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)

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)

November music

story · music · places

memories - Congratulations to the Wikicup! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded new pics. Today's story relates to 2 meanings of 9 Nov, - imagine: I found a DYK I liked from 2006, before my time here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded more pics, on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - Madeleine Riffaud - remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at the last case:

Here is the latest one I came up with, see if you have objections:

Buniyatov writes that the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens and they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, the North of Iraq. Buniyatov further mentions that the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia and there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live as society.[50] The official website of the Gölhisar District Governorship also talk of the local Turkmens being descendants of the Khwarazmshahs that arrived at Anadolu with Jalal al-Din Mangburni.[51] Abdirimov similarly states that "During the conquest of Čengīz Khan, the Turkmens who came to Anatolia under the name of Khwarazmians were called nomads (yoruk)"[52] who are often referred to as 'Yörük Turcoman' or 'Turkmens' by historians and ethnologists.

You can see the sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khwarazmian_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1256212900

If you have no objection, let us settle this time-taking discussions. More corraborative info have been added --176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have objections to your WP:FORUMSHOPping. You are the only one responsible for time-taking discussions, having disagreed with five other editors and counting, and now you pretend to be magnanimous? Find someone who'll believe your tendentious editing, or open a new section at WP:ANI if you still believe everyone else has a political agenda. Let's be honest, the only person who has one here is you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

if you have an objection, state it. You again reverted but this time without objection or commentary, just stating "reach consensus first."

I added both an official government website and academic paper, both of which corraborated what you were arguing "unreliablee." Now, the unreliability is gone. If you have no objection, do not revert. I will revert if you have no objection other than "reach consensus."

Thank you. -- 176.88.165.232 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Only someone who has no understanding of how Wikipedia works could say I will revert if you have no objection other than "reach consensus." In case you have forgotten, consensus determines what is in articles. You have achieved no consensus across three discussions at two discussion pages, and you refuse to acknowledge that. You will be reverted until you achieve consensus; if you have a problem with that, or want to make more accusations of political agendas, take it to WP:ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is the consensus reached for "The population of the Kwarazmian Empire consisted mainly of sedentary Iranian and half-nomadic Turkic peoples." this sentence, for example? Look, it is put in article without consensus. Almost every content is put into the article without consensus. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you feel there is no consensus for that or other sentences, remove it, and those who believe that its information is needed will try and reach a consensus on the talk page. Be careful that you do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you feel consensus determines what is in articles, as you have asserted, you shall remove it as that is consensusless. Or if you are not removing that and other consensusless parts, then you should not be cherry-picking when it comes to my edit. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Nice job crafting Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's well-written, concise, and presents a balanced perspective. Cheers, Sdkb talk 04:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sdkb, this should probably go to Espresso Addict, who drafted most of the actual letter. The only things I did were create the page and make a couple of minor adjustments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! A Barnstar for you for graciously redirecting me to the correct editor in that case 🙂 Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks very much for your peer review of veiqia Lajmmoore (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 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)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mephedrone/1

I'm confused why this was delisted - the only concern raised (that a section was tagged) had been addressed. Which GA criteria are no longer met? SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't know why I did that. I'll reopen and close the other way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)