User talk:Aircorn/Archive 1

re: your message
Hi Aircorn, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Garage
Hi there. As per WP:MOSTM and WP:NC we do not use non-standard capitalisation, regardless of the preferences of the organisation involved. We use standard English capitalisation throughout wikipedia, unless the non-standard capitalisation is so widespread to become "standard", for instance, iPod. Hope this helps, Nouse4aname (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2
I saw your name at the copyeditors guild page. I was wondering if you would like to copyedit this article for FAC. The lead has already been done, so everything after that needs checking. Thanks for your help. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I have the skills yet to copy-edit a FAC article. You will probably be better off getting the help of someone who has been editing Wikipedia longer than me AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Hey! I saw you as a member on the Guild of Copy-Editors and am wondering if you could help me out with an article I am working on, the Nobel Prize. A quite important article since, many link to it etc. I think the content is starting to get good but it really needs some copy-editing which I apparently isn't suited for. Do you have any chance to help out?
 * Still learning how this all works, but I will have a look and see what I can do AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here :) I saw your edits, great! Thanks for helping out, very kind :)

Cheers --Esuzu 10:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed! You have done very good :) The article is a lot better now if you compare it to some days ago. Hopefully it will pass the GAN and then perhaps I will try to take it further :) Thanks for the help! --Esuzu 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)



--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bacillus thuringiensis
Would you mind explaining why you made this edit? I can't immediately see a reason for removing the information. Cheers Smartse (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Smartse, no problem. My original aim was style. The way it was written was like a journal article and not very encyclopedic. The Zakharyan information was added back in the next day (compare here). I decided to have a look in the literature and Google scholar comes up with very little and the paper that does mention him also mentions others . He is also mentioned in some books and since I cannot read Russian I am willing to assume that he was the first to discover a plasmid. His 1979 paper seems to be the most cited and I think it could be used as a reference for the discovery of the plasmid, but I am not convinced of his significance to have his name in the article and three references. I did try to fit in the discovery of the plasmid in my second re-write, but in the end decided that it read best without it and the article did not lose much. I have no strong personal feelings either way as to its inclusion as long as it fits in with the flow of the article and is not over-represented. Thanks for asking and not just reverting AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, it's was just that without a reason in the edit summary it seemed like a strange edit. I've been meaning to add this source and that makes no mention of Zakharyan so it looks like a good call. It looks like it would have some extra information regarding its early use as it was written in 1967. If you don't have access and want to add any info drop me an email at Special:EmailUser/smartse and I can send you a copy. Smartse (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I could have written a better summary or at least used the talk page. Got your paper thanks, not sure it helps the Zakharyan situation as it is written before he seems to have done his work. I am writing a report at the moment about Bt and other pesticides as part of my study and will include any notable or relevant information from that. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Smartses Talk Page

