User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. - Did you see Masilo talking and dancing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look! Look, I got it under 11,000 words - barely - but still! I am learning from you. I will leave it alone now so you can copy and do your thing. You are almost done. I know you will be relieved when it's over, but I only get more and more impressed with you. I wish I could do something for you. It seems so inadequate to just keep saying thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you taking a short break, or have you decided you're done? If you are not done, the High and Late Middle Ages still need your magic touch. If you have hit the wall, then I thank you again for all you have done. It has made a huge difference and taught me a lot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not done, but taking a WP break for a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praise God, Halelujah and Amen!! Take all the time you need. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo!! YAY!! You're back! I'm so glad. Truly. Will you go away again if I make comments on your changes? Perhaps I should just leave things till you are completely done and see what's what then? If you prefer to work without my input, I can understand that... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now is fine Jenhawk777. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your patience is remarkable. Early Middle Ages: I made four small changes, and I have one question and two answers to your questions.

• My one question is whether or not to make it clear the early Middle Ages was the "Benedictine Age", as Cantor says: the age of the monk. That comes to an end in the High Middle Ages when their social utility declines and secular clergy rises. That later shift is important for the church, and for culture, and without including that monasticism was primary here in the early Middle Ages, it's hard to connect that its end mattered. Monks were "poor in spirit" (according to the Sermon on the mount) but monasteries had wealth in possessions; secular clergy coveted the monk's ancient wealth, and their influence, and since clergy had power and authority through the nobles they worked for, they were often successful in taking what they wanted. This pleased the nobles (who took their cut), devastated the later monasteries, and changed the church. But that's in the High Middle Ages. What to do?
• The Bible was not seen as authoritative in the Reformation sense anywhere at this time. However, the pope, church leaders and the church itself had authority. That provided justification for writing in the 800s and 900s a truly massive amount of hagiography - false stories of martyrs - and a bunch of straight-up forgeries on multiple topics including the Donation of Constantine. It seemed worth a mention.
• You asked, why Butler. It's a classic. Amazon says: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." But there are other sources there as well, so no biggie. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, does the fourth crusade not merit a mention of its own? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really happy with the Early Middle Ages. It is only 10 paragraphs, and it says the stuff I think is most important. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have way more patience than I - demonstrating yet again that you are not only a superior editor but a superior person. I bow in humility - but it doesn't keep me from nagging - I sure would like to finish this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do this without you but I'm afraid I have totally F***ed up the High Middle Ages. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll perhaps be back tomorrow; busy with Israel-Hamas war now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. I got a request for that article as well. I'm not doing anything else until I can get this one sorted properly. Then perhaps I can go back to my comfortable academic niche where I can use lots of obscure details to write long complex sentences on topics no one else really cares about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as I first thought. It may be close to okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it is below 10,000 words now - 9450 I think!! If you want to be done, just say. It's okay really. You have done a tremendous amount of work, improved the article dramatically, and are after all a volunteer. There's no obligation, and there will be nothing but gratitude on my part no matter what you decide. But I need to get on with this. I have spent almost two years on this one article with extensive rewrites to get it to GA, then again in efforts at FA. I think every complaint has been addressed - even yours. It would be awesome if you gave it a quick view and then decided it was okay to go ahead and renominate. I've done a rerun of the copyvio detector, checked isbn's, and will spot-check sources one more time before doing so, but I am getting antsy to be done. Please show up, or let me know you are shipping out, so to speak. Thank you for everything. You are amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not shipping out Jenhawk777; I keep getting distracted with other stuff, but now there is just one other distraction on-wiki (and of course RL). I think I'll be able to get there by the weekend, and {{trout}} me if I do not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Holding you to that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You deserve more than one barnstar for your summarising and trimming of Israel–Hamas war, genuinely incredible work. CNC (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember summarising previous sections when the article was around 21,000 words, so I can relate to how time-consuming it is do this, and the concentration required etc, especially to avoid any accusations of POV summarising etc. I also hope you didn't take offence to any of my edit summary comments such as "remains hideously too big", or temporarily downgrading rating to C class; I was only intended to show support and to motivate you to carry on your good work, while hoping that other editors would back-off from trying to re-insert unnecessary content.

