User talk:AirshipJungleman29: Difference between revisions

Hello, I have tried creating a page for my company, but even with just the basic information it is getting tagged as speedy deletion. How can I proceed to make a proper page for my company? —Abhaysingh2802 (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhaysingh2802, please pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:WTW. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mentor,
Why is it that sometimes when I try to review the changes I made, I find some that I never made, yet when I go to the original edited version, they are not reflected there?
Thanks. —Aura Tumuhaise (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aura Tumuhaise, the only explanation is that you did not submit your changes adequately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will to do better. Nice editing to you. Aura Tumuhaise (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mentor,
I need to remove the text I have highlighted since it has been repeated. How do I remove it at once?
Thanks in advance. —Aura Tumuhaise (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aura Tumuhaise, it’s not entirely clear what you mean. Could you please explain? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is just that wanted to delete a repeated block of text at once. Aura Tumuhaise (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which repeated block of text did you want to delete Aura Tumuhaise. Also, please stop creating new lines; see WP:THREAD for how to best communicate on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am many years late to this, but many of my peers have suggested publishing a wikipedia article about my work as 20-year entrepreneur and filmmaker. I have the full article drafted with loads of sources and citations, but from what I’ve heard the process can be tricky. I’d appreciate your help if you have any time! And if there’s something I can help you with in return, I’d be happy to. -Tim —Timjck (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, would you mind telling me what you think the three best sources which demonstrate your notability are? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I took some time to check out the links you sent. I’ve identified features in Forbes, The Seattle Times (which made it to print) and Rolling Stone as three sources specifically demonstrating notability for my work. There are further sources in Rolling Stone, New York Times, Huffington Post that are sourced in the draft that add further detail and context including references for notability including an Emmy Award. Welcome your thoughts. Timjck (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Timjck. Of those three sources, only the Seattle Times one is demonstrably reliable, and it more justifies the notability of the Gorge Amphitheatre than yourself. The Forbes source was written by a contributor—these types of article are written with minimal editorial oversight, are essentially self-published sources, and are generally considered unreliable (especially for an article about a living person, where the sourcing criteria are stricter). The same goes for the Rolling Stone Culture Council source. With only one, not-very-focused source in your top three, I’m afraid that the chances of a viable article being created is very slim. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion! Let me know if there’s anything I can do to support what you’re doing, on Wiki or otherwise. Appreciate your time 🙂 Timjck (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you could help me on an edit of an existing citation. I made an important one word change to an article and want to change the citation for that sentence. The current citation specifies the source and gives a page number. p47. I want to change that to “p47 and 53”. The reason is that p53 makes a correction to p47 which critically affects the meaning. However when I click on [edit] at the top of citations it just comes back with a one line software command, and no list of citations. Another way could be to add an extra citation just referencing p53 but I’m not sure how to do that. Thanks —Koach mike (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koach mike. Citations on Wikipedia are normally placed (and editable) next to the material they verify. More information can be found at WP:INCITE. The article World War I reparations uses a special type of citation, a WP:SFN, which is usually used when numerous citations cite different pages of the same work. Here, you can change the page number by editing the subsection “Initial demands” and then changing the |p=47 parameter in the sfn template to |pp=47, 53. (p means one page, pp means multiple) Let me know if you need further help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was just wondering how much should I link an article to another article? I’m just not always sure as I see many important words I can link but others that have previously contributed linked some words, but significantly less. Thanks! —Lhcfu (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lhcfu, please see WP:LINK, especially MOS:OVERLINK. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I’m Abubakar Auwal. I just want to ask how can I upload a profile of some notable people on Wikipedia.

Thank! —Saddiq89 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Saddiq89, please see the message I have placed on your talkpage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I increase the letters for Discography —Mephisto Born Again (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mephisto Born Again, please see Help:Section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t continue to revert on this because I see all too often where this leads and as an admin, particularly one involved in that area of enforcement I have an extra responsibility to not go there. But all the same, you have not bothered to offer an explanation as to why this information doesn’t belong in the article in any form. Given that it supports the lead hook at the nomination, I would think the proper way to handle this would be to bring it up there, that we might reach a consensus as to that and deal with both the hook and the article at the same time (This has a practical dimension as well … as things stand, someone might accept the article for DYK and prefer that hook, not knowing that the sentence supporting it has been removed from the article).

This isn’t even reaching the fact that I have not yet read any sufficient explanation, indeed any explanation, from you as to why that information doesn’t belong in the article at all. I concluded, from your still-puzzling decision to tag the article as {{overly detailed}} after you had already cut about a quarter of it on those grounds, that that was your primary reason for removing the paragraph, and since I saw no reason it wasn’t relevant to the article, nor had any been proffered, I thought that was the only issue. Apparently I was wrong, but your edit summary gives no hint of why you are so determined that it be removed (especially given that you suggested, upon placing the tag, that you have more important things to do (whatever they might be) than continue to edit the article.