Hi AIRcorn. I found time for reply.Sorry for delay.First of all it is very strange to me ,that you "now is writing a report at the moment about Bt and other pesticides " have been use only Google Scholar as a source for evaluation of scholarly research contribution to the academic field for Zakharyan R.A. For this you should be alredy familiar with the subject or go to original articles published by prominent scientists. Articles : Zakharyan R.A.et al. Possible role of extrachromosomal DNA in the formation of the isecticidal endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Inst.Exp. Bol., Yerevan,USSR. Doklady Akademii Nauk Armyanskoi SSR (1976), 63(1), 42-47. CODEN: DANAAW ISSN: 0321-1339.Journal written in Russian. CAN 86:68301 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS). Zakharyan R.A. "Study of plasmids and specific endonucleases of Bacillus thuringiensis". Genet. Actinomitsetov i Batsill. Sb. Dokl. Sovet.- American Konf., Erevan (1977), 249-252. From: Ref.Zh., Biol.Khim. 1979,Abstr. No. 17Kh102. Journal written in Russian. CAN 91: 207298 AN 1979:607298 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS) and Zakharyan R.A et al.(1979). "Plasmid DNA from Bacillus thuringiensis".(USSR) Microbiologiya 48 (2): 226–229. ISSN 0026-3656. became available in international circulation to the world scientific community already in 1976-79. See example of citations in next selected articles,writed by prominent scientists and listed below,: Clayton C. Beegle and Takhashi Yamamoto (1992).Review. "INVITATION PAPER ( C. P. ALEXANDER FUND) : History of Bacillus thuringiensis berliner research and development". Canadian Entomologist 124: 587–616. doi:10.4039/Ent124587-4(1992). Dean D.H. ( October 1984).Review."Biochemical Genetics of the Bacterial Insect-Control Agent Bacillus thuringiensis:Basic Principles and Prospects for Genetic Engineering". Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews-vol.2,341-363. XU Jian, LIU Qin, YIN Xiang-dong and ZHU Shu-de (2006). "A review of recent development of Bacillus thuringiensis ICP genetically engineered microbes". Entomological Journal of East China 15 (1): 53–58. R. LANDEN, A. HEIERSON AND H. G. BOMAN, A Phage for Generalized Transduction in Bacillus thuringiensis and Mapping of Four Genes for Antibiotic Resistance .Journal of General Microbiology (198 l), 123,49-59. Printed in Great Britain. N. Shivarova 1 *, W. Förster 1 2, H.-E. Jacob 1 2, R. Grigorova 1 2 Microbiological implications of electric field effects VII. Stimulation of plasmid transformation of Bacillus cereus protoplasts by electric field pulses. Z Allg Mikrobiol.1983, v. 23(9),595-599. V.I. Miteva, N.I. Shivarova and R.T. Grigorova(1981)Transformation of Bacillus thuringiensis protoplasts by plasmid DNA. FEMS Microbiology Letters 12 (1981) 253-256 253. KAZUNORI ABE, ROBERT M. FAUST, LEE A. BULLA, JR.t ,"Plasmid Deoxyribonucleic Acid in Strains of Bacillus sphaericus and in Bacillus moritai’ "JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY 41,328-335(1983). Karabekov B.P. et al.1982. Transmissible genetic factors in Bac. thuringiensis:reasons for difference in some biochemical properties in wild type strains of Bac. thuringiensis var. gallerea. Genetika(USSR) 18,1069-68. Ambartsumian N.S. et al.1987 "Comparative characterisation of extrachromosomal DNA of Bac.thuringiensis serotype H-14 strains.Microbiologiya (USSR) 56,243-48. Zakharyan's articles are referenced ("not in some books"- as you presented to Smartse), but, as you found in GOOGLE-books, referenced by world recognised scienists with outstanding contributions in science, including 6 what I have known before In :"Fermentation process development of industrial organisms", 1989, ISBN 0-8247-7917-7 . Edited by Justin O. Neway. Marcel Dekker INC. N.Y.(Zakharyan R.A. et al.1979). In :"Advances in microbial control of insect pests", 2003, ISBN 0-306-47491-3. Edited by R. K. Upadhyay.Kluver Academy Plenum Publisher.N.Y. ( Zakharyan R.A. 1976). In :Pathogens of invertebrates: application in biological control and ...‎ - Page 159 Thomas Clement Cheng, Society for Invertebrate Pathology. Meeting - Science - 1984 - 278 pages,(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976,They later isolated three plasmids from B. thuringiensis var. caucasicus.Zakharyan et al., 1979). In :Revista biología, Volumes 12-14‎ - Page 84 Universidad de La Habana. Facultad de Biología - Science,El primer trabajo que demuestra la presencia de plásmidos en Bacillus Thuringiensis data de 1976 (Zakharyan 1976) ya partir de ahí, ... In: Bioprocess engineering: the first generation‎ - Page 290 Tarun K. Ghose - Science - 1989 - 389 pages.(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976) In: The Molecular biology of the bacilli, Volume 2 ‎David A. Dubnau - Science - 1985 - 259 pages(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976,1979) . In 2003 Zakharyan's 1976 paper was referenced in book edited by R.K. Upadhyay(see above). In 2006 Zakharyan"s 1976 paper was referenced in Review : Entomological Journal of East CHINA:XU Jian, LIU Qin, YIN Xiang-dong and ZHU Shu-de (2006). "A review of recent development of Bacillus thuringiensis ICP genetically engineered microbes". Entomological Journal of East China 15 (1): 53–58.. AIRcorn, Now read what are saying in scientific press scientist with the outstanding contribution in the BT, Dean D.H., Clayton C. Beegle , Takhashi Yamamoto in their review articles about Zakharyan's 1976,1979 work and discovery (see above):exact the words and phrase that you have removed from text and articles from references:"Zakharyan R. A.(1976,1979) first reported the presence of plasmids in B.thuringiensis and suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore/crystal formation,also described the presence of large plasmid in Cry+ variant of B.thuringiensis."; and also look Thomas Clement Chang  statement:"the first study suggesting that plasmids play role in coding for the biosynthesis  was Zakharyan et al. 1976.They later isolated three plasmids from Bt......Zakharyan et al.1979" also XU Jian's et al. article(2006)(Zakharyan R.A. 1976); and other authors. Zakharyan's name has been presented among names of 26 scientists evalueted with landmark work in Bt. since 1901( I.S.Ishiwata's discovery). So,the information that you have and provided to Smartse" that information to you comes up very little and that paper(you presented just only one, Landen R et al.) does mention him (Zakharyan) also mentions others" and other statements are irrelevant, and the statement mentionet by you to Smartse that"His 1979 paper seems to be the most cited" and only "can be used as a reference" also irrelevant and I am sure because of lack of good information. The discovery of plasmids in Bt and experimental evidence suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore /crystal formation by Zakharyan R.A. was followed by intensive research to characterise plasmids and determine their role in Bt-endotoxin production, followed by growing Bt -recombinant technology and industry.In this way remarkable and outstanding work was done by J. Gonsales ,H.E.Schnepf and H.R.Whiteley. And one more,articles in Wikipedia to be more encyclopedic should include names and even photo of#1 contributors in the field.I am looking forward to see new version of your article asap.Erkad,talk.


