User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Your GA nomination of Oghul Qaimish

The article Oghul Qaimish 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:Oghul Qaimish and Talk:Oghul Qaimish/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The article Oghul Qaimish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oghul Qaimish for comments about the article, and Talk:Oghul Qaimish/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 Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed DYK image

Why did you remove that DYK image? I don't see how it violated WP:DYKIMG, because it is crop of an image used in the second bolded article and I'm not sure how it is violating WP:DYKVAR either, because there was only one other sports-related hook in the set, but maybe I am missing something here. – Editør (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article – for example, taking a hook about a fictional character and picturing the character's also-linked portrayer." An image depicting Bol would have diverted a massive amount of attention away from the articles the hook was created to showcase.

WP:DYKVAR: "try to avoid having two images of people in adjacent sets." There was also an image of a person in the previous set. Given the DYKIMG problem, I chose to adjust this one.

Hope that helps Editør. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. – Editør (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just for my understanding, isn't today's DYK image (10 August) doing what you prevented for the earlier athlete image, divert attention from the bolded article? – Editør (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes; I wouldn't have promoted it and didn't notice it. The editor who did promote it is rather new to DYK prepping, so it's understandable that they didn't know that part of the guidelines (but FYI CSJJ104). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Hopefully my future promotions will prove less controversial :) CSJJ104 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Patterson DYK

Thanks for your comment on the 'First person to do hooks' on Mary Jane Patterson. Good point. Where should I leave my ideas for alternative hooks? Balance person (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Balance person, on the nomination is best. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Fishwick for an example of how to format the alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I hope I have done it correctly. I have changed the main hook and explained why. Have left ALT1 hook and explained why. If something else is, needed do let me know? Thanks for your help. Balance person (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you have done it correctly for me. Thank you. I couldn't see how to add a new improved hook. I usually use visual editor and find the other editor hard to do! Could you tell me what happens next? Does an administrator have to decide now? Balance person (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Just a note to say that I have agreed with the latest hook on DYK for MJP and have edited that first paragraph that was difficult to parse. Do let me know if there is anything else I should do? Thanks. Balance person (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We will see if another promoter feels it is interesting enough to promote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Gibson hook should have been edited for "unlikely to change". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was for all time zones, - would you have a better option? - Congratulations to the GA (below)! Thank you for watching over my silly mistakes like in the FAC. Before going to bed last night, I found another source with more detail about the sad story of the Gotteslob version, a missed chance for ecumenism. Should I add that or rather let readers draw their own conclusion? - Today I'll be busy expanding BWV 113 (great music, I just listened), and enjoy summer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation over at the composer's DYK! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. You know that I don't like remembering the calendar date much but this happens to a private celebration also ;) - find a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Harvb for multi source and inline

Yo

Playing around with a way to consolidate citations when there is an inline reference that we don't want to add to the bibliography. It works, but it's complicated and not consistant with the rest of the article we are working on so wanted to get your perspective if doing this occasionally is ok or not worth it. I can see doing this for a lot in the specialist sections to reduce undue issues.

To see what I mean: user:Biz/sandbox Biz (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would we have specialist sections Biz? This is a general purpose article, meant to be accessible by all, not Slavery in the Byzantine Empire or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I took a sentence just so you can see the difference in citation, not the content. Society, Government and military, etc and all their sub-sections. That what I mean specialist, because unlike our narrative historians, their are historians who specialise in these areas and often we only need them once. There are nuggets of knowledge in single sources that we can put inline, but it gets cluttered. Biz (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside whether choosing which specialist historians not to cite is WP:OR, the WP:FACR require consistent citation formatting, which this is not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, adding more published historians, not less, is the goal. Your clarification WP:FACR would not accept this is appreciated. I'm pausing indefinitely my work on reviewing new sections, or until at least, I've gone back and re-reviewed previous sections I worked on to a better standard and now that I have more experience as a reviewer, library researcher, and knowledge of the Byzantists. Biz (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"adding more published historians, not less, is the goal" this seems far too simplistic. Featured articles require "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The reason narrative histories and edited collections are so valuable is that they are expected to have already done the thorough and representative survey, and will have weighed them appropriately. There have been thousands of Byzantine historians—adding them willy-nilly just as a goal in itself falls well outside the purview of editorial discretion. It will be a good idea to re-review previously-written sections, but remember to question why the content of specialist sources meets WP:PROPORTION if it isn't mentioned in the narrative histories or edited collections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I hope you don't construe my attempts at critical thinking with original research. Please correct my thinking in interpreting this requirement with the below:

