User talk:AirshipJungleman29

History of Christianity

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

You do know I check and look for you every day, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Once again you are a no-show.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I did what you said. Can't see what difference it made. I looked back to see if I remember correctly, and I think you started this project on December 20th. It is now February 5th. Your last edit was January 27 when you undid an edit by Thi, but before that, your last real participation was January 13. I think you've lost interest. It's okay, I will just move on accordingly. Thank you again for all your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the recent edits, but what the Hell happened to the sources to turn so many references red? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

?? No clue what you mean Jenhawk777. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at the referencesJenhawk777 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if it looks right to you it must be because I'm on my phone. It shows a dozen refs that are red. Phew! I panicked there for a minute! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You're back. I'm so glad. I'm bleeding all over, but I'm still glad. Thank you. When I have completed the dozen or so things you left for me, I will contact you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through all your tags and comments without much trouble so far, but I want to discuss with you the comment on adding to colonialism. I know it's short and that imperialism of the nineteenth century which nearly destroyed Africa isn't mentioned at all. I don't think the paragraph as it stands is bad. If I add more, I will absolutely have to mention what motivated these movements, which will involve the science of polygenesis and social darwinism that combined into the white supremacy of Manifest Destiny and the need to help the poor lower races to evolve and become like us. The "science" of white supremacy lasted for more than a century - really until DNA was discovered. Christianity has always believed in monogenesis, (in the 1800s opponents of polygenesis were labeled religious zealots) so missionaries were never universally on board, though there is no doubt that some missionaries were affected by the science of the day. I have a source that says that, but I am reluctant to go down this rabbit hole. What's your opinion? More on colonialism/imperialism or not? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So silence generally means you think my question is too obvious - too stupid - for you to bother answering, so I am going to take your lack of response as a 'no' to Manifest Destiny. I agree actually. Thought I'd ask so I can claim consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I managed colonialism, and I did it without bringing up Manifest Destiny. YAY me! I am done with tags and questions, though I am still working on adding more on the East. I'll let you know when I think I've completed that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you intend to edit more, but once again I want to say how very, very grateful I am for all your work. You have done amazing edits - and a lot of them! As much as I have done on this article, IMO, you are the one who has made the biggest difference. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You are my new standard of writing now. I ask myself "Would Airshipjungleman like this?" Some stuff gets in even when the answer is 'no', but mostly it works to keep the colorful non-encyclopedic me in check - a bit anyway. Which is sad, but fair, and probably good for me- sort of like quinoa. I don't really know why I'm writing today. I think I'm having withdrawal - I miss interaction with you! Sigh. I have found one more thing to add in Modernity - but I am not using up those 2000 words! Have you looked at it? It's still below 9000. You so rock! Well, bye I guess. I will no doubt show up again somewhere down the road. Bless you. And thank you again. And again. So annoying, I know... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

Today's story: a German-born Spanish art collector, - the video in her honour is remarkable, as what she gave the world. - Enjoy your vacation! (pics from mine under places, to be continued) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I find today's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you today for Siege of Baghdad, introduced: "The Siege of Baghdad shook the world. The end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the zenith of the Mongol conquests, the foundation of a new empire in the Middle East. Legends sprang up around the siege, and it became a byword for wanton destruction—but was it?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's story is about Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart. The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. - Enjoy your vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

today's is about an opera singer on her 35th birthday, - don't miss the short video which shows her in movement, - they had a Japanese movement coach for the production that impressed me in 2022. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Source/text

Hi. I noticed this. I didn't think my edits changed the meaning but only the flow. Can you explain? John (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

John, assuming you meant this edit, just a couple of minor things: the contrast between the situations in the west/east post-Theodosius are contrasted and highlighted in the sources, and I did not feel a simple "but" really reflected this esssential difference. Later on we have "sensational" vs "decisive" about John I's victory against the Bulgars; I remember writing this originally and noting that all the sources seemed to speak of it as outstanding/magnificent/glorious/words to that effect, and so chose "sensational" as one in the same vein. "Decisive" seems to be underselling it slightly. Not big issues, and the rest of your edit were very welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I particularly disagreed with bringing back "sensational". This is the sort of unencyclopedic language I routinely root out in the course of copyediting. We normally aim for neutral, dispassionate language. "Sensational" literally means that it caused a sensation, a marked public reaction to the event. I suppose most big victories could be described this way, but we don't tend to describe eg the end of World War 2 in this sort of language. Of the other words you use, I could live with "outstanding", if this fits with the sources. But it was the edit summary that took me aback. If you prefer the wording you originally chose to my copyedited version, that is one thing. Referring to "source-text integrity" is quite another. It made me feel like my edits were "wrong", rather than just you didn't like them. I've enjoyed working with you on the article so far, and I appreciated the recognition you sent me recently. This sort of thing will make it difficult to continue. Let me know what you think. Thanks for reading. John (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