With that said, how do you feel about taking on summarising Other confrontations section per talkpage survey? For reference I requested formal closure at closure requests, but if you still have energy it'd be a great to get it done already while you're head-deep in the article. I'm happy to make an involved close based on obvious consensus (not that it even needs it) if you are willing to perform summarising? Compared to what you've already done it doesn't seem like too much work, and personally it seems like that section should only have two sub-sections; West Bank and Israel followed by Middle East conflict, per survey consensus. The focus on Iran is simply undue imo, while American involvement is a misplaced new addition it seems. For example "2024 Iran–Israel conflict" has effectively become a child article of "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)", so doesn't require a child article summary, only a wikilink sentence reference within a summary of MEC, if that makes any sense? Anyway, that's my opinion, and I clearly don't need to school you on what a child article summary should look like. CNC (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January 2025, an editor by former name Unbandito carried out [1] the split of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon sections from Israel-Hamas page to Middle Eastern Crisis page. Article size decreased 70K from 550K to 480K, and the other page got an increase of 33K, I don't know the reason of the big gap (70K vs 33K) except a guess that a lot of paragraphs were deemed to be duplicate, and I don't know how careful the edits were. However, some summary on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon should have been left in Israel-Hamas page. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference, I hadn't noticed to be honest aside from the reduced content there, and didn't see a mention on the talkpage. Adding only around 50% of the content to MEC sounds about right, as most of the content was duplicated. I remember looking at doing it myself and thought it looked like a nightmare, due to the nature of the duplication that had occurred overtime, and as I'm not as familiar with the other conflicts. As for "summary on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon", for whatever reason Iran was left, whereas as described above there should just be a summary of MEC with the countries you reference (that includes Iran). There is only one line that has any relevance for a summary in Israel-Hamas war, and that's the assassination of the Hamas leader, the rest is completely irrelevant. It's just an example of "other wars exist in the Middle East and may or may not be related to this subject", which is exactly why there is a standalone article for this. Also by lacking the necessary subject context, it looks like OR to be honest, I can only hope it's not and the sources relate to the war given the content doesn't. I should just move Iran to MEC per consensus, as that doesn't seem too complicated, but I've became too demoralised to do so, and also it would be better being replaced with MEC summary rather than reduce to one sentence. Generally after reducing the size of the article last year, and seeing it grow so quickly again with content that 90% was not respecting summary style whatsoever, I don't want to end up disheartened again. Anyway, apologies for hijacking your talkpage AJ, as you can probably tell this article frustrates me and I should probably stay away for now. CNC (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Middle Eastern Crisis summary would necessarily include the several countries, Israel-Hamas war was the casus belli for many of them, and direct cascade includes the fall of Assad, as covered in news. If we don't include this, I don't think we have much of a summary at all, but the consensus was to have a summary. I do hope this article won't balloon again, now that we have a ceasefire. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For AJ's knowledge, this discussion has been resolved today by CNC.

@CommunityNotesContributor Thank you for removing Iran subsection and perfectly summarizing MEC [2] [3], if there is nothing left to be done, I think the close summary at the Split discussion can be updated as such. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to update the summary of that close, as it's not the done thing to amend a close after closing. I had considered re-closing, but is more or less irrelevant, as the summary remains accurate as of closing. For anyone looking for an update on the situation, it remains relatively accessible in the Scope of article topic. CNC (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lure him away with your attractive projects. I still need him on my very mundane one. He is too awesome and too much in demand - so - Go away! Shoo! Come back later! I get him next! I will do something nice to make it up to you down the road. (But don't tell on me. He would probably object to my interference - so unreasonable!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AirshipJungleman29. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Independence Day (Nigeria)/archive1.
Message added 16:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your RfC closure seems to focus on editor behavior rather than content. [4]. RfCs are about article content. You also seem to have misinterpreted WP:Weight and WP:Balance. Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree Bogazicili but you have not really presented an actual argument here; if you wish to do so, you are welcome to do so below or as a formal close review at WP:AN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll follow up there when I have the time. I had never seen an RfC closed like that before though. Bogazicili (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen much worse, sadly Bogazicili. I closed one RfC essentially as "the poor conduct of everyone involved has made it impossible to reach any conclusion, go away, improve your behaviour". One of the participants opened a close review for that, but there they demonstrated their inability to heed my warning and they're now indefinitely blocked. Take that as what you will. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, would you mind linking that closure? Bogazicili (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff Bogazicili. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another issue: do you believe you are WP:UNINVOLVED, given a related exchange at Talk:Human history/GA2 [5]? Bogazicili (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I am uninvolved. All of my comments to you at the GA review and in the following discussion were focused on adjudicating whether the article met NPOV, as part of the GA review. I did not act as a party nor do I have "strong feelings" about the disputes on either page. All of my comments there fall under "calm and reasonable discussion", which makes me uninvolved per the relevant page. Hope that helps Bogazicili. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One last question. How did you assess WP:Weight? I have given quotes from introduction chapters of overview secondary sources such as the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, and genocide entries in encyclopedias (tertiary sources), whereas no sources were provided by others who opposed inclusion. Bogazicili (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT encompasses both "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight". Your arguments entirely focused on why information on the Native American and Indigenous Australian genocides should be summarised. You failed to adequately rebut, as I said in the close, opposing arguments which said this would make the article unduly weighted towards those genocides. Hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I recently screwed the pooch on my first DYK nomination for the article Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song), and only after a painful process that drew on for a month did it get passed. I had another GA at the time, Minecraft: The Story of Mojang that I had a full collection for DYK—which actually was pretty cool with five ALTs—but because of the way things were going with Step by Step, I didn't bother to publish it. It's been nearly a month since then.