As principles

1. Build on the current article by scanning scholarship for the latest to include, rewrite if needed due to neutrality, concision, comprehensiveness, CLOP and remove sources if assessed as not appropriate.
2. if Kaldellis (2023) or Treadgold (1997) or the several edited collections of Oxford and Cambridge mention it, that's a good baseline of a survey. If citations support the points of ideas in a paragraph that are made by the above, then that's a valid inclusion. (Due to the age gap between the sources, expecting consensus on all the above is too conservative as it cuts out the latest thinking like the very credible Beard and Kaldellis who in different specialties agree on the impact of 212.)
3. 2-3 citations per sentence, 3 if practical
4. At minimum, three different sources per section for diversity of views

This discussion would be more fruitful on a section by section or topic basis but maybe that's for another day. I can at least justify it if asked, and would be open to suggestions. Biz (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The "latest thinking", unless known for certain to be high-quality like Kaldellis's narrative, should probably play a lesser role than you think. Wikipedia is by design meant to be conservative, or "behind the curve" of scholarship (WP:RGW). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok if that's the only comment then we are aligned then.

Howard-Johnston just published in July a new book that I've recently added, who along with Treadgold and Kaldellis are considered the experts in the middle period. My yard stick of latest is certainly yard-sticked with people of their calibre. The Roman Empire article was using Gibbon's view until this week for its end dating (and also puts to an end a decade plus of talk debates), so I appreciate conservative but there's a point.... Biz (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

AN response

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I don't think it is productive to psychoanalyse why another editor does X or Y in a manner as you have done on the AN page. There are probably better ways to make your point, it weakens after the first sentence. CMD (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The psychoanalysis (as you put it) was my point, and I disagree, it has been productive in the past. On a completely different note, do you ever intend to run for the mop Chipmunkdavis? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least it's based on past experience. I'm always open to the idea my incivility sensor is poorly tuned. On the different note, I have never intended to run for a mop, and I don't think it has really come up. CMD (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame, I think you'd do well with it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that means a lot. They do say that intending to get the mop is a sure way to not get it, so perhaps I've cleared one hurdle already. CMD (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry for how I acted towards you on the ERRORS page. You're a good editor, and I appreciate that you are an active DYK promoter. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No hard feelings here, SL93. Thanks for your work at DYK too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to take a picture of this and put it on my fridge. So much of what I see is negativity, so this is a welcome respite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your closure on Tesla page is just terrible.

Let me start from the beggining

This RfC was a mess from start to finish Why should I care? Tell it those who made a mess. I surely haven't.

The foremost cause was probably the RfC initiator User:Trimpops2 and their opening statement, neither neutral nor brief, often incorrect, initially proposing outright plagiarism, and following none of WP:WRFC; then they proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion Why do I care about that user? I was there to review sources.

neither neutral Where exactly it lacks neutrality? You didn't bother to explain. What would be more neutral in your opinion?

nor brief This is just incorrect. It's more brief than most of RfCs I've seen. It must be below the average.

often incorrect Not often, but in some regards. That was corrected in the discussion.

initially proposing outright plagiarism Not true. It's allowed to quote directly from sources. Anyways, the purposal isn't set in stone and editors can suggest alternative wording and this all can be discussed.

and following none of WP:WRFC Really? None? I don't want to bother to answer that. I'm sure we can easily find one of WRFCs that was followed. If some aren't you should provide explanation instead of making such unfounded accusation.

then they proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion Again, why do I care about that used.

Truth be told, however, no-one came out of this discussion smelling like roses—poor editing behaviour was on show from nearly everyone. Not true. Discussions on contested topics are often harsh. No one stepped out of boundaries, apart from one editor who suggested that nationality should be considered when determining consensus which some have characterized as racist.

