User talk:Aircorn/Archive 11

You speak nonsense
My "posts" (edits) get reverted all of the time on talk pages If you are correct please point me to a PaG that validates your edit summary. BTW I did not edit anothers post. I reverted it. Pls get your facts correct.Oldperson (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:TPO (a shortcut to a section of the talk page guidelines) says near the start The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. There are very few valid reasons for removing or editing anothers post and I do not see any in the "outlined below" list that justify your removal. As for reverting see WP:REDACT (on the same guideline page).So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. took 8 minutes to refactor their comment from this to this and no one had responded. While it is technically true that you just reverted an addition to their comment in practice these quick edits are counted as part of the original comment, so I stand by my edit summary of "Don't edit others posts.". Finally, if your edits get reverted all of the time on talk pages then you might want to think about what you are posting there. From what I have seen you tend to stray into not a forum territory far too often. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As an aside I think that the whole part of that section they were responding to should be hatted (possibly with a few others) as it is in no way aimed at improving the article. But given I am involved I would rather just ignore them and let them archive for now (which I see is now back to 2 months). AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He's been warned about assuming good faith on talk pages, in this particular instance at Talk:TERF (20 October 2019). This editor has been both advised and warned several times about Wikipedia policies and guidelines: using Talk pages as a forum; gender-related topics discretionary sanctions; improper summaries; personal attacks against any editor; edit warring; removing talk page comments; biographical article discretionary sanctions. These are only a few examples. Whatever explanation he may grasp to excuse and dismiss these transgressions (didn't know about a policy or guideline, it was an edit conflict, etc.), he was made aware of them. Repeating any of them is unacceptable. This editor created his account on 12 August 2018 -- over one year ago. He's no longer a newbie editor. BTW, he accused ArbCom decisions, ANI consensus, and Wikipedia as a whole as being "weighted and controlled by the bias, beliefs and prejudices of interested parties" (25 September 2019). Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  09:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI: User:Oldperson made a personal attack against me on an editor's talk page in which he described me as "transphobic TERF P...S..." and that I am "extremely hostile and angry" (15 September 2019 -1).  He described editors as "TERFS allied with homophobes" and "adept at manipulating the guidelines like NPOV and AGF" (15 September 2019 -2), and made the accusation that there is "a conspiracy or at least a organized group effort" at Talk:TERF (9 October 2019).
 * am so sorry if I have misread you all. I am kind of old fashioned and am inclined to think that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a  duck. I arrived at my opinions  based on observed behavior. If I am wrong then please state so rather than go on a raging attack at me. Tell me that I am wrong please. That despite your apparent trans-woman edits at TERF that you all are not trans-phobic, or homophobic., TERF's or TERF adjacent. Rather than go on the attack tell me that such is not the case. I try very hard to assume good faith, but some times when one is beat over the head time and again it is hard to do so. Patience is not inexhaustible,neither is good will or the assumption of  good faith.Oldperson (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . This reply troubles me. It comes off very passive aggressive and extremely sarcastic given the context. Judging from the punctuation I am guessing it was written hastily. Would you like to clarify it please. AIRcorn (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I found their NOTFORUM comments annoying and mildly disruptive, but you present some more worrying diffs. This alone is one that would justify at least a block. I feel this will probably end badly. AIRcorn (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It needed to be seen. Because a disposition such as his towards another editor creates and fuels tension and friction. Because he has targeted me as "the enemy", he thinks he can delete or alter my comment in the talk page and rationalize doing so. The record of his behavior towards, and comments about, editors he disagrees with -- and this includes admins -- shows that he doesn't comprehend the basic principles expected from members of Wikipedia's community. Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  08:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The "have you stopped beating your wife" style of reply above doesn't give me much hope. You don't cast aspirations and then expect the editors disparaged to prove you wrong. Maybe it is a genuine apology, though I doubt it. I may not be 80, but I wasn't born yesterday either. FWIW I have been open about how I ended up at these articles from the start (see User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 15) so its not like I am part of some secret cabal that has been diligently working away here for nearly ten years learning all the arcane rules so I can enact my evil TERF plan of disrespecting transgendered people.


