Battle of Backbone Mountain

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:~delta submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate AirshipJungleman29 for Editor of the Week for their tireless work on Mongolian history articles. Airship has improved vital articles such as Genghis Khan, Tolui and Ai-Khanoum throughout their Wiki-career, and have written FAs such as Baljuna Covenant and Siege of Bukhara. They also work in promoting hooks to prep areas in DYK and regularly participate in GA and FA reassessments/reviews as well. Their frequent FAC reviews are notable for their incisiveness and thoroughness. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild, Hey man im josh and Generalissima

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Mongol Empire

AirshipJungleman29

Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 10, 2024

A tireless work-a-holic at Mongolian history articles. Airship has improved vital articles such as Genghis Khan, Tolui and Ai-Khanoum throughout their eight year Wiki-career and has written FAs such as Baljuna Covenant and Siege of Bukhara. Work in promoting hooks to prep areas in DYK and regularly participates in GA and FA reassessments/reviews. Their frequent FAC reviews are notable for their incisiveness and thoroughness.

Recognized for

articles about Mongolian history

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. Thanks all! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the nom, although I wish I'd seen it in time to make an alterative suggestion re. its authorship. ——Serial Number 54129 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Airship, sorry to bug, I was just wondering if you had a chance to see the fix-ups I did for the DeLancey W. Gill FAC from your prose review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When recently reverting some substantial sock-puppetry in the above article, you also - apparently accidentally - reverted a couple of more modest subsequent edits, both in a quite different part of the article from the sock-puppetry (though not from each other).

As I have had past experience of such side-effects from otherwise needed revisions damaging the comprehensibility of articles and as a quick check confirmed that they had no visible connection to the sock-puppetry and they both seemed to improve the article, I have taken the liberty of editing them back into the article while taking care not to do the same with the sock-puppetry.

If I have been mistaken in doing this, please let me know. Thanks and best wishes. PWilkinson (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention PWilkinson, no worries here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1, you were disappointed in the prose content when compared to other GAs such as 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. As I look at Big Ten Year in review summaries like https://web.archive.org/web/20240424202443/https://bigten.org/news/2011/5/11/Big_Ten_Men_s_Basketball_Season_in_Review.aspx https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltca750cef518bc6e4/blt6b5f4cc63e11b4a9/65ed1c7fc26d91c404539666/2011-12_MBB_Season_in_review.pdf and https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltca750cef518bc6e4/blt689776fb6c477d75/65ed1d16a99186453fe7bd8a/2014-15_MBB_Season_in_review.pdf I realize that the Big Ten year in review does not even contain the granularity at the level you seek. Although there are many subjects within the Big Ten that I noted when I wrote the 08-09 and 09-10 articles, maybe they truly belong in the season articles about the teams.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd that you talk about "granularity" TonyTheTiger, seeing as there is no prose description of the 2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season in the body. To ask for that is not "seeking granularity", but "seeking a basic level of detail". That seemed to be the consensus at this discussion you started.

While we're on the topic of what Big Ten year-in-review summaries include, I note that all of them include some description of the season, but for some reason none of them include exhaustive listings of coach tables, preason watchlists/teams/polls, rankings, players of the week, or every single award given to athletes, coaches, and teams. Can you explain why such "granularity" is necessary in, for example, 2014–15 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of what content is wanted in a conference season article probably should come from a discussion at WP:CBBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects have no authority over content TonyTheTiger. You can have recommendations, but unless they are formally upgraded into policy like WP:VGMOS or WP:MILMOS, a WikiProject discussion cannot form a consensus on content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the discussion you pointed to is an agreement that table content should be put in prose. However, I thought you were also supporting the monthly highlights from the two articles that you pointed out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am, yes, TonyTheTiger: the monthly highlights would essentially prosify the content currently in the tables in the "Regular season" section, with additional relevant facts and details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what exactly are the problems in The Last Stand at Isandlwana which led you to put the Copy edit tag. I reread the page multiple times before publishing it to be sure it contained no errors or such, if you could be more clear I'll work on fixing the remaining issues. I normally don't edit on en.wiki so if you could guide me it would be mostly appreciated :) Cosma Seini (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosma Seini, as I noted in the tag, the main problem is capitalisation—words like "British" and "Zulu" are often uncapitalised. You also have minor grammatical/spelling errors, such as "was sent to South Africa to report the war", "The reporter undoubtedly went to South Africa in 1879, followed lord Chelmsford..." "conformation", "photographies". Other than that though, the article seems generally good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll look into it as soon as I can. Cosma Seini (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw your message on how my edit to the page didnt oblige with the NPOV. For my information the only source i have used yet is the OECD which would be a neutral source. As far as i know i have been neutral with my information, but i am new to wikipedia so if you could tell me what exactly was not neutral/encyclopedic about my work i would really appreciate it.

Hello Hamza.bbs (please remember to sign your messages using four tildes). Using neutral sources is only one aspect (WP:BESTSOURCES) of remaining neutral. Other aspects include: maintaining an impartial tone and avoiding certain expressions, correctly weighting sections according to their prominence in RS, and structuring articles to avoid undue focus on particular aspects. You will want to keep these links in mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AirshipJungleman29 thanks a lot for the help and explanations. Preciate the effort! Hamza.bbs (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]