This is especially concerning considering the contentious topic designation: I could easily see WP:AE sanctions for half a dozen editors here. Again, why do I care about that???

I don't care about all that. Let's see how you determined the consensus.

I summarize this discussion as asking whether it would be a) correct and b) WP:DUE to add a sentence specifying the political circumstances of Nikola Tesla's birthplace at that time. Yes. But you didn't summarize that. That is explicitly asked in the RfC intro.

In such a discussion, making arguments from contextually-relevant reliable sources is essential. Ok, that is fair.

There was pitifully little of that though Not true at all. Sources were discussed a lot

especially little discussion on he problem of due weight Not true. Most of discussion was about due weight

he article should be changed came to no consensus You provided no explanation on how sources were considered when determining consensus.

the ill-formed opening statement Nothing was ill-formed. Please provide explanation on how the proper formulation should be.

the difficulties in evaluating consensus amid excessive POV-pushing You are here to resolve that. If you have difficulties , you can leave it for others.

Furhtermore, you have provided only the consensus on the due weight. You didn't touch on the first question.

93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

An intriguing message. Before I reply, could you please let me know which username or IP address you commented under in the RFC? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

5.39.134.145 93.141.181.3 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. You posted a single 20-word !vote in the 21,000-word RfC, somehow came to the conclusion that everything in the close should have been a response to you specifically, and got offended that the close was directed at the major participants: "Why should I care? Tell it those who made a mess. I surely haven't ... Why do I care about that user? I was there to review sources ... Again, why do I care about that used [sic] ... Again, why do I care about that??? I don't care about all that. Weirdly, those who contributed more than 0.1% of the discussion got more attention in the close.

Now, let's move on from your huffing.

• The RfC statement was not short, being over 250 words, or neutral, as it was clearly arguing for the answer "yes" to both questions.
• I don't particularly care to pedantize over whether "often" and "in some regards" are meaningfully different.
• No, the copyright policy does not allow for direct quotations without attribution—see WP:PLAGFORM.
• Go ahead, find one bit of WP:WRFC that the opening statement followed.
• "No one stepped out of boundaries" ... yeah, totally. I suppose when you wrote "why do I care" about 8,500 words of bludgeoning, you really meant that.
• No, sources were vaguely mentioned, along with decade-old discussions on other talk pages, but no-one, including yourself, actually discussed them. Your "review of sources" actually consisted of saying "The sources are there"—no shit Sherlock? If you believe that the question of WP:DUE was "explicitly asked in the RfC intro", why did you not bother to address it at all? Your !vote was characteristic of the typical level of engagement with sources in this discussion—extremely superficial.
• "You are here to resolve that" If you click on the link I provided, you'll find a list of common RfC results, of which two are "RfC is not well-formed" and "Consensus cannot be evaluated".
• Since you ask, a better opening statement would have been the updated proposal (reached after a period of WP:RFCBEFORE discussion), reading something like: Should "At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia." be added after the first sentence in the "Early years" section? Then, the RfC opener would put their sources, reasoning, and conclusion in their first !vote. The guidance at WP:WRFC visualises why this framing is helpful.

I think that's about all I have to say. If you have any further concerns, please start a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, terrible answer. You didn't answer all my points and you feel you don't need to discuss anymore? I will go to AN, but it's protected at the moment, so I can't.

You posted...a single 20-word !vote It doesn't matter how much I posted. I could have been an uninvolved editor to call you out for terrible closure.

Weirdly, those who contributed more than 0.1% of the discussion got more attention in the close. Totally inappropriate thing to say. I didn't even identify myself, utill you asked, how could have I asked for more attention? I complained that you spent a lot of your explanation to address other editors insted of explaining how the sources were considered in determining the consensus.

somehow came to the conclusion that everything in the close should have been a response to you specifically, and got offended that the close was directed at the major participants You may write even more to major participants, but this isn't related to anything on how the sources were considered when consensus was determined. My point is that I was only interested on how sources were considered and that is why I said "I don't care about that".