 * I don't have much of a problem with the many of the other editors at the page. Sure we disagree about sources and how to use them, but that is to be expected at any article. At least we can calmly discuss the sources. It is an area that is highly emotional to a lot of people and it is going to attract editors that are invested in it in some way, so a little bit of leeway might be appropriate for the odd frustrated outburst. Given the warnings and the repeated issues presented here this is not that. They are either willfully trolling, deliberately disruptive or just lack the competence to edit this topic. It doesn't really matter as the end result is often the same. AIRcorn (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made a total of 9 edits to the TERF article and all are evident in the editing history. And I'm not 80 either, but I'm old enough to be a grandmother. When I come to Wikipedia, I don't come bearing a sword, ready to do battle with perceived wrongs; however, I discovered long ago that certain articles, gender-related particularly, attract editors who are hypersensitive and easily offended. And no, that was no apology. Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  11:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And ... he screwed around again with another editor's comment: 21 November 2019. He is willfully ignoring the WP:TPO guidelines editors have brought to his attention -- including you. I think the time is growing closer to when other editors will need to be made aware of his obstinate behavior. (The I-don't-know-nothin'-'bout-birthin' rules shtick has worn thin.) Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  01:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I hate playing wikipolice. They are not going to listen to you or me. do you mind clearly explaining why they can't change other editors talk page posts. We could go to ANI or AE, but those turn nasty quickly (old hostilities and tribalism are common) and will turn into a time sink. If he was fooling around in article space it would be worth it, but I generally adopt an ignore off topic stuff policy on talk pages, although occasionally I still get drawn in. If he makes another personal attack like the one above though let me know as that is unacceptable. AIRcorn (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not the wiki police but rather a 10+ year editor who was selected by the community a few years ago to be an administrator by a consensus of active editors. Lots of people around here are smarter and more perceptive than I am.

Reverting talk page posts should be rare and limited to obvious things like removing gibberish, blatant personal attacks, copyright violations and off topic rambling. I have previously advised to focus on non-controversial topics and avoid being drawn like a moth to the flame of controversy. But that is only my attempt at helpful advice and is not any type of administrative warning. As for this thread, I am not fond of extended back and forths about personal interactions that have nothing to do with improving the encylopedia. That overriding goal should always be kept in mind when editors are tempted to be drawn into the honeypot of unproductive conversation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  09:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I am trying to follow your advice. I refuse to engage this user, and apparently they are quite upset at that. But I do believe that we have a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. I can't find the MOS article, but I do recall that editors should refer to each other in gender neutral terms, unless they declare on their user page. I have not declared anything on my user page, yet this editor insists on referring to me in the masculine pronoun. If by chance they made an assumption from reading my user page, then they are sorely mistaken. But you are right to stay away from these childish and churlish back and forths between editors. There are some editors and admins for which I have a great amount of respect, and there are some for whom I have none, (based on their performance) and unfortunately I have led my feelings bleed through. I am working on it though.Oldperson (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ^ Reality vs. tommyrot ^ is found in the diffs: Oldperson reverts my edit and leaves a snide summary directed at me. (14 September) Another editor reacts to the summary and advises Oldperson about being contentious. (14 September) I left a message on Oldperson's talk page about his/her/their summary. (15 September) He/she/they accuses me of trolling, stalking, and threatening him/her/them. (15 September) Then ... Oldperson posts a personal attack regarding me ("P...S...") in an editor's talk page. (15 September) Weeks later, Oldperson asks me a question in a talk page  (29 October), and instead of ignoring him/her/them, I respond (29 October). As you know well, what and editor does on Wikipedia, including  comments posted in talk pages, remains a permanent record in the history of diffs.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  12:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Heavens to Betsy. Art thou a wounded soul .How you have let me get inside of your head and ruin your days and nights. So much time and effort invested in trolling the diff's that I blanked. I can't imagine anyone worth that much of my time and mental effort. I am flattered that my poor opinion is of such importance to you, and Aircorn.Really. I also can't help but recall the old axiom that "Stuck pigs squeal". It is an axiom not an accusation or characterization.Oldperson (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Aircorn: if you want to collapse this discussion, it would be okay with me. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  12:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is nothing further to be gained from this at my talk page. All I can say is you are best to ignore any off topic or plainly inflammatory posts. They in no way advance the article and despite intentions probably do more harm for their cause than good. 90% of the world does not really care about these issues and even on Wikipedia, which by its very nature attracts the more curious, most will give this topic a hard pass. However, almost all the editors here care about good content, which essentially relies on good sources, so if you do feel the need to respond then make sure you do so with that in mind. Also thanks for your comment Cullen, not that you are probably watching anymore, I do appreciate that you, while not being a policeman, are willing to step in and offer advice in some of the more emotive areas. AIRcorn</b> (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