The full collection is at User:BarntToust/sandbox right now—I just published it there a mom' ago. Normally, DYKs are NEEDED to be done by 7 days after a milestone—mine was GA promotion—with special cases for 1 or 2 day extension. I know I'm a fool for asking for this outlandish, extraordinary reprieve, but I figured I'd run it by you anyway with my explanation. Minecraft was such an important thing to me as a kid, and it'd be a shame for a cool as hell selection of fun facts to never see the main page because I was clueless about how to make a good DYK for a song and the remedial process stretched a month long.

Again, I'm sorry if this seems beggy and generally pathetic considering I'm beyond late due to my own incompetence, but if you could float the idea of this extraordinary acceptance to DYK, I would put it up for review as soon as I see a green light. Hope you've had a good one! BarntToust 22:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the DYK for Step by Step started on December 11 of last year, and the GA review for Minecraft: The Story of Mojang—passed on December 31—already took far too long for a normal review. The reviewer for SoM admitted this in the closing, and no fault to them. I was just wholly confused and frankly, this was my first GA process. I was doing like 3 at one time, besides these two, I did a co-nominination of End Poem with User:Tamzin around this time as well. I should not have, as a first-time noninator, had this much in the pipeline consecutively, but a lot of the process went not great for me and too many things were going on. I'm being honest here: I was placed in a confusing situation and I did not want to cause more problems for myself for putting another DYK nom up right as I had bungled another one and was in a drawn out "nothing's happening" process with Step by Step. Hope I can get a reprieve for Story of Mojang, though. BarntToust 22:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly BarntToust, I don't think I can do that. DYKNEW allows exemptions up to ten days in an emergency, but nothing more than that. Allowing a thirty day nomination would probably mock those who have been rejected in the past, and also not fit with the DYK principles. Sorry, but I hope you understand, and that you'll nominate more articles in the future. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally get that. Even then, if you may raise my case with other folks involved in the process, I'd appreciate the gesture. I've got another prospective G article that I'm actually doing pretty well with for a five-alt nom in the future, which won't be subject to any of my confusion, lol. Hope you have a splendid one! BarntToust 22:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah nah nah, forget it, don't tell anyone, it's not important anyways. It'd be pointless. BarntToust 01:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust Please feel free to ping me if you finish the Sonic3 GA and still feel confused about DYK. Its unusually much simpler than your initial effort, you were unlucky! I suppose I should watch the Sonic 3 movie. CMD (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks! It's got twice the Jim Carreys and a John Wickian hedgehog. BarntToust 13:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet you. When I try to add an image to a draft it doesn't let me, is it because I have few edits? I'm uploading it not using URL --Ospina8 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ospina8, if you click the "upload file" button under the three bars at the top left of your screen, it should guide you through the process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ospina8 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can we get a really cute photo uploaded of Norbert the Dog? I tried but can’t do it. Thank you. Norbert thanks you too. --LynnAnneCa (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I I was able to put a pic up. :) --LynnAnneCa (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LynnAnneCa, sorry to be a downer, but Wikipedia is not a host of any and all images, it needs to have a viable copyright license. You should contact Norbert's owner and ask them to upload a photo to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will. Thank you. Sorry. :( LynnAnneCa (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries LynnAnneCa, everyone makes mistakes. You might find the links I posted on your talkpage helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have contacted Julie Steins to see if she will add one. LynnAnneCa (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Battle of Köse Dağ, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am messaging you on your talk page to let you know that there is a discussion currently going at Talk:Triumph Tour regarding reliable sources, and it would be helpful if you could look into the discussion and share your opinion on the matter. The discussion is called Discussion on sources and set list. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies HorrorLover555 but I don't believe I have much I can contribute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you anyway. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]