John, "source-text integrity" was indeed a far harsher criticism than I intended it to be; I apologise for my carelessness in the edit summary. I sincerely hope you will continue working on the article in the future. On the other, comparatively minor point: I see your problem with "sensational"; feel free to choose an appropriate alternative. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That's quite all right, and I in turn apologise for my relative sensitivity. You're not to know (I wrote about it on my talk page a while ago, but it might be archived by now) that I returned to Wikipedia fairly recently after experiencing burn-out probably triggered by a bereavement. I am building up my resilience again, but I guess I'm not fully there yet. I'm definitely not asking for or expecting any special treatment, nor am I claiming my edits are perfect or immune from review. It's always difficult to think of the feelings of others in a text-based medium like this, isn't it? And of course what really matters is improving the quality and readability of the article, not making User:John feel good about himself. But a condition I made with myself for returning to work here was to avoid situations that will cause me grief, and to be prepared to walk away if anything starts to "trigger" me. I'm fully committed to continuing to work on saving the article. I'll be back! John (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear John. I've just completed a rewrite of the "Warfare" section; may I ask you to turn your copyediting eye to it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Triple Crown

AirshipJungleman29, you are hereby awarded the Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown for your contributions to Wikipedia. Congratulations on such an amazing achievement. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

DYK, how to nominate

I noticed your name on the list of people that could lend a hand on DYK.

While I have been in WP since 2008, with over a decade gap, I am a relative noobie of some aspects, especially in getting articles beyond GA status (only under my belt). I recently expanded some pages in the last few months. Specifically, Andreas Papandreou (rewrote nearly the whole thing, and it is submitted for GA review), Koskotas scandal (created and developing it towards GA), Greek constitutional crisis of 1985 (created and developing it towards GA).

I was wondering if DYK is worth it. And I am trying to better understand the concept. If "Andreas Papandreou" counts for me to submit it for DYK since I did not create the page, do the following sound like potential candidates for DYK?

• Did you know that the first socialist Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou imposed severe austerity measures in 1985?
• Did you know that Andreas Papandreou, a dominant but controversial political figure of Greece, had six children, none mentioned in his will?
  • The catch here is that Andreas had four children with his second wife, one out of wedlock, and (not real one) Costas Laliotis, who had privileged access to Papandreou, was often called the "fifth child of Andreas."

Are these in the spirit of DYK? Thank you in advance for any input. A.Cython (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I just realized that I cannot nominate Andreas Papandreou for DYK because it was nominated for GA earlier than a week ago. A.Cython (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

A.Cython, you could nominate Andreas Papandreou for DYK, but not yet, because it needs to gain GA status first. The second hook you proposed looks quite suitable for DYK, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I misread it. Many thanks for your input; it was instructive. A.Cython (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I saw that you edited the Wikipedia article I created, Battle of Herat (1270). I clicked on your user page and noticed that you are very knowledgeable on this topic. That's why I wanted to ask if you could review my article when you have the time. I would really appreciate it, and it could be very helpful. Heraklios 18:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No promises HerakliosJulianus, but I will try. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Questions (February)

SkeyeBluThaRapper

Can I change my name on my wikipedia account? --SkeyeBluThaRapper (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

SkeyeBluThaRapper, please see the instructions at WP:RENAME. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

B52 strato

Hello! B-52 strato here. I am making a draft on the X-02 Wyvern from ace combat ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:X-02_Wyvern_(Ace_combat) ) and want some advice on how I can make it look like a little relibable! Please and thank you! --B52 strato (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

B52 strato, to put it bluntly, that draft will never become a Wikipedia article, so I would advise spending your time on something else, either on Wikipedia or off. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Ibn seeny

Where will I start writing --Ibn seeny (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics

Hi there! I currently have an FAC open on Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics and wanted to know if you could provide any comments so it doesn't get archived? If so, I'd appreciate it, but if not, I totally understand. Thanks and best wishes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Cankid

I've noticed that citations on most articles come after the period. For example: Person X's net worth is X.[1]

Is this right on wikipedia? Or should the citation be before the period like ADA style? --Cankid (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what "ADA style" you refer to Cankid, but yes, citations should follow the period or other punctuation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)