 * Hi Erkad. Thanks for replying. It was bad form of me not to allow you more time to respond to my question before changing the article and I apologise for that. As I said in my reply to Smartse above my original intention was to just fix the style. I feel my first edit did not remove any of the information, just Zakharyans name and merged the two sentences together.
 * From

"'Zakharyan R.A et al. (1976,1977,1979) first reported the presence of plasmids in B. thuringiensis and suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore/crystal formation. They also described the presence of large plasmid in the Cry+ variant of B. thuringiensis.'"
 * To

"'In 1976, the presence of a plasmid that was suggested to be involved in the endospore or crystal formation was found in a strain of B. thuringiensis.'"
 * The or should be an and, but it was a sincere attempt to improve the readability of the paragraph. The reasons I later deleted the entire sentence are outlined above to Smartse. Also as I stated above I was willing to accept Zakharyan as the first to discover the plasmid. There is this and this. However, I am surprised that their are not more cites of his work in journals. I will insert the sentence I had above back into the article and use Zakharyans name. It would read better if we had a first (which I think is Robert, but that would be original research). I am still not convinced that he is notable enough to have his name in there, but it is probably better to have too much information than not enough, and the Bt article is hardly overflowing with info. Anyway have a look and tell me what you think. Also it might be more useful to add any further discussions to the talk page. I should have done that to start with. Regards AIR corn (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi AIRcorn, In article Bt I did small change 1979 to 1976.Thank's for prompt answer.Erkad,talk. Hi AIRcorn,to be consistent in Bt. "Discovery and Study" please consider, that the enormous progress in Bt -recombinant technology followed by today's  Bt.-industry was a result of a discovery of plasmids and a large one identified in Cry+ strain with  evidence suggesting that crystal protein is specified by plasmid DNA (Zakharyan 1976,1979), discovery  that a large plasmid has been associated with crystal protein production( Gonzales JM et al. 1981. Correlation between specific plasmids and endotoxin production in Bt. Plasmid 5,351-365.),  and recombinant technology successfuly was  applied  for cloning crystal toxin gene (Schnepf H.E. and Whiteley H.R. 1981. Cloning  and expression of the Bt. crystal protein gene in E.coli. Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 78,2893-2897.). Facts speak for themselves.Cheers Erkad (talk).tures|unsigned]] comment added by Erkad (talk •

Nobel Prize, again!
Hey Aircorn!

As you saw the FA nomination of the Nobel Prize failed, much thanks to the pictures I think. But also because of the referencing I believe. I have been trying to fix some references, but there is a lot that needs to be done. I found out a way to replace many of the sources from the nobelprize.org page; this |this book seems to contain most of the info that we are referenced from the nobelprize.org site. Do you have time to help me re-reference those parts? -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do what I can with the referencing. I had a go at the lead the other day, but it is very time consuming. To get FA I think we will need to remove the references to Encyclopaedia Britannica as well as most of the ones to nobelprize.org. We should be able to leave the one to Lemmel as it is written by someone on behalf of the Nobel Foundation and the Nobel Lectures plus some that can only (or best) be confirmed by linking to that site. There are multiple references for some sentences where we could simply remove one or two that are not notable. We should probably use templates to keep the format consistent. Should be fun AIR corn (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Currently there are several templates used for citing books. We should use only one of them. Will try to look into which one is best.