GA cleanup
Do you have any idea what to do with the massive backlog of things that need addressed for GA articles? Whenever I work on it I feel like I am not making a dent. Do you think we could get a few users to sign up for articles that start with a letter (I could take K for Kees08..) and trying to clear the list of articles that start with that letter? It would be nice if we could get individual wikiprojects to cleanup their own category of articles, but not sure how effective that would be (or even how to sort them that way).  Kees08  (Talk)   20:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Its been a while since I ran through those, but I remember it being a draining experience. It does look worse than it is though. I discovering one issue was triggered by the use of the asof template. Even now I looked at ...Baby One More Time (song), because it was first under "Clarification needed", and I could not find what this is referring to. As a general rule anything with more than 100 in the category is probably a too minor issue to worry about. Things like fixing dead links are not even part of the criteria. What we really need is a list that gives us the orange banner tags and maybe tags that relate directly to the criteria. I would also not worry too much with the more recently tagged ones. Often they can be worked out by interested editors without our involvement. It is the Good Articles with old unaddressed tags that we should probably focus on. I am going to finish closing the outstanding community GARs and then probably go through the GAR request. After that I was planning to look back at these. If you want to coordinate something though I would be keen. It would at least save doubling up and I have found it can be a bit less depressing if you know you are not the only one doing these types of tasks. I guess we could drop a few notes at WT:GAN and related pages. Wikprojects is a bit hit and miss. I often leave notes if there is an issue I can't fix myself, but don't get a hell of a lot of response (some are better than others). AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are good points; I addressed the one improper usage of non-free content (which had been there since 2016!). I also was clearing the bare url categories, which are not as big a deal but easier to solve. I require non-bare urls in my GA reviews but I maybe that is not a criteria? That and the citation needed tags look like they would take the most time to fix based on volume alone. I had posted about this on the GA talk page but it is already archived without gaining any traction. I was thinking of something similar in terms of tags that relate directly to the criteria. We could potentially create a list of categories that would mean the GA would no longer meet GA criteria and very nicely ask if they would be willing to make a custom page for that. I could see that being really useful for, at the bare minimum, GA, FA, and FL. I know I would go through it. Bamyers, if we came up with a list of cleanup categories that would mean a GA no longer met the criteria, would you have the time to generate a report of pages that are in those categories? Understood if you do not have the time/desire to do so. Depending on how you have it coded I could possibly take a stab at it too. This is a bit rambly, sorry, but Aircorn do you know of a way to see the crossover between for example the GA and Milhist cleanup lists? I bet they would cleanup their articles, and I know I would for spaceflight.   Kees08  (Talk)   17:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I could add any new categories to their own section in the current WikiProject reports. If in addition to the new specific criteria not met categories, articles were also put into one general not met category, then a pseudo WikiProject could be added to CleanupWorklistBot for that category. Example categories: GACriteriaNotMet1, GACriteriaNotMet2, GACriteriaNotMetAll --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not technically minded enough to do much myself, but from a practical perspective it would be good to have a better organised list. For example we have two articles tagged in context needed. One Hidden Markov model has a nice big orange banner while the other Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is just a little inline tag. It took me a while to even find it. I think the categories are intuitive enough and relate to the criteria well enough that the sections do not need to change much. So my wishlist would be, in order of what I view as most useful:


 * Removing or at least hiding the irrelevant categories. Many editors see a long list of problems and think there are two many to make much of a dent.
 * Highlighting the orange banners over inline tags. These are usually more problematic
 * Make it easier to find the issue. I usually search for "needed", but not all show this.
 * A way to add introductory text at the start and before each header. This would improve presentation and could be used to give advice on what the section is referring to (CS1 errors might not mean much to some editors) and how to deal with the issues.