If I were to speculate, based on the tone (which to me has a whiff of misogyny given the article subject, but that’s not an issue we need to discuss right now) of your edit summaries, you would prefer to keep citations to TikTok to some bare minimum. If that is indeed the case, that issue needs to be discussed on its own. And as an aside, I would suggest that you consider moderating your tone in the future. No, I am not going to call those personal attacks. But that kind of exaggerated, overly performative tone, while following the letter of “comment on the content, not the contributor” is IMO violative of its spirit and thus not conducive to the collegiality that Wikipedia (indeed, any Wikimedia project) depends on.

Lastly, this brings me to an issue that I hadn’t seriously considered until this morning: my oppose !vote at your RfA almost a year ago. In the interests of assuming good faith as I did in casting the !vote, I expected that you would be able to move on and continue what everybody agreed was the good work you did in creating content and reviewing articles submitted for recognition. I noted that despite the issues raised by others who opposed, one of which was the main basis of my !vote, you and I had no personal difficulties.

I can no longer say that, and looking over the other opposes that brought up some personal interactions I now understand all too well what motivated them. The likelihood that I would support you at any RfA or admin election in the future has diminished significantly. To that end I am seriously considering requesting that the second and last grafs of my !vote be stricken from the archive, or at least noting on the RfA talk page that I no longer stand by them.

And unfortunately, good faith notwithstanding, I cannot help but wonder if your actions at this DYK nom and relative to this article are not to at least some degree a response to my !vote. I don’t want to think that they are, but neither can I rationally exclude it as the basis for your still otherwise unexplained actions. While you could still choose to explain yourself, my good faith in you on this point is sufficiently challenged as to ask that if you don’t want to do so, you at the very least recuse yourself from not only further participation in this nomination (including editing the article, particularly since you’ve otherwise implied you’re not going to do that anymore) but indeed any nominations I make, or contribute significantly to, for DYK, GA or FA. And I shall likewise recuse myself from similar participation where you are involved. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woof, that’s a lot Daniel Case: allegations of general disagreeability (probably accurate) combined with insinuations of bad-faith editing (rather inaccurate), misogyny (??? really??) and RFA grudge-holding, which … mate, I barely remember that I did an RfA, never mind who voted in it or, especially, if they opposed me. I’ve probably interacted with many who opposed me since then, you included. And to be frank: even though I quite enjoyed my RfA (more than I think you’re supposed to) I have no intention of doing another, so any threat of future opposes don’t mean much to me.

You’re right, I haven’t explained why I removed the content, and the reason was that I thought it would be blindingly obvious to an editor of your experience (235k edits) if you stopped to think about it, and that was before I learned you have the mop. Please take this as a serious, good-faith {{trout}}ing. (It does occur to me that a trout is commenting on the contributor not the content—“Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.”—but I don’t really care. Sorry. Let’s go back to basics:

1. Any article on Wikipedia is required to comply with the core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, complemented by the guideline on reliable sources. Some articles are part of contentious topics (CTOPs), which makes their adherence to these policies even more necessary. The article Republican makeup pretty much by definition falls under the CTOP for American politics, while parts of the article may additionally be covered by the policy on living people.
2. This was the version of “Republican makeup” which I first encountered. I was first struck by the lengthy “Technique” section (not including subsections), comprising over 20% of the article’s prose, but relying on just three sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, a subsection of the previously-mentioned WP:NPOV, “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”. So I’d expect the three sources used to be not only ultra-reliable but propounding very significant viewpoints, to justify the article’s outsized reliance on them. Were they?
3. No. The first is a TikTok video. TikTok is listed at WP:UGC, a subsection of the previously-mentioned WP:RS, as an “unacceptable user-generated source”. In this case, it is also a WP:PRIMARY (a subsection of the previously-mentioned WP:NOR) source, which asks editors to “be cautious about basing large passages on them”. The second is a Buzzfeed post which is essentially a transcript of the TikTok. The third is a quote from an interview, another primary source. Sorry to break it to you, but no misogyny here, just source analysis. I do not take kindly to that WP:ASPERSION in particular, so please strike it.
4. To conclude, we have a very high level of detail not supported in any way by the sourcing: inappropriate for any article, but especially inappropriate for a CTOP. So I combined the six paragraphs into one. You’ll note that the seventh paragraph is still intact, because I had to buzz off, and so I left a tag indicating that my edits had not completely fixed the problems. That is the purpose of maintenance tags, is it not?

The same, or very similar, logic can be extended to my other content removals. You above say, with reference to the DYK hook information, that “I have not yet read any sufficient explanation, indeed any explanation, from you as to why that information doesn’t belong in the article at all.” I hope the guideline I linked to in the edit summary, as well as above, explains that to your satisfaction?