Cheers! -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about using this template for citing books: " " (you have to look when you edit it, don't know how to show just the code). It links back to the book list as well which is nice imo. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I have fixed all problems I can see now and there is only some image issues left which I am trying to get help with atm. Hopefully they will be fixed until next week and then I will nominate it to FA again. If you have time to help out on the nomination page I'd appreciate it :) I'll contact you again before nominating. Cheers! -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I will nominate the article tomorrow or the day after! Help if you have time :) -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry have been pretty busy with real life recently. I am going away hiking during Easter in a couple of days so won't be any help then. If I get time before leaving I will have a look at some of the remaining references that cite the Nobel website. AIR corn (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Enjoy your hike! -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Game Development
Hi. There appears to be some vandalism going on at the game development article by a group of anonymous users. They keep inserting the same information so it could just be the same person. What would the best course of action would be if this continues. AIR corn (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Page protection.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ...or, if urgent, Administrator intervention against vandalism.


 * In this specific case, I will ask someone to look at it, and let you know the outcome.  Chzz  ►  02:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks AIR corn (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for 3 months, [log]. Thanks for the shout.  Chzz  ►  03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Amy Sedaris
Hi again. Am having a problem with an anonymous IP at the Amy Sedaris page. They keep adding the same information and even though it is referenced, the references do not appear viable. Getting close to WP:3RR, but not quite overstepping it yet. Has added the same stuff 14 times since the 7th of March and has been reverted by five different editors. I moved the discussion to the Talk Page on the 12th and have had no response yet from the IP, although another editor has responded. They have been asked to discuss it at their talk page and I have recently started warning them.

My question is can I report them for Vandelism (although there edits themselves are not vandalism the repeated insertion of them might be), keep warning them (am I using the correct templates), report for edit waring, ask for page protection or just keep reverting their edits. Still relatively new at this and want to make sure I follow they correct procedure. Regards AIR corn (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You should form a consensus, and if the IP adds material in repeatedly contrary to that consensus, it can be considered disruptive. You should leave a note to them about edit warring, and if they do not respond on their talk page, try another form of dispute resolution.  fetch  comms  ☛ 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As it seems like a potential BLP violation, I would keep it removed unless better sources are found.  fetch  comms  ☛ 23:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt
I saw and admired your detailed list of CO's, though I'm among those who aren't convinced it belongs in the article. (I'm NOT the guy who took it out, though.) You've got lots of detail there, and I'm wondering where you got it. The FDR has a couple of "alumni" sites, and if they don't already have your list, I'll bet they'd like to have it. I spent a week or so on the FDR in 1964, therefore my interest in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lou. Actually I came across them when I was patrolling recent changes. I was going to revert but decided there might be some useful information there so I just reformatted them. To be honest I really know nothing about that article and have no issue with them being removed. An anonymous IP added them User talk:173.79.110.8 so you may want to ask him/her where they came from. These sources were supplied with the original edit if they help Sources: USS Franklin D. Roosevelt CVB/CVA/CV-42 Reunion (http://www.ussfdrcv42reunion.com); Ron Reeves & Wolfgang Hechler (REALLY FROM THIS WEBSITE WHICH HAS ALL THIS INFO:  Regards AIR corn (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Apostles of Linnaeus copyedit
Hey Aircorn! I recently created an article, Apostles of Linnaeus that I plan to nominate for GA as soon as possible. Before that I think some copyediting would be needed. Since you made a great work on the Nobel Prize article I wondered if you would like to help me out with this again? Cheers, Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Glofish
Woops, you are absolutely correct! Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother AIR corn (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GMT
Nice work on the article, if (as I think it is) it is mostly new content, rather than copied from elsewhere, we should nominate it for DYK. I'll try to add a few more references to it today. Smartse (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Thanks for the copy edit. I have some extra sources here if you are looking to insert some more information. I was going to have a play with them tomorrow, but feel free to use them now. Everything is new apart from the Flavr Savr and Fish tomato info. Not sure what the hook would be, maybe something general. AIR corn (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added info about plant vaccines, the others sources weren't much use. Might start developing an article on Genetically modified tobacco next. It is not mentioned in the tobacco article or any other one that I can see. One of the most important GM products. AIR corn (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GeeJo beat us to it on the nomination, see here for the hook. I've added a bit more about using GM in research - we could add a lot more if we wanted to... Smartse (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Genetically modified tomato
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Controversy
See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.-- Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01   talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here:, and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Link
Hi Aircorn,

Wikilinks are case-sensitive, apart from the first letter and a few other little quirks. You wanted Stanley Cohen (biochemist), not Stanley Cohen (Biochemist).

