User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Mentorship Jul-Sep 2023

Question from Unleashgift on Lee Jin-ah (04:54, 29 July 2023)

How can I change the profile picture of Lee Jin ah in this page ? --Unleashgift (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Unleashgift, if you find a suitable file on Wikimedia Commons you can change the image in the infobox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from TamraPierce (20:50, 31 July 2023)

Hello. How so I cREate a wikipedia page for an individual? Thanks. --TamraPierce (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello TamraPierce, please see Help:Your first article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bearkitty123 on Acadia University (16:33, 16 August 2023)

Hi! Thanks for being a mentor! I’m here to learn but also to help the wonderful world of wiki keep providing sourced info! --Bearkitty123 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Bearkitty123, you're welcome. Feel free to ask any questions, or you can place the {{help me}} template on your page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Eron Lushaj (01:22, 27 August 2023)

Hi, How can I publish an article but there are no external links that can support it because it is something new and almost nobody knows about it, thanks. --Eron Lushaj (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eron Lushaj. I assume you are talking about Draft:Militrex Kosova Defense? Unfortunately, if something is not covered in reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. However, if it is notable, I can almost guarantee there will be sources released in the next months. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Dev2907 (12:25, 8 September 2023)

I want to publish a page for our college's cultural festival, but I'm not able to get how to create it --Dev2907 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dev2907, please take a look at Help:Your first article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have created a draft for an article but while trying to publilsh it I'm getting an error of "No stashed content found" --Dev2907 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dev2907, you can ask the Teahouse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Malluisgreat (10:07, 14 September 2023)

Hello So where would you suggest that I start? --Malluisgreat (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (13:02, 14 September 2023)

hi --Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

How can i add a new page on wikipedia with the company name? --Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Snapclick Pvt. Ltd., I would highly advise not doing that. See WP:PROMO and WP:COI for details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

We are not doing Advertising about any thing, we just want to create our company's page on wikipedia. this is the only reason. Is there any possibilities to create our company page over here ? Snapclick Pvt. Ltd. (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:PE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from RICHARD ADIKPA (15:27, 21 September 2023)

hello --RICHARD ADIKPA (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello RICHARD ADIKPA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RfC

You recently closed a RfC on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article. You claim that there "is consensus in favour of solution 2 (removing the term "propaganda"), on grounds that it pejoratively implies deliberate deception", though the majority of editors voted to keep the term, and a number of people stated that they were fine with both terms. Even if that were not the case, RfC's aren't decided by majority vote. Can you please elaborate how you came to the conclusion that there is consensus in favour of not using the term "propaganda"? Cortador (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Cortador I closed that RfC a month ago, so my memory might be slightly wonky on the intracies. I do not believe "a majority of editors voted to keep the term"—the RfC was on a lengthy phrase in the first paragraph, not just the word "propaganda"—but in any case, as you somewhat contradictorily note, discussions are closed by consensus, not majority vote. There was a significant proportion of those who !voted in favour of keeping the phrase who were not satisfied about the term "propaganda", on account of the implication of pejoration. Because the discussion was on a WP:BLP, which naturally "requires a high degree of sensitivity", I considered these arguments to be more stronger and relevant than they would be on an article about tadpoles, for instance. I think that was generally my reasoning and it seems to have stuck well (I note a subsequent talk page discussion under the heading "Propaganda"?). Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The original question of the RfC was "Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP?" A majority of editors voted to keep them, and delivered arguments why to do so - the term "propaganda" is used by three out of four sources for that sentence. I'm afraid I don't get your reasoning based on this; BLP isn't a reason to exclude information from reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Very true. Consensus is, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is specifically what I'm disputing here. Cortador (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears we have come to a fundamental impasse; you are of course free to start a closure review at WP:AN if you think my reading of policies is incorrect. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Tolui

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Tolui, 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, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Another outstanding contribution to the coverage of Mongolian history on Wikipedia. Congratulations! — Golden ^talk 10:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Lewinsville: Thanks

Thanks for promoting the DYK for this article. It has just finished its run so I think it is too soon to see the page views but I think they should be up later today. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

William Nixon (obstetrician)

Thanks for promoting this one but I think you need to re-open it as the selected hook needs improvement. (I will add an Alt). Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, Philafrenzy. Care to explain your reasoning? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a bald statement of fact with no context and which implies that there was something exceptional or possibly illegal about the abortions he carried out, otherwise why would we be saying it was before a particular piece of law? Since that hook was formulated the article has been expanded to make clear that he was acting completely legally and there was already case law to support his actions. That being so, what is the point of the hook? I think we could develop a hook around the reasons for which he did the abortions which was to protect the health of the mother. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Mato Grosso do Sul

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for moving my DYK into one of the prep queues. I wanted to include the image in the DYK though, but I guess that wasn't apparent because I hadn't included (pictured) in the hook. Could my hook be moved to another queue so that it can be accompanied by the flag shown in the nomination? BaduFerreira (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

