm probably not going to get much out of them. Thanks for the offer! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already made good progress on the Genghis Khan article. I’ve also reached out to Mme Favereau to get access to French-language sources and for a review of the page. If I come across any resources that allow me to update certain information or add relevant content, I’ll be sure to share them.

I think the contributor is simply doing "SFN" without a template. The SFN information is there, as is the bibliography information, but unfortunately, nothing is formatted or placed in a proper template. (And as a result, there are some bibliography entries I can’t trace back...)

I had no idea you had a rule about citation styles. Edit wars over that—what a strange idea... On the French side, we have basic bibliographic conventions, but nothing requires the use of the SFN template for references. It’s just “better,” but not mandatory.

Unfortunately, the works I’ve received don’t concern the Mongol Empire. You know me, I jump from topic to topic. Six months ago, I was working on the Ashantis, three months ago on the Scandinavian peoples, and now on the nomadic peoples of the Silk Road (which obviously includes the Mongols...!).

See you soon! Nanoyo88 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So why did you edited it back to 1162CE?

I mean Genghis khan's mother page. Saransh 2606 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Because the date was not her date of birth, see floruit. Remsense ‥ 论 11:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Baghdad

Hi, you have listed this for TFA at pending for February. I have tentatively reserved a date for it, but if you would still like it be considered you will need to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, which is now open. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thanks for the help at near-miss effect (from page creator).

Anonymous1261 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers,Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 16:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: MOS

I appreciate the edits to Mountain Landscape, but neither of those paragraphs could be considered exceptionally short per the most liberal reading of MOS:OVERSECTION. I’m guessing you are using a large, 4K monitor? That’s the only explanation I can formulate. Viriditas (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your changes to Silver Veil were well intentioned, and I did try to read the new version. There's a lot of issues now with the narrative, which is jumbled and out of order. I also don't see why the sections were eliminated since they weren't examples of MOS:OVERSECTION. It looks like you tried to merge those sections into others to make larger sections but I'm not convinced it works. Also, the moving of the description section to the top and the moving of the background section below and the elimination of the development section doesn't work for me for many reasons, primarily because we use Background > Development > Description/Work/Synopsis sections as standard sections in virtually all of our articles on art, entertainment, and fiction. It's not clear to me why you don't like this, but it seems somewhat of a radical change given how standardized it is. Viriditas (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::As per OVERSECTION, filling an article with excess headings, in this case a strict one header per paragraph scheme, does nothing but inhibit the flow of the prose. In Mountain View for example, the "Description" section is awkwardly jammed in between where the painting came from and where it went; there is a misleadingly-titled section titles "Reproductions", which you might expect to detail copies painted by other artists, but which actually discusses why there aren't good reproductions; and you have a final section which places undue emphasis on recent events with meaningless ChatGPT-reminiscent sentences like the one I deleted. And no, it's quite apparent on a small laptop or the phone I type this on. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand that's your reading of oversection, and I see that you use extremely large paragraphs in your own articles and you prefer that style. That's fine. But that's not my reading of it, and I don't see the paragraphs as excessively short in this case. And the same goes for Silver Veil, which now makes little sense in the current format, and whose paragraphs were not short by any stretch of the imagination. As for recentism, I don't think that's true. It's almost 2025, and the controversy started in 2023 and was covered in every major media outlet. It also doesn't actually meet the recentism description, and there's been plenty of discussion and analysis to solidify the topic and warrant its own section. But that's not really my major concerns. My concern is that MOS:OVERSECTION is being in used in ways it was never designed and these changes are interfering with the structure and design of art-related articles to the point where they become atypical. And to address what you describe as meaningless sentences, this sentence exactly summarizes the entire controversy: "The controversy highlighted the tension between the financial reality of modern educational institutions and the cultural stewardship entrusted to them, raising important questions about the preservation of artistic heritage." While I think it can be certainly rephrased, that is an accurate and precise description of the Valpairsio controversy in a nutshell, so I'm curious why you dislike it. The tension between the financial reality of struggling modern universities and the expectation that they will be good stewards of art is the conflict. There's a huge amount of literature written about this. It's not meaningless, it's the very issue at heart in the controversy. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I just added a new compromise version of Silver Veil that addresses many of your concerns and still preserves the structure I think is needed.[1] Please let me know if that's okay with you. Viriditas (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Same with Mountain Landscape.[2] Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to briefly address two other things, 1) You wrote above that the description section "is awkwardly jammed in between where the painting came from and where it went". I don't understand the disconnect here. That's exactly where the description section is supposed to be. Think of an article about a book or a film; it's the same, exact structure. 2) You wrote that the section on "Reproductions" had a misleading title. I think that's really an unfair characterization. While we can disagree about what to call the section, calling it misleading is overboard. While the section no longer exists and is now in the description section (which is very odd to me, but that's part of the compromise version), a section about "the action or process of making a copy of something" called "Reproductions" seems entirely reasonable. You're reading this in a way quite different from me. Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't have much time to reply, but no, the normal outline for books or films is plot or synopsis first. Go look at any article at WP:FA if you don't believe me. Similarly, if you want to have a look for pther sections titled "Reproductions", "Adaptations", or similar, but which doesn't contain a list of other derivative works, let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's super interesting. It looks like the style I'm talking about (this FA from 2015, for example, and there's lots more like that from around 2016 and before) was changed sometime in 2018 to 2019. I was away from Wikipedia from Feb. 2016 to Feb. 2019. When they said I was old school, I didn't think they meant literally. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

A few more variations from the archives: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. That's just a few, there's a lot of FAs where the composition, design, or description come later in the article. As for films and novels in general, it looks like your position is primary, but there are secondary examples where films and books use the synopsis later, but that may have fallen out of fashion, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I moved the description to the top over at Mountain Landscape.[12] Let me know if that satisfies your concern. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I also altered the hook per User:RoySmith's previous concerns about my use of wikivoice. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to change it further if you dislike the wording.[13] Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, I moved the description to the top over at The Silver Veil and the Golden Gate.[14]. Let me know if there's anything else. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested into getting into an extended back-and-forth on this matter—I prefer that articles hew closer to the MOS, but this isn't a GA or FA review so I won't comment further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

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) 12:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Assessment

Hello @AirshipJungleman29, hope you're doing well. Could you please have a look at the Bharatiya Janata Party article and confirm if it meets GA criteria or needs an assessment? Thanks in advance.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks generally good, aside from some duplication and WP:CITEKILL I have resolved, and some tags which you can have a go at fixing, 25 Cents FC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)