 * re crossover between for example the GA and Milhist cleanup lists? The listing shows a class column, but does not seem to be populated with anything. I don't know if this was a function that has been removed. Either way I would suggest it would be better to do it from the mil hist end. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

History of anarchism
Hi there, thanks for reviewing HofA. May I ask which areas need C/Editing? Because I didnt quite understand from your last message at Talk. Thanks. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the areas that I mentioned above the table (where the breaks are). You have been working through them, I just haven't had time to catch up to you (will hopefully finish up tonight). I like to leave comments at the review table in each section. Sorry for the confusion. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Aircorn!
<div style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif;float:right;margin-bottom:20px;margin-right:10px">Happy New Year! Hello Aircorn: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2
I had initially closed this as delist, but didn't realize that the article had been vandalized at some point with a great deal of content removed. I reopened the discussion because I think the pre-vandalism version, while still flawed, may be salvageable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing mentor
Hi, I 've seen that you are a mentor on GA reviewing, may I ask to help me with my first reviewing an article? I plan to review Science of yoga. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That will be a one I imagine. They are seasoned GA participants, which should make it easier. I can definitely help. My first thought on an article like that would be to make sure it is neutral as it attracts elements of pseudoscience in it (see this science based medicine article). That means making sure the sources are strong, especially if they aren't attributed. Making any health claims requires really good sources (see WP:MEDRS). It also means making it balanced. For example, I notice the lead does not mention anything from the pseudoscience section, which it probably should.
 * If you have any specific questions you can ask me here or ping me to the review. My general philosophy is that the criteria provide a lot of flexibility in their interpretation and I see these as a collaborative effort, so it is easier to work with the nominator on most issues. From my experience reviewing your article you should do well. Thanks for helping out with reviews, it can be very rewarding. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aircorn. I have also noted that pseudoscience is missing from the article, also I have noted some structural issues. Keep an eye please. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 20:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I did it. It wasn't too difficult but it wasn't an easy ride either. Had to dig into staff. I enjoyed it nonetheless. Cheers. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 21:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You did well. It generally gets easier as you go. I find it a great way to learn about topics I probably wouldn't usually pay much attention too. Feel free to ask for advice anytime you want. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * When you return from being away, if you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes
Hi Aircorn, over time I have enjoyed your calm handling of various GA pickles, so I am sorry to see the personalissues template on your talk. I hope things improve! Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. All good now and will look to get back into editing slowly. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joey Crawford
I wanted to point out two things on Joey Crawford.


 * The allegations could still not be substantiated or not true, even if the league fined Duncan. For instance, the league may have found that Duncan did verbally abuse Crawford, but maybe that he didn't expletive as Crawford said he did.
 * We should keep the tense consistent. Because later on in that sentence it's written that "Duncan said" we should say "Crawford said."

hbdragon88 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, keep the tenses the same. I would say it is more important to keep the information consistent. When two people are describing an account like this we don't put one as alleging something and the other as saying something. FWIW there is a massive WP:BLPBALANCE issue with that article. We have a referee of nearly 40 years and nearly 3000 high level games, including 50 Finals games, with a career section dominated by two incidents. Going to tag for now. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken revert
Sincere apologies. I have no idea why the mayhem happened. I attempted to restore one longtime link in infobox that an earlier editor, CapLiber, changed on May 8th. Unfortunately, this also undid everything between his edit and mine. Will revert my edit now, if no one hasn't already. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Question
Is our work at User talk:Atsme/MR finalized, or have you moved on to other things? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its been a while since I thought about merges. I don't think my position has changed though. What are your plans with that discussion? AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy: “Public opposition” section
It’s all a bit lost in the mists of time, but the section seems to have originated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_51#overdosing_on_homeopathy_section? this discussion], initially as a subheading within the “Evidence and efficacy” section, I think. Personally, I wouldn’t object to the section being removed (with some of the material retained elsewhere) as it seems a bit undue. Some of the material about protests etc. could perhaps be integrated into the “21st century” section of history, and possibly some of the stuff about lawsuits could also go there or under regulation/prevalence. Incidentally if we are going to cover lawsuits somewhere, there have been some judicial review cases brought by supporters in the UK, for example this one, which could be included if it isn’t undue. It might be an idea to discuss on the talk page first before removing an entire section. Thanks for all your work revising the article. Brunton (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me a while to respond and thank you for this. I think I will do a bold edit in one hit to show what I propose (pretty much along the lines you have provided above) and then see what the reaction is. That way it will be easy to undo and it will also give some context (i.e that I am not just removing information). I have had success being bold so far and I am anticipating having to go to the talk when I get to the lead anyway. Thanks for the useful info. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeopathy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homeopathy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cultivation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GA thank you
Hey Aircorn, I just wanted to say a quick thank you for the James Gandolfini good article review. I appreciate your help. I'll definitely take a look at some current good article nominations and hopefully review some in the future. Thank you again. --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeopathy
The article Homeopathy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Homeopathy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Brokeback Mountain
Hello, I've responded to your GA review at Talk:Brokeback_Mountain/GA1. Many thanks, <b style="color:#FF4500">L150</b> 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have had a few things come up, but hope to get around to this review soon. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Khalili Collection of Japanese Art
Hi, do you have time to have another look at Talk:Khalili_Collection_of_Japanese_Art/GA1? I think I've addressed all your points. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry Martin. Had a few computer issues and busy schedule. Will finish this and a few other GA reviews this week. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