And finally, article content itself takes precedence over DYK hooks. Sourcing clearly marked by WP:PAGs as “unacceptable” do not need discussion to be removed. If a DYK reviewer approves of a hook without noting that the content has been removed from the article, that is a poor review (c.f. the instructions). Three of the five proposed hooks remain viable with the content removed. Best of luck with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since in the wake of this we have actually resolved things, and after you thanked me for my edits last night I have decided to {{collapse}} my above remarks and consider anything I said in them no longer applicable. It is another example of how “grace makes beauty out of ugly things“, a line that becomes especially apt when you yourself have been part of making those things ugly. And not the first time that’s happened in my wikilife (or even online).

In retrospect I was just frustrated that you hadn’t explained your edit in the detail you did above (WP:UGC is not an absolute ban on TikTok as a source, but all the same … I had thought that there was an independent RS on the second video clip that I just hadn’t found in my existing sources (I had actually found a lot of interesting stuff that, had it not been only on TikTok or YouTube, I would have included) but as it turns out there wasn’t. So, you were right.

I didn’t mind all the cutting you did, really … my philosophy, from years of writing professionally and academically, is that it’s easier to write more than you may need and cut than the other way around, even if it means (as Faulkner put it) killing all your darlings.

And lastly, around trimming the quotes: I understand that we’re not supposed to build encyclopedic articles by just stringing a batch of quotes together (back in the old days, that was also a way people created some rather POV articles that they could then distance themselves from). And I don’t do that. And, yes, there can be copyright issues.

But at the same time I think we insufficiently appreciate the pitfalls of underusing quotes. Paraphrasing is inherently an interpretive act, and that introduces (even inadvertently) the possibility of introducing a POV that isn’t present in the original text, or misinterpreting it (what was going on here, but that’s my fault since I hadn’t chosen the right quote (as I did here to better support the new hook I wrote (one I had originally intended to, anyway). Or both. Arguably you could say that extensive paraphrasing, at a certain point, is indistinguishable from original research.

The more we paraphrase quotes rather than actually use them, in the name of brevity and originality, the more likely this becomes. And I think for this reason it is particularly important in articles in contentious topic areas (as, we both agree, this one is) that greater distance be kept from wikivoice, through both regular use of attribution and more direct quotation where the fact(s) reported are likely to give rise to allegations of bias. Of course that’s going to happen, but it is easier to deal with on the talk page when the allegation is that the source is biased, not that Wikipedia itself is.

That’s all. I am sorry this happened the way it did. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Daniel Case, although I prefer not collapsing comments on my talkpage (you can strike what you feel is no longer applicable). On quoting vs paraphrasing, I fall sharply on the latter side for controversial articles. Saying “X said Y” is of course normally true and verifiable, but there is no way of justifying WP:WEIGHT, and in controversial or well-known articles, the latter takes on ever-increasing importance. To take possibly the prime example of controversial, a few months ago I carried out a thorough edit on Gaza war, which removed several thousand words and established a basic structure the article retains despite subsequent developments. Direct quotes were an especial target of cutting, because they can only represent the opinion of one person/organisation, when in that article you really need several RS backing up every sentence. Yes, there is a minute risk of introducing POVs, but that is the editorial discretion that we have to assume. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be delayed in responding, briefly I hope, to this.

In the course of researching what guidance we have on using quoted material, I came across WP:QUOTEUSE, which seems to have been written by someone in the same frame of mind about this as I am.

Of course, there is, I think, a middle-ground solution to this: we should at least offer the full quotes somewhere outside the inline text, either in the quote= field of the cite or an endnote, if the same source gives rise to different quotes supporting different parts of the text. I have done the latter with the originals of quotes I’ve translated (this is more or less what WP:LONGQUOTE suggests, although it should include endnotes as well as footnotes).

And when there’s a whole bunch of good quotes that you would only need one or two of to use in the article or support some statement in, it’s perfectly fine IMO to start a Wikiquote page (or add to an existing one) on the subject (I did that when, during the GA nom for dump months, it was suggested that I take some of the many quotes out. As much as I loved them for offsetting our necessarily dry style (another value I put on quotes, I could see the point, so I added them to the Wikiquote page on January. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I recently completed my first GA review and noticed you’re listed as a mentor, so I wanted to ask if you have any feedback or tips.

The page is Crystal Springs Dam, the review page is Talk:Crystal_Springs_Dam/GA2.

I also have another review I’ve started for McLaren MCL38 at Talk:McLaren_MCL38.