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just removed the square brackets to further tidy it up. AIR corn (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, should have checked that :-/ Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GM potatoes
Hi Aircorn, I just came across Árpád_Pusztai - it was my understanding that this study was discredited, but the article makes no mention of it, do you know of any sources we can use to balance it? Smartse (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the really late reply. Am on holiday and this is the first real chance to check wikipedia. Will be able to have a look properly in a couple of days whan I get home if it is still a problem. I think the royal society released something saying Puztais conclusions where flawed. AIR corn (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've been away myself for a while, hope you had a good holiday. That source looks perfect, I'll try to fix it up this week sometime. Thanks for finding it! Smartse (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at that article I would say it needs information removed not added. I left my thoughts on the discussion page. AIR corn (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular --Rumping (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I got them all. AIR corn (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Blue rose
Hello. You recently added a citation to a book by Alphascript Publishing to this article. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source as the text derives entirely from Wikipedia; this is a circular reference. See WP:ALPHASCRIPT. I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed; many other editors have also been duped by these sources.

Another source to be wary of is the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International as their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). Fences &amp;  Windows  22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did not even think of that. Will keep an eye out for it from now on. AIR corn (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue Roses "in contemporary culture"
Hi Aircorn. I just wanted to leave a message on your talk page so you don't always have to go to mine in reference to the blue roses article. I said in my talk page that the Simpsons episode featuring blue roses is in line with the rest of the article. I also said that I would try to find a reference, but I unfortunately could find none. None of the reviews I found mentioned the roses, and a Google search provided mostly message forums!-RHM22 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am not inconvenienced answering on your talk page, I currently have it watched and will continue to do so until we finish chatting. It also helps to keep all the information on one page so if someone else is interested it is easier to follow. AIR corn (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good to me.-RHM22 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Richie McCaw
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lympha
Thanks for the nomination, where I've provided some links to help you verify. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I read your comment. You are right. I ll keep that in mind.AKY 13:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amityadavigib (talk • contribs)

CIVIC
Hi Aircorn. I removed the content on the page and posted it in my sandbox because there's someone that is affiliated with the organization that felt the org was misrepresented through the article. I removed it entirely so she doesn't feel uncomfortable with it being up. user:SoAuthentic SoAuthentic 00:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoAuthentic (talk • contribs)


 * You might run into a problem with removing the content. My understanding is that once something is contributed to Wikipedia you give up all right to it (I think it is more technical than that, but it amounts to the same thing). Basically anyone can edit it, re-use it on other websites and it cannot be revoked. As far as I know the only way to remove all the content from an article is to put it up for deletion. I don't think you will have much luck with that however as someone from the organisation feeling misrepresented is not a very good reason, but feel free to try. Your best bet would be to try and improve the article so it does not misrepresent the organisation. By the way, in case you haven't noticed I have restored the article (see WP:BLANK). AIR corn (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

McCaw PR
You are most welcome. Glad to help. Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:NZ for FAC
Sounds like a good idea -and yes, I've had a hand in two or three FAs to do with New Zealand (Caversham, New Zealand, The Catlins, and Francis Petre (architect)), but am pretty busy with non WP stuff these days. The main advice I can give - apart from the fact that there are plenty of very good NZ editors who are likely to help - is to get the article as good as you can, then present it for peer review. You'd be amazed at how much more an article can be honed by peer reviewers! There's also some good advice in the essays listed at the bottom of WP:FACR. Grutness...wha?  04:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cenotaph in New Zealand Article
No problem. I guess I put a comment there at the time, as you said, as there was probably some mention that it was a National War memorial or something - can't remember. Feel free to remove any hidden comments I made about this. :) Wallie (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

McCaw GA review
I've reviewed the article please do the improvements. Thanks. KnowIG (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time. I have made a start and will address the remaining concerns as soon as I can AIR corn (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Biological Engineering
Exactly! :) The best solutions come from everybody's contribution. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image licensing
Hi Aircorn, you might want to revise the license you've offered File:New Zealand Cities.PNG under. It's currently licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.5, but you say it comes from http://www.maps-for-free.com/. I think from reading the "About" link there that it would actually be licensed under the GFDL (version 1.2 or later). --Avenue (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the license to the 1.2 version. I used this File:Reliefmap of Australia.png as a template when uploading (mistakenly thinking a image used in a reviewed featured article would be suitable). Do I need to add permission from me personally for the lines and text I added? AIR corn (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think some clarification would be wise. Say that maps-for-free.com is the source for the relief map, and that you added the labels and lines, and are licensing the derivative work under the GFDL. (Template:GFDL would be even better than GFDL-1.2, if you're happy with the "or later version" part.) Ideally a (free) source should also be given for the locations of the cities; I think this CIA map covers them all. --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pipectrodes"
Hi, regarding User_talk:70.30.86.139, I get how linking to one particular brand of "pipectrode" might look like spam but how is the mere mention of that trademarked portmanteau not itself spam? I work in this field and had not heard of "pipectrodes" before reading this article (we use the cuvette type devices where I work). I searched the web and it seems like it's a trademark, not a generic term. What's the right way to include such information in Wikipedia? Does it even belong? I added that link in the mere hope of being helpful to the next person who reads the article and asks themselves what the heck a "pipectrode" is. The term seems to have been added in 2008 with a makeshift "registered trademark" symbol ("(R)") that was later removed.