???
Can you explain the edit revision. Just making sure I didn’t do anything in bad faith? Jhenderson 7 7 7  06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what to make of it. If you were a newish account I would have said test edit. I think you might have had a copy paste error or something as the edit made no sense. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I attempted to make an addition of a looping GIF detailing human anatomy. I put it in multiple image with the other overview. I could of swore the preview looked fine. I will proofcheck the revision. Jhenderson 7 7 7  07:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Activating Prosesize script
I activated it in my preferences, but I'm not seeing the left column that you mentioned at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Is there anything else I have to do to activate it? Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are probably asking the wrong person as my technical abilities here are limited. Maybe try clearing your cache. By left column I mean the one below the Wikipedia logo. If you go down to tools mine is under Wikidata item. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homeopathy
The article Homeopathy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homeopathy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AN/I posting
Hello -- just wanted to let you know that after reflection, you are right. I was unhelpful in the Deacon Vorbis complaint at AN/I. I suspect we would still fundamentally disagree on the underlying issue (as to acceptable bounds of behavior), but I shouldn't have chipped in with in-the-moment snark. Apologies, and all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am asking for your help
I am asking for your help.

Can you be a 2nd reviewer at Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1?

I have done a tremendous amount of copyediting, post good article review, to improve the article even further.

Can you look it over, again, and comment at Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1?

Thank you.

Right cite (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Back from a Wiki break
Hi Aircorn,

I just looked at our old exchange on this tread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Sarah_Cooper/GA1#Talk%3ASarah_Cooper%2FGA1

I won't go into details but I disagree with that sentence while the rest of your comment is sensible: Filmman, I looked back through your reviews and you did one previously that had to be taken over by another editor. We need more reviewers, but we also need reviewers who understand or are willing to learn the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgan_Freeman/GA1#Failed

This editor falls into "but we also need reviewers who understand or are willing to learn the process", it was his second submission that I participated and this time by myself. His lack of citation was awful, in both cases. When i started the Morgan Freeman review I thought that will be an easy one because he won't do the same mistakes twice.

The first one was Chris Evans and look again he showed up with substandard citations and sometimes none. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Evans_(actor)/GA1

The user tells me to read Wikipedia's "What the Good article criteria are not". I find the section Neutral: Requiring excessive representation of minor or insignificant viewpoint.

So while I think your comment is sensible when it came to the Sarah Cooper article, that other review I was reasonable to fail.

Maybe I was rough on that user but when I did my first review I was failed because of similar things and came back when they were resolved.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

About the Benveniste affair article
Hello Aircom, I am contacting you about the Benveniste affair article. Thank you for your interest about this topic (I am a member of Jacques Benveniste family as you can see). I can see in the history of the Benveniste affair article that you "moved page Jacques Benveniste to Benveniste affair: Page is pretty mch exclusivly about the one incident. Not a proper biography" (08:36, 27 August 2020‎ Aircorn talk contribs‎ m 32,598 bytes 0‎ Aircorn). I agree that the article is not a proper biography, but I think it would have been more logical to modify the content so it can become a proper biography (see here for institutionnal content : https://histoire.inserm.fr/les-femmes-et-les-hommes/jacques-benveniste/). Because changing the title has some unexpected consequences : there is no "Jacques Benveniste" english article in wikipedia, so everytime that an article mentionned Jacques Benveniste, it links to the "Benveniste affair" article even if this has nothing to do with memory of water (see screenshot below) and not to a biographic article. In addition, the Benveniste Affair article is linked to other pages in other langage named Jacques Benveniste (see caption 2 below). Jacques Benveniste is also known for the discorvery of the PAF-acether in 1971, even the US National Library of Medicine institutionnal website mention it : "His reputation as an orthodox researcher derives from his 1970 discovery of platelet activating factor (PAF)" : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534457/

Thank you for your attention and your answers ! Claire Benveniste (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic
Greetings,

Requesting article expansion support @ Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic, if topic interests you.