Thanks in advance! SnowyRiver (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good SnowyRiver28! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and Moondragon21: You marked this for rejection, despite my acceptance, and Launchballer wrote “rejected by reviewer” which was not correct, I had already accepted it. I will also note you each have your own DYK nominations pending. That’s just not fair. If you think there are too many DYK nominations, withdraw your own, not someone else’s. —GRuban (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, see WP:DYKTIMEOUT. I closed one of Launchballer’s nominations earlier today which had also timed out for the same reason. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this is due to no fault of Moondragon’s, who feels understandably upset. He did real work to get me to approve it, which work is now being thrown away (well mostly, I guess the article is better, but his goal was to get it approved for DYK, which he got … only to have it taken away). What could he have done better? As for myself I did less, but some, real work to review it which is definitely being thrown away. This is a counterincentive to review the oldest articles in the queue, since they are at greatest risk of being timed out, if you don’t want your review thrown away. Can you timeout those nominations that aren’t approved, rather than those that are? —GRuban (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) GRuban, are you saying that the nominations which aren’t approved haven’t had real work put into them? The simple fact of the matter is that DYK receives far more nominations than it can handle. This is a zero-sum game—if Moondragon’s nominations isn’t rejected, someone else’s would have to be in the future (I can promise you that if one of my nominations reaches that mark I will time it out with no hesitation). The DYK community believes that unapproved nominations should receive greater leniency than approved nominations—see the second sentence of WP:DYKTIMEOUT. The work that you have both put into the article will not be “thrown away”, it will just be less prominent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they haven’t been reviewed, they haven’t had work put into them in response to the review, no. But more on that second sentence, which doesn’t seem to say that. Are you really saying that if a nomination is unapproved, you specifically wait for it to be approved before timing it out? Why, what could possibly be the advantage of that? —GRuban (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, the article firstly gets a chance to be improved in the review (the end goal of Wikipedia), and secondly it also gets a chance to feature on the Main Page (the end goal of DYK), as we try give late-approved nominations a few more days to linger before timing it out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, how can we help the backlog? I have had a lot of fun nominating articles for DYK, 30 or so over these last 19 years, so I’m somewhat experienced, and I would like to shoulder some of the effort needed. What can we, or at least I, do to help? —GRuban (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, in the past, the solution for dealing with the backlog has simply to run more hooks in shorter 12-hour sets. However, this piles huge amounts of stress on promoters and queuers who have to check twice the amount of material. Quite a few prolific DYK helpers have been burned out by these well-intentioned initiatives and have just not returned. We do not have the capacity anymore to run 12-hour-sets (increasing the output) so the only thing we can do is restrict the input—hence timing out older nominations.What you could do at the moment is help check the upcoming sets in the prep areas. You cannot promote them to queue, as you need the WP:TE user right, but if you find any issues (or don’t) please note it at WT:DYK. This will help ease the burden on the queuers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. I didn’t realize I would ever need the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing edit right, but what do you know… —GRuban (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Template editor.–Launchballer 14:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARGH! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, you may be interested in an ongoing discussion at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically mine hadn’t (the earliest was nominated on 16 July), but I’ll take both articles through GA in my time. “Rejected by reviewer” is a canned edit summary provided by WP:PSHAW, which automates certain processes including promoting hooks. I recommend installing.–Launchballer 14:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few images from Flickr that could be used for the article (and the DYK), but I am working on getting them renamed since they were initially misidentified as Lepus starcki. File:Ethiopian Highland Hare (Lepus starcki) running.jpg, File:Ethiopian Highland Hare (Lepus starcki) in grass.jpg — Reconrabbit 12:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought Reconrabbit, sadly both those images might be a bit too unclear for DYK’s requirements though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you undid link to Indian Coast Guard Ship ICGS Lakshmi Bai from the article page for Rani of Jhansi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEIGHT. Huge numbers of places, objects, ideas are named after her, as summarised in “Cultural Legacy”. There is not enough room to cover them all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a straightforward DYK credit, feel free to checkout Template:Did you know nominations/Rights Georgia. Of course, since I created the article I’m the least independent person available for judging how “straightforward” it really is to check the quality. It might actually relate to a newsy thing on 4 Oct 2025, as backround on Georgian NGOs – which do the long-term legal defences and organising work that’s less dramatic and media-attention-grabbing than street protests and violent repression. Boud (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put a person’s profile on Wikipedia? —SimbarashePino (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@AirshipJungleman29

Not quite sure what you need?

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ojsyork, I was wondering if you could provide a quote from “Leonard, Richie; Denton, Tony (2025). Lifeboat Enthusiasts Handbook 2025. Lifeboat Enthusiasts Society. p. 130.” which supported “although only seven Tubular-class lifeboats were built, they remained in service for 83 years”. If that’s not possible, no worries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29

The Handbook is basically a directory of all the RNLI lifeboats and their dates in service.

So the 83 years is just the calculation of the dates of the first and last.

No quotes I’m afraid.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ojsyork, so it’s just a table/diagram which says that seven boats were produced and gives their start/end dates? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]