Aside: maybe I'll sign up for an account sometime...


 * Hi. To be honest I don't know a lot about electroporation and have never heard of Pipectrodes either. The page is on my WP:Watchlist as I added a template to it a while ago. I reverted your edit as it linked to a commercial site. A lot of businesses try and advertise through Wikipedia by adding links to there sites and I wrongly thought that was your intention. Looking at your above link it appears someone added information about a particular product (the Cloning Gun), which was subsequently edited out. Pipectrode remained, probably as the editor thought it was a part of all electroporators. I think mentioning trademarks should be avoided unless they are important to understanding the topic. There will be a policy out there about it somewhere I am sure. Pipectrodes does not seem important to me so I will have no objections to it being removed.
 * To make something clearer it is probably best to add a short sentence to the article or put a simple description in brackets. Wikilinking, as you did the second time, is also recommended. Links to sites outside of Wikipedia should not be used in the text, but added under the External links header at the end of the article. There are guidelines on what external links should and should not be included.
 * I hope you don't feel too bitten and continue to add information. I recommend signing up, a lot of vandalism comes from ips and they are generally treated with a lot more suspicion than logged in editors. If you have any questions I will try and help, or at least point you in the direction of someone who can. Regards AIR corn (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

SBW
Hello. I don't mean to sound offended but why did you delete the "other" section for Sonny Bill? I don't think they are trivial and they give readers greater knowledge and insight and different perspective of Sonny Bill. I just don't see why it has to be deleted. The information is not POV or any other unreferenced garbage. Why not just leave it up? Please don't look at this as an attack upon your person. Hope to hear your POV soon. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Suid. No offence taken at all. It might be better to have this discussion on the talk page so other editors can view it however. Basically to me it does not seem that encyclopaedia that he was the fifth most searched for name on google in New Zealand. Not everything has to be added to Wikipedia and adding too much minor detail detracts from his other, arguably more important, achievements. A section titled other doesn't sit well with me either. We can start a thread on the talk page to get other editors opinions if you like. AIR corn (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No that's fine. I do not want to come across as being so desperate over the issue. I just thought they were achievements in their own right i.e. Showing his popularity off the field- whether that be on google or the Nickolodean awards or terms named after him. But I can accept your POV too. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. AIR corn (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

septins
Hi Aircorn Thank you for your kind reply. Once I undid the deletion and saw the picture still wasn't there, I realized that the real issue was that someone deleted the picture from wiki commons. In turn, the dead link was removed from the article. The latter of these actions was fine (thank you for hiding the dead link again), the first was not. The pictures was there for years, I created it and hence there was no copyright issue, and then suddenly it's deleted just like that, without warning or informing me, and I can't even undo it. The reason is a joke: "it has been deleted from Commons by Masur because: No permission since 13 February 2011." No permission for 13 days? Gives me a hell lot of time to react - especially when I am not informed. I contacted Masur and asked him to restore the picture. I am not sure - after all those years, if I still have the picture my-self. Is there any way to undelete a picture, the way you can undo text changes? I could not find any way so far ...

Well, sorry for sounding a little frustrated, I just am. But I am really glad and thankful that you are of the helpful kind and not one of the self-appointed wiki police guys whose hobby is to destroy the work of others "in the name of good".

Best regards - spitfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire ch (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure only administrators on commons can restore the file so I can't help you there. I can't even view it to see what needs to be done. I have only uploaded a few images, but I know the licensing can be tricky, but if you created it then it should be straight forward enough. Hopefully Masur gets back to you soon and it can be sorted out. I will leave a message on his commons account to make sure it is received. If not we could contact another administrator and take it from there. Best AIR corn (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Aircorn, that's very kind of you! Spitfire ch (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster edits
I gather you considered inappropriate the material I added to the lede regarding the Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment estimate of 985,000. Perhaps, however as the lede is presently written it starts at a low of 31 deaths (those that happened immediately following the accident) to a high of 200,000. This high figure is inconsistent with the body of the article, since the high estimate is actually 985,000. Anyone reading the article is likely to be struck by this inconsistency.