BaduFerreira, it was apparent, but as the promoter I decided against it. DYK receives around twice as many picture hooks as there are available slots (as the first slot receives the most attention), so around half of picture hooks can't run with an image. A promoter thus has to judge which images are more captivating than others. While your hook was interesting, I didn't feel that the image added that much to it, especially considering that as a "mockup" it is only an approximate representation of the original design. With all that in mind, I judged that it would be better suited to a non-picture hook slot. Hope you understand. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes sense. I'll keep that in mind for future DYK submissions! Thank you for your response. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK tweaks

Hiya, AirshipJungleman29! I noticed you edited the hook for 1989 (Taylor's Version) 'cuz...... you pinged me. You moved "in less than a day" to later in the hook. I feel like that kinda makes my eyes glaze over it now. I think maybe "within a day" could work instead since it's less wordy. You also linked Taylor Swift, but I feel like linking it would take attention away from the 1989TV link. If readers are really interested, they can find Swift's link in the first sentence of the article. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing edited volumes

Hi. Thanks for your kind note about my effort at a more balanced approach to the factuality of The Old Man and the Sea.
Question for you: Can you point me to the proper template for citing an essay in an edited volume, such as the Cambridge Companion series? If I knew that, I'd have done better with specific page cites to Sylvester. And, I intend to do some touch up on the article on Ibsen's The Wild Duck, drawn from the Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Having the proper template would improve those future efforts.
(Ironic aside: You appear to have a deep interest in Mongol history. I spent some decades focused on modern Chinese affairs. But we've met in Cuba!) Pechmerle (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You run into people all over the place in Wikipedia Pechmerle, it's rather funny sometimes. As for citations, I typically use whichever of the the CS1 templates is most suitable in combination with Template:Sfn (shortened footnotes). So to take The Old Man as an example, as long as you have the reference for Sylvester somewhere in the article (here in the Sources section: * {{cite book |last1=Sylvester |first1=Bickford |date=1996 blah blah blah}}), you can write {{sfn|Lastname|date|pp=pages}} or {{sfn|Sylvester|1996|pp=265–266}} and Wikipedia will automatically make the connection. Hope that helps, and good luck with The Wild Duck! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead to the general cite templates. What I did for Sylvester looks serviceable. But I note with astonishment that an edited collection in book form is tucked away in the "cite encyclopedia" template. Well, at least now I know.--Pechmerle (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

GAR closure

Regarding Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tesla, Inc./1, the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment don't list 'no consensus' to delist as a possible outcome, rather consensus should be found to keep the article as a GA. Having only just realised, I ask that the reassessment be reopened so that consensus can be established. I have come here to ask as you were the one to close the discussion. Cheers, Willbb234 19:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Willb234, I will not be doing so, as no consensus is a very common result in discussion closures. The instructions at WP:GAR do not prescribe all possible results, as can be seen from the fact that there was no clear consensus and no lack of objections to delisting. Discussions can't be kept open indefinitely in the hope that a consensus might develop. You are of course free to ping the GAR coords or ask at WT:GAR if you disagree with my reasoning. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well the obvious problem here is this would allow a small number of editors, even just one, to block a GAR simply by objecting and not enough other editors participating to form a consensus to delist; a very frustrating outcome for a nom who might choose to place the article on review for a second time and which would require more input from others in an area which seems to be already short of editors willing to participate. Looking at AFD, the system tends to work as their relist process tends to generate further responses (and it also doesn't require the nom to present another argument/go to the effort of creating another discussion). I would also note that 'no consensus' is neither an accepted outcome at the GAR log or at Template:Article history. I completely understand that the discussion must end at some point, but I don't agree with the current approach taken to the process. Willbb234 19:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You do not see "no consensus" at the GAR log or at {{Article history}} because they do not refer to the discussions, but to the GA status of the article Willb234. Well the obvious problem here is this would allow a small number of editors, even just one, to block a GAR simply by objecting yes, that is intended. The same happens at AfD, and at every other discussion venue on the site. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's not the "intended" effect. Also the same does not happen at AFD as, as I've already mentioned, the relist function allows for further contribution to the discussion, something not present at GAR. WP:GAR says that If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time., which, in a manner similar to WP:ONUS, implies that the side wishing to keep the article as a GA must find some kind of consensus. A simple objection from one editor does not constitute consensus to keep as a GA. I would also disagree that the 'Results' at least at the Article history template refer to the status of the article. The template lists the outcome under a 'Results' column, which specifically refers to the results of the discussion, not the status of the article. Either way, WP:GAR doesn't support the idea that an article can be 'kept' as a GA without consensus to do so. Willbb234 20:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not my interpretation—you can see my reasoning above. Again, you are free to ping the GAR coords or ask at WT:GAR if you disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Clara Schumann

September songs

my story today

Thank you for your interest in Clara Schumann. Please find a better way of access to her talk page archives that {{Talk header}}, - it was meant for contentious pages (only, see for example [1]), which still shows, and hers looks like visitors already know to assume good faith ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK prep building

Please note that in the last available prep, the image slot and one other slot must remain empty so that there's room to shuffle things around. It appears that you filled the last available image space in Prep 6. That makes my life harder as I have to shuffle things around at present. Schwede66 08:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)