This request is being made since as per history stats of the article Humour, you seem to have contributed to the article Humour previously.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Following up at the ByteDance RfC
Hi Aircorn! I really appreciated the feedback you gave at Talk:ByteDance and wanted to know if you wouldn't mind following up there. I created a new version of the article at User:JatBD/ByteDance - Option 3, which takes your suggestions into consideration, and I'd love to know to what extent it matches what you had in mind as a "middle ground" solution. Thanks, JatBD (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like an improvement. I would not have the subsections though. You end up with a lot of one sentence sections. If you want you can combine headers (i.e. "2012-2014: Launch" and "2015-2017: Expansion" etc). I would also split out the legal stuff from history. Look at other similar articles (particularly from WP:FA) to get an idea of the best ways to organize similar articles). Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm HTGS. I noticed that you recently removed content from Helengrad without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. <span style="font-family: Avenir, Futura, sans-serif;">— HTGS (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't template the regulars. Helengrad was converted to a redirect back in November, clearly not as an act of vandalism, but presumably because it's a dated term and adequately covered at the target article. You're welcome to disagree with that and restore the article, but placing this template is showing bad faith. You could have suggested, in your own words, that Aircorn should have left an edit summary when making that edit.- gadfium 02:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree with that particular essay—at least in this particular context. Any other handcrafted comment would have ended up no more polite than the template. Either didn't know the particular procedure for deletion and this type of blanking, and the template is appropriate, OR Aircorn knew what the proper protocol was, and it was an edit made in bad faith. That template is my assumption of good faith. <span style="font-family: Avenir, Futura, sans-serif;">— HTGS (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gadfium, the template is amusing, but no harm done. HTGS the procedure is WP:brd. It is fine to revert, I will start a discussion at the talk page. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

It seems you have previously contributed to the article Humour

Requesting you to visit Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic and help expand the topic it interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge&#39; (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TENDITIOUS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:TENDITIOUS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Human
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Human
The article Human you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Human for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Human
The article Human you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Human for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you finish up the GA review for black-and-red broadbill?
Hey, I have finished up all of your suggestions for the article and think that it's ready to pass, so could you finish up the review? AryKun (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. real life got busy. Will have a look now. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious as to why you sent this to me now. I have been editing the area for years and as far as I am aware my latest edit was decidedly non-controversial. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I know it hasn't been that long, but I can't recall for sure! I am pretty sure I checked everybody who recently edited Laurel Hubbard and notified anyone who isn't formally "aware". I definitely emphasize the "does not imply" clause in the template. You may want to use Template:ds/aware on your talk page to forestall any further notices. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Google Books ref tool
Is the Google Books reference tool down? I'm asking you because I see that you have used it in the past based on your user page. I have been receiving an error message for over a week and I'm not sure where to report the issue. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure sorry. Haven't used it for a while now. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

referees notability
Hi. Given there is no guidelines for referees notability, I'm wondering if there have been any proposals. I think establishing guidelines for their notability would be very helpful. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey. No proposals that I know of. Many sports wikiprojects include (or exclude) referees in their guidelines. I have thought it would be useful to create a summery of that (i.e. copy referee notabilty guidelines from individual projects into one easy to reach page). Including some overarching advice would be good, in particular how to deal with cases when the only reports are negative match descriptions complaining about a decision that goes against their team. I haven't done much with referees for a while, but would be willing to help if you want to start one. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandra Goudie
hi there! Just re your recent revert than undo over on Sandra Goudie, I wasn't trying to sensationalise or editorialise. I found it hard to balanced and also kept it short and sharp. I definitely think it's notable, considering the media attention that it's received. I'd be happy to trim it or find another way for it to more clearly gel :) Nauseous Man (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Nauseous Man Yeah. I was editing on mobile and removed more than I meant to. My phone is a bit crap at the moment. I didn't like the "because despite being a community leader" part and only wanted to remove that bit. It seems unnecessary to say that and a bit unencylopaedic. Agree with the rest of the article though. Maybe need to keep an eye on UNDUE considering it is a Wikipedia:BLP, but I don't think we have breached that yet. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Aircorn thanks for the feedback, I've changed it now. Does that look better? Nauseous Man (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)