Could we perhaps rewrite this paragraph in shorter form (I acknowledge that my revision was too long and incorporated more information than necessary) so that the last paragraph of the lede would be consistent with the body of the article? It might also be less jarring for the reader to proceed from the low figure to the high figure consecutively, rather than jumping between the low, high, and medium figures. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Apostle. The 31 figure is the immediate deaths and is really a separate issue to the estimated potential deaths as many cancers resulting from the radiation will not be apparent for some time. Before I got involved the lead read "from possibly 4,000 to close to a million", which I felt was too vague and so vast as to be almost meaningless. There are lots of references for estimates of potential deaths and I think the most reliable figures should be included in the lead with the rest discussed in the body. I joined a discussion here before making the change. We should probably discuss this there or under a new heading on the talk page before making any more changes. Cheers AIR corn (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Place Names GA Review
Hi, No, I won't be working on the review - partly because I've worked extensively on related articles and NZ naming conventions, which may affect my objectivity. I had always assumed reviews were a community thing rather than a single user! dramatic (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tahiti and Tawhiti
I saw your question about this on Grutness' page. Just my two cents' worth here: In Tahitian and Maori, the root meaning of Ta(w)hiti is "distant". Presumably the first settlers to Tahiti thought it was a bit of a hike to get there. Maori wh often corresponds to f or h in other Polynesian languages (or even within Maori dialectically, ie powhiri versus pohiri). In Maori in the traditional stories, sayings like "Ki tawhiti, ki tawhiti-roa, ki tawhiti-pamamao" the original sense could well have been something like "into the distance, into the great distance, into the far-away distance". Of course that is open to well-meaning later reinterpretation as "To Tahiti, to Great Tahiti, to Tahiti-Far-Away ..." and it becomes "proof" of a connection to French Polynesia. In other words, when someone says things like Tawhiti comes from Tahiti, I tend to take it with a grain of salt Kahuroa (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kahuroa. Glad to see you are still around and I hope all is well in the real world. I got Tawhiti comes from Tahiti form the 1966 New Zealand Encyclopaedia, which may not be the best source. It also mentions that Raratoka Island is named for Rarotonga. The same argument could apply to that as well, that it was named "down south" independently of Raratonga, especially as it is down south. I have no qualms about removing either or both from the New Zealand place names article, but it may be better to add an explanation that these names may have come about independently. I will see if I can find a source. Feel free to check the accuracy of some of the other info I added into that article. I left a note at the Maori taskforce page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force, but things seem quite quiet there. AIR corn (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well given the closeness of the languages its not surprising that similar placenames occur, and many prob do come from the islands, eg Hikurangi. But as u say, all we have to is rely on sources rather than work out whats "true". All good now in real life Kahuroa (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Zealand place names
The article New Zealand place names you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Zealand place names for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the kind words. AIR corn (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suha Çalkıvik
Hi Aircorn,

