Hi there. Quick procedure question on the DYK forDukiełka. My understanding of DYKG is that promoters should not promote a hook they were involved in reviewing. Is there an element of procedure I am missing here since you provided the final tick and approval of two hooks in that nom? Thanks -- always trying to make sure I understand the DYK process better.Dclemens1971 (talk)21:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation doesn't compute. I pulled the tick because the original review was incomplete and because all three hooks were uninteresting. You claimed the review should have been AGF'ed as complete, which does not appear to have consensus per DYKT but also whatever, the idea that a review must affirmatively tick all the DYK checklist items also seems not to have consensus. But by declaring specific hooks to be interesting it seems you were re-reviewing and deciding between two other participants who disagreed. That's not procedural; I disagreed with PrimalMustelid that the nomination should have a tick. Thus, your action was to look at the nom and unilaterally evaluatee whether it deserved a tick. (I think you should un-promote and leave it for an uninvolved promoter.)Dclemens1971 (talk)22:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your trim forZwei Gefühle, you said "per nomination" but the nomination said nothing about trimming the composer whose 90th birthday was the reason to write the article. Trimming "for speaker and ensemble" was suggested but I said that Mr. Lachenmann is alive and may read the hook. "composition" without indicating what kind (song? oratorio? ...?) is vague, and to reduce the complexity of the composer's thought processes to "fear and desire" seems like an oversimplification almost not worthy to be mentioned, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said "per nomination andWP:DYKTRIM" — you'll remember that hooks focus on article subject, no matter the birthdays or potential internet-use of related people. If you feel the hook is oversimplified, shall I pull it so you can propose alternativesGerda Arendt?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)21:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In articles, Inever leave a composition without the name of the composer (Mozart'sDon Giovanni), and to say for which group of players is also common and expected information, both are factual information about the article subject. They seem even more necessary here where the title is in a language many readers will not understand.Surtsicna, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only personally, of course, “for speaker and ensemble” might as well be in Amharic for all I can understand it. “The composition zwei Gefuhle” is practically Ciceronian by comparison.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)21:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did note in the nomination that the hook would probably do better trimmed. I suggested taking out "for speaker and ensemble". Perhaps the composer's name could be restored if that is what motivated Gerda to write the article in the first place. We should keep in mind that the point is to draw people's attention to the new content–in this case the article about the composition. Given the shortness of an average person's attention span, we should avoid unfamiliar terms and specialist language if we want people to read about the composition.Surtsicna (talk)21:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about this compromise: drop the scoring (although then it could be just a little song ...) but restore the composer as someone active. In the present version, the tense seems wrong, because it is still based. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept over it: I find unfair that the text author (of a few lines) is mentioned with his full name, and the composer/creator of the music not at all. I suggest a compromise, or reopening of the nom. I go for peace this year, don't want more than two comments in a discussion and to avoid two discussions at different locations.
I do not see why the nomination was pulled entirely: ALT0c seems just fine and it could have been just swapped in. I imagine many readers are unfamiliar with Lachenmann (he isn't one of those composers who most readers would recognize by name), so my suggestion would be either to link him or to mention his full name. Can the hook be repromoted with ALT0c?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Airship the page wizard. I need your help with some stuff. First i need you to please draftBarefooted Flight, because it's not ready for mainspace, Second i need your help to moving Pages like moving First Kazakh-Dzungar War into First Kazakh–Dzungar War,Draft:Dzungar-Russian conflicts into Draft:Dzungar–Russian conflicts mainly of the use of hyphens instead of using the En dash, move Battle of Urmity to Erdeni's first campaign against Kazakhs because the battle should be a section and it should be prior to Erdeni's second campaign against Kazakhs (1640). Thanks.- The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk)08:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the life of meHorseBro the hemionus I cannot understand why you persist in churning out these poorly-sourcedWP:SYNTHy "Kazakh-Dzungar War of X-date to Y-date" articles, when the mainKazakh–Dzungar Wars article isright there in a bad state! Can you tell me what's wrong with improving it?
You do not get special credit by creating several bad articles. In fact, it just makes you're trying to inflate the importance of the topics you're interested in. Do not imagine that you're the first one to come up with this idea; last year, five editorswere topic banned for engaging in the same sort of inflating and POV-pushing in the field of Indian military history.
You should not, because they are not mentioned inGaza war. If a unit did not contribute enough/do something notorious enough to be mentioned in the main body of the main article, they should not be in the main infobox.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m writing to you because my GA nomination forHooshmand Dehghan was failed while I was caught in the2026 Internet blackout in Iran. The reviewer (Magnesium Cube) gave me a 3-day window to respond and then closed it right when I had no access.
The fail was based on AI claims, but the article has407 revisions and24 editors (including recent copyedits by Gazelle55). If you look at my edits onJan 7-8, I was manually adding specific page numbers from physical books likeBrowne 1918—something an AI simply doesn't do.
It’s frustrating to lose weeks of waiting in the queue because of a 15-day blackout. Since the article is already well-developed and verified by others, could you help me fast-track it or put it back in its original spot so I don't have to wait another few weeks or months?