You still didn't answer how sources were considered. And you still didn't answer why you failed to provide the consensus on the point a).

RfC asked 2 questions and the second question is the same as your purposed formulation: Should "At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia." be added after the first sentence in the "Early years" section?. The RfC second question: Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina" 93.141.181.3 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Both questions ask whether a sentece should be added to article. Only difference is that you used Carlson's sentece and the RfC uses O'Neills. You calim the RfC isn't neutral and your purposal is the same as RfCs? 93.141.181.3 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, if you think that a 36-word opening statement is the same as a 256-word one, I look forward to this close review! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you answering? On the point of neutrality? You said RfC is not neutral. I asked you to provide an explanation and/or example of how a neutral RfC would look like. And you produced the same exact formulation as the second question for RfC itself? Please explain how your forumation is neutral and second question from RfC isn't. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, do you realize that your formulation is the same as the RfCs regarding neutrality? Shall we go to dispute resolution board with both formulations to ask uninvoved editors which one is neutral and which one isn't? 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I have created a close review section at WP:AN. You are welcome to post comments below, and I will forward it on to that noticeboard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit there. It's protected. This is the post I'd like to post there.

The closure haven't provided any explanation on how the consensus was determined. No explanation on how sources were considered when establishing the consensus. No explanation on other points from the discussion. Improper use of SYNTH and OR and unsourced claims, Gish galloping. The RfC stated 2 questions and the consensus was provided only on due weight. I would like an explanation on how a group of editors who disagree with the sources can have a valid stand against presented sources without any sources of their own. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

From the closure explanation , I expect the following. Name all participants and name the points they made and sources they posted. Name couterpoints others have made to their points and explain how the points were evaluated in determining the consensus. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the AN thread. I still expect an explanation from you on the neutrality point, since your purposed "neutral" formulation is exactly the same as RfCs 2nd question. How do you explain your claim that the RfC isn't neutral 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to post this at AN? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29, as a slightly more involved participant than 93.141.181.3, my opinion is your closing was excellent. There's no need to feed trolls like 93.141.181.3, he's just looking for attention. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limia perugiae DYK

Thanks for promoting it with the photo! It's an exceptionally good shot of such a restless animal. Regarding this change, I think that the original "sneakily impregnated by" would be more intriguing than just "mating with". Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that sufficiently supported by the source, Surtsicna? I also have to be wary of length, as it's a fairly long hook already. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is entirely supported: "... it became apparent that intermediate size males, which exhibit little courtship but more simple sneaking behavior as an alternate mating tactic, are more effective reproductively than the more extreme social and size classes ... which are practically excluded from reproduction. ... allowing lower rank males a greater opportunity to mate successfully." The picture of subordinate males sneaking up while the big guys fight seems too funny to miss. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The rewording also changed what the cited research found. The subordinate males do not just mate with the females when the dominant males are preoccupied with fighting; they sire offspring while the dominant males fail to do so altogether. And, of course, "mating" just does not sound as intriguing as "sneakily impregnating". Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, "impregnating" is neither in the quote above or the article, so I'll stick with "mating". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You're a magician!

Now, can you get User:Enterprisey/archiver to work? That's the real, since it really speeds things up when arching batches of threads (which is obviously what I want to do). I'd forgetten about it until just now. I know there was a time when both one-click and the multi-threads-at-once both worked at the same time. (Maybe you had to turn one off to use the other -- can't recall.) If I had to pick one, it would be the Enterprisey one. Any insight you can lend would be appreciated. I'm slammed IRL. EEng 00:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the Enterprisey archiver was caught up in the same change to section headings that caused a fault in the one-click-archiver, but I don't know if someone's made a fix for it yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What was the change to section headings? EEng 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

mw:Heading HTML changes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to find someone who can fix that too, would you? Your name would be honored down through the ages. EEng 16:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to honour someone else's name: User:andrybak/Scripts/Archiver should do the job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Works like a charm. I really appreciate it! EEng 17:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You can thank me by putting that script to work on a certain page... then I really will be a magician. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that would make you a Svengali. EEng 19:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

all the little flies end up in my web ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)