The AfD for Suha Çalkıvik was redlinked in the log, I guess Twinkle failed on you? I fixed it, you might want to go and weigh in with your original deletion rationale. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please look at this diff and see if you have any problem with my changes (including any inadvertent close paraphrasing of the sources. If not, I will move it to article space and make future changes there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes look good to me. I would move them into the article. AIR corn (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules of netball
I've asked a couple of people on Wikipedia's IRC channel about the article and if they thought the article was at a place where it might be considered ready for GA. (The thinking being if we can improve the daughter articles for netball, it would be easier in the long run to get the netball article through FAC as we may need each section to basically end up having a more extended daughter article.) That's why I've done the major lead change. Any help with that would be appreciated. I'm happy to nominate it or allow some one else if they think the lede issue has been addressed (and that's the major criticism I've heard when asking people regarding the GA). You moved it over so it might be more appropiate. Most of my major contributions to it occurred when the article was a section on Netball. --LauraHale (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just copied it from the Netball article with my only contribution being the short lead, so it is pretty much your article. I just added that sentence back in so it begins with a bolded rules of netball in the first line. The lead should probably mention some more about the passing and probably doesn't need to specify the measurements. I can give the whole article a quick copy edit if you like and see what else I can find. AIR corn (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A copy edit would be very much appreciated. My guess was that the lead for Rules of netball should pretty much fit in the section for Netball under the rules.  I believe all the pictures used have alt text, are copyright status acceptable.  I removed one image that didn't seem to really illustrate the netball court.  I added a picture which shows passing a bit more.  (I can't find a better passing picture.  The ones on commons tend to emphasize shooting.)  The objectives section seems good enough.  Otherwise, yeah.  It seems good to me but no good RULES OF SPORT article to model to have an idea what a good article for this type of topic should look like... --LauraHale (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read somewhere that ideally all the overview articles should consist of the main articles leads. Practically I don't think that always works as more (or less) detail may be required in the main article. Not to mention the problem of keeping everything updated. I am not happy with the rules of netball section in Netball either. It could flow a lot better and I will work on that too. AIR corn (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead information is advice I keep consistently getting. :/ I've yet to figure out how helpful it is because I can't really see it working for the netball by region sections... but at the same time, I'm a bit stumped for how to address those.  If the lede issue is the major one, I would hope it wouldn't warrant a quick fail.  I do worry that there might be a reviewer who wants a history of the rules of netball in the article.  (It is and it isn't in similar articles but the best I've seen is C class or Start class for those.)  Let me know when you're happier with the lede. --LauraHale (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules of netball
It looks like when this article was split off from Netball, the content of the reference sources wasn't brought with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Thanks for the heads up. AIR corn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first reference, the one that says "Netball Australia", still appears to be missing, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, Please take this in the friendly spirit in which it is offered, but I believe the close paraphrasing problem was carried forward when you moved the table of positions as well. Please consider whether it would be better to quote the rules directly. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to where the close paraphrasing comes from? It is referenced to three different sources. I checked the online one and while some similarities exist, there are only so many ways you can describe some positions, overall it does a good job. In fact, I feel it describes the roles better than that website. I am going to assume good faith on the offline sources. AIR corn (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not question anyone's good faith.

"The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals. Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle. This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players." compares with: "This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the 'attacking' goal third, including the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html" Again, the article says: "The Wing Attack can move within the attacking goal third and centre third, but not in the shooting circle." compares with: "This player functions as the 'wing defense,' and can move within and across the 'attacking' goal third and center third, but not in the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html" I would put the bold text within quote marks. Racepacket (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but this may fall under "[Paraphrasing] is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing". As these are rules it is important to remain accurate and there are only a certain number of ways to say where on a court a player is allowed. However I have no problem with the wording being altered as long as the meaning is kept. I don't like the idea of putting them in quotes though, but am not particularly attached to that article so won't fight anyone over it. AIR corn (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is your call, but shouldn't you at least cite to http://www.internationalnetball.com as the source? Isn't that wording more accurate because the Wing Attack can cross between the attacking goal third and the centre third? Also, I am illustrating how inadvertent paraphrasing can occur, and I hope you are checking my work for the same potential problem, before clearing my sentences for article space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the book says something similar and it is perfectly fine as the source for the citation. As I said before there are only a few ways to explain the rules. AIR corn (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read your description of Wing Attack literally, it says that she can move within the goal third, or within the centre third, but not between the two. Racepacket (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a friendly reminder to resolve the close paraphrasing problems before nominating the article for a GA reivew. Best wishes, Racepacket (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Brown/GA1
Hi, I've addressed the major issues at the GAN. I'll continue fixing the minor issues over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review. —Designate (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No Problem. This is only my second review (the first unfortunately failed as the nominator did not respond) so I will ask someone (User talk:Jezhotwells if s/he agrees) to just double check I aint buggered it up. I feel it is looking good however so hopefully it is a formality. AIR corn (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to go. —Designate (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one further point. You need to edit the review page, Talk:Scott Brown/GA1, to indicate that you have bpassed it - currently the hold icon is still in place.  Jezhotwells (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

RSMAS
I have left several suggested wording improvements in the review, which you should consider and check for possible paraphrasing. If you concur, I will move them into the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Will try and get around to it tonight. AIR corn (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comments. We have very few items left to resolve. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to wrap the review up and am looking forward to hearing from you. Many thanks for your assistance on this review. Racepacket (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggested changes look fine to add into the article. Let me know when it is done and I will have a second read through. AIR corn (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not watching it, but I made the changes earlier today. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you need anything further? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry real life distracted me. Have left a few final points. AIR corn (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should try to wrap this up? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I believe we are done. Racepacket (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Darius Morris/GA1
I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Darius Morris/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded again. This time please strike your original concern if it has been satisfactorily addressed. This way, I can keep track of what issues remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)