MagnesiumCube has just posted a note on theHooshmand Dehghan talk page, clarifying that the previous AI concerns were misplaced and explaining the context of the internet blackout. I thought you might want to see this update. Best regards.Mojgoontalk20:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AirshipJungleman29! Please advise me on how to handle the situation regarding @HorseBro the hemionus. I have repeatedly explained to this editor that Wikipedia articles must be based on the findings of professional historians, yet he seems to ignore everything I write. He has published two articles: "Kazakh-Dzungar War of 1708–1718" and "Kazakh-Dzungar War of 1731–1735." However, not a single historian consolidates the conflicts within these timeframes into single, unified wars; these were essentially separate campaigns. For instance, V. Z. Galina identifies only a war from 1708–1712, and that is all. Regarding the 1731–1735 period, Kushkumbayev (a source cited in the footnotes) explicitly writes that the first half of the 1730s consisted of mutual minor skirmishes. Furthermore, he is preparing another draft, "Kazakh-Dzungar War of 1635–1658," which similarly lacks support in recognized historiography. I have warned this user multiple times via private messages. An hour ago, I wrote to him again, but only thirty minutes later, he proceeded to post another article as if nothing had happened. I strongly suspect that he is acting out of spite and deliberately disregarding..Онеми (talk)12:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HorseBro the hemionus here. I do base my articles of off reliable sources, Such as Moiseev, 1991, Erofeeva, 2007, Adle, 2003 and more. These articles are based off of descriptions from other articles and similar. Such as toAustro-Turkish War (1788–1791) andRusso-Turkish War (1735–1739), which has no namings from any sources. And you are taking sources out of contexts, as Moiseev, 1991 and Kushkumbaev, 2003 mentions there were invasions and battles such as the Battle of the Ayagoz river. Also my Drafts do have reliable sources as well, as i removed former unreliable sources like Temigraliev and added better sources and citations. And you did not message me on Telegram nor Discord.- The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk)12:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Онеми, in the future, do not give warnings privately, give them in public. Actions such as sanctions are usually only taken if someone is openly warned beforehand.HorseBro the hemionus, you know perfectly well that your understanding of sourcing, whether that regards copyright or notability, has been seriously flawed. I will give you the same advice I gave to one of your former collaborators—cease yourWP:OWNERSHIP of topics and articles, and accept guidance from those warning you. If you do not, your path only leads one way—to blocks.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @AirshipJungleman29. I honestly can't deal with him anymore; his unblocking has led to nothing good. He continues to publish articles based on his own ideas without any substantiation. Recently, I lost my device and have now created a new Wikipedia account from a different one, which is why I am writing from this new profile. Because of this, I lost all my books, and as a result, I cannot confidently continue my activities on Wikipedia. Hors has once again released his fictional wars:1635–1658,1681–1686,1698–1703, and1731–1735. I am at my wits' end—moreover, in the article regarding 1681–1686, he removed my sourced text as if it were nothing and claimed there was no source. Do I really need to cite the exact same source and page for every single sentence in a paragraph? I state plainly: this user's contribution is destructive and falsified; it even goes as far as him uploading modern images without knowing whether they are subject to copyright or not. A major problem is that he writes about these "victories" for "cool videos" where people set Dzungar warriors or khans to cool/beautiful music, showcasing Dzungar wars, campaigns, and battles as victories over other nations, thereby spreading lies. I have nothing against such videos as an idea, but they present falsifications. Separately, I’ll give a literal example regarding his claim that there are no sources indicating dates. His examples: "Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791)" - I am not an expert in the history of Turkey and Austria, but I have already found asource (2-3) where the years of the war are specified. A second example according to his logic: "Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)" - and here, too, I found asource immediately. I don't know what to do..Лунный Онеми (talk)19:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He literally reverted my edit in his article about the1635–1658 war without any justification. He cites Atygaev on page 138, but I am quoting what is actually written there: «Б.П. Гуревич писал, что при Сенге в результатепобед казахов вос-точная часть Жетысу фактически была освобождена от джунгар635, однако источники не подтверждают этого мнения. Из биографии Зая-Пандиты следует, что в 60-е гг. территория от Аягуза до Тала-са полностью находилась под контролем Джунгарского ханства. В частности, в междуречье рек Чу и Талас в эти годы находились кочевья Галдамбы, в районе р. Талгар была ставка Очирту-Цэ-цэн-тайши, Аюка и Цаган зимовали у Коксу и Каратала, севернее у р. Аягуз находились владения Аблай-тайши636.». It literally states that primary sources differ in opinion, yet he reverted the edit and wrote it in a way that suits his narrative. Furthermore, I provided him with asource regarding the 1652–1655 war, where historians hold the exclusive opinion that the Kazakhs won in 1655, and that is it-no further military actions were recorded. I state once again: this editor is acting in bad faith.Лунный Онеми (talk)20:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to hear you lost access to your accountЛунный Онеми; I've put a userbox on your userpage perWP:ALTNOTIFY so everyone is clear on that point. I've started looking at the Horsebro account's edits, and yes, most of them are pretty substandard. Source misrepresentation,WP:SYNTH, the lot.
WP:SYNTH, not enough coverage of the pages and I will start a consensus on the related page, wherger to create the pages. If agreed, will create the draftpages, and before submitting i would ask suggestions and feedback for improvement. (Whn creating pages) and about Pre-existing pages, i will make a galk page consensus for improvement or to draft the page as most of the articles i created, andedit them from suggestions or from help from Teahouse— The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk)02:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
