User talk:Aircorn/Archive 2

Rules of Netball
Aircorn: Please consider the following observations in a spirit of friendship.

Please consider adding the following topics to the history section of the article:
 * At the time that the rules were first developed, imperial measurements were in widespread use. Hence, the standardization on 100 ft by 50 ft court dimensions. Since then, basketball's rules have also shifted to the metric system, and has standardized on 28m by 15m as its official dimensions. http://www.fiba.com/asp_scripts/downMana.asp?fileID=1037 So as a result of different rounding in the conversion between metric and imperial measurements, these historically related games now diverge on the size of their official playing courts. Both have retained the rim height of 10 ft.
 * You already explain that the abbreviations that appear in the position table, are printed on a cloth square which the players are required to ware during the game. If possible, explain when that requirement was added to the rules.

More generally, is the cloth square really called a "bib?" A bib is generally used to describe something that one wears around the neck -- for example, skiers wearing numbers during a competition. (Although not a reliable source, please see: http://eps-doublet.com/media/.gallery/main70.jpg.)

In the "Passing" section, the word "should" is unencyclopedic. As you know, Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual, so perhaps it could be rephrased in terms of players in x position generally have y skills. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep it is called a bib. Over here at least. They may have a more official name somewhere else. When I have time I will do a thorough copy edit of the article, but I have other things planned at the moment. I can appreciate that you are doing all this in the interest of Wikipedia, but in the spirit of friendship I strongly advise you to take any netball related subject off your watchlist. There are enough editors (some critical, some supportive) with an eye on them now that we should be able to bang them into decent shape. As others have said, sometimes it is best just to let things go. To be frank, despite your best intentions, I feel that your continued presence around these articles will not make for the best editing environment due to past interactions. I really don't want to be used as a middleman either, so please don't make any more netball suggestions here. I feel that this is particularly pertinent while the case is at arbitration. However, I do hope we are able to edit together on other areas sometime in the future. AIR corn (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I have never used the watchlist feature, I've been reading your talk page due to RSMAS, and appreciate your wok on the review.  This closes out an effort to bring this article to GA that began in February 2010. Racepacket (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your new message on my talk page. I really don't use watch lists. Please continue conducting GA reviews because we face a shortage of people willing to review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Netball around the world
Responding back on your talk page. The netball around the world articles had been copy and pasted over to daughter articles at Netball in the Americas, etc. as a kind of holding pen. I'm kind of leery about doing too much work on netball given the issues about it being addressed elsewhere. :/ So yeah, could you run things past User:Liveste and User:v to see if they good to go with them? --LauraHale (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just thought I would double check with you as we were discussing this on the talk page before it got sidetracked with other issues. Liveste has commented previoulsy about trimming the sections and V hasn't been active for years so I don't expect to much opposition from them. I am more concerned about whether the I am removing the right sort of information. I hope you aren't thinking about giving up on these articles, despite the drama you have done a amazing job on them. Articles of this nature can be a challenge due to there scope and we need more people here who are willing to take them on. AIR corn (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kia ora, Aircorn. Thanks for trimming down the Globally section. You've done a brilliant job, and much more quickly than I could have done it. Same goes for the "Description and rules" section. I'll go through them and see if there's anything missing. Hopefully the GAR will go a lot more smoothly now. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although trimming was the easy bit. I think we can get it up to GA standard, before the review closes. However, I feel the global section and some of the other parts still need a lot of work. I will leave some ideas at the talk page. It's crazy the amount of attention this is getting so probably best to keep it as open as possible. AIR corn (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems
As it happens, I do think your review was "faulty", as you put it. I disagree with just about every comment you made. But more importantly, I take major issue with the way you closed the review – without any opportunity for me or anyone else to respond to your comments, revise the article, or ask for a second opinion. I find this dismissal especially insulting, given that the article in question came close to GA two years ago, and has been thoroughly improved since then. I've corrected your premature closing and asked for another reviewer – preferably one who can be bothered to work with the nominator. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel insulted, but good article review is not supposed to be a place to fix articles and I am not aware of any requirement for second opinions. It does happen and if I think an article can get up to standard I have no problem working with someone on it for a couple of weeks (for example see RSMAS). Unfortunately, judging from your responses to similar problems on the talk page, the previous review and the fact that the problem is with the whole style of the article I did not see this as an option here. You have an interesting essay, but not a good article. Either way I wish you good luck with your next review and hope that if similar problems are brought up you will pay heed to them. AIR corn (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course GAN is a place to fix articles before passing or failing them; that's no excuse for your arrogant drive-by "review" and assumption that no one would bother to address your concerns. What editor wouldn't be insulted by the way you handled this? I intend to re-nominate and wait another month, if I have to, to get this article the competent review it deserves. » Swpbτ • ¢ 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fix small thing yes. Fix big things no. It was not a drive by review; I read through the whole article twice, the lead a half dozen times and parts of the other sections multiple times, compared this version to the version at the last review, read the talk page and spent quite a bit of time formulating how to phrase the review. I actually deleted some of my comments before posting as I felt it was coming across too negative and addressing the other concerns may have fixed those problems. It is obvious that nothing good is going to come from this second opinion so I have again failed it. AIR corn (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Demographics of New Zealand/GA1
Hello Aircorn, I just reviewed Demographics of New Zealand. The article is not quite yet ready to be passed for GA; you can read my comments on the review for this article here. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this one up. By its nature it is going to be heavy on the stats, but is an important article (for us Kiwis anyway). I have made a start on the easy fixes and will work on the rest as I have time. AIR corn (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a short research survey
Hi, I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am looking for editors who have done some editing to Genetics articles on Wikipedia as participants in a short survey. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will help me model what sorts of things are reverted on Wikipedia so that I can develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. If you know of any other Wikipedians in the genetics domain who might also be willing to help, I'd appreciate it. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for participating in the survey. I realize it's an odd question to ask about Wikipedia articles, so I appreciate your efforts. I've been working on computer models that operate on a word-by-word level over the history of an article, picking out words that are likely to be problematic. Counter-intuitively, even single words can be good enough to identify reverts beyond just 'rvv', including things like editor conflict (something a newcomer would want to avoid) and troublesome terminology that's been discussed on the talk pages. Your feedback will help me refine this model, which if successful will be turned into an interface to help with Wikipedia editing and encourage newcomers. Thanks again. JeffRz (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bertuzzi GA
Hey, thanks very much for the review and the pass! In regards to trimming down the Steve Moore section, I was actually thinking of expanding that into its own article. Think it's a good idea? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a great idea. It would solve any potential WP:BLP problems in regard to WP:UNDUE and also mean that the information is not lost. AIR corn (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Netball article changes
Quick question: The changes you're making to the netball article? Can you comment on the talk article to explain them in terms of what you're doing and why? Also, are the changes being made based on the preliminary feedback from the GAR and the first failed FAC nomination? Beyond that, I'd remove the references to rugby 7s and the Cricket t20 series. I don't think you can assume audience familiarity with those events. Otherwise, I really appreciate the continued efforts to improve the article. --LauraHale (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same question, you're making huge changes without any discussion on the talk page on why you're making them and removing content. Could you please state why since I feel the article is getting worse then it really was. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a message on the talk page a month ago about trying to get it passed the GAR |here. I think most of the major changes I have made are following the general theme I stated there. I am glad you are still interested in working on the article, I had feared you had left the project. The twenty/twenty and sevens was copied directly from the World Netball Series page as I thought it might need expanding, but they can easily be removed.
 * @Bidgee, that information was not deleted, it still exists in the daughter article and if you check the talk page you will see it is a change that I mentioned. Also it was one of the issues mentioned in the FAC. However if feel the article is worse we can start a new discussion. AIR corn (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but you should at least leave a message stating what you are going to do or you will have editors guessing. I'm not sure the changes you have made will make it pass in the GAR. Bidgee (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a detailed edit summary and a note on the talk page that no one disagreed with for a month. What more do you want?AIR corn (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the edit summaries "detailed", most only had three or less words. A discussion a month old isn't good for the type of edits you're doing now, even if no one disagreed. Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The one that deleted all the information you referenced was detailed. The others were probably a little lazy. I am sorry but I completely disagree about the month thing. If a discussion is started and does not get much response then WP:Silence comes into effect, otherwise nothing would get done here. Anyway feel free to WP:BRD. I will stop for now to allow more discussion on the talk page. AIR corn (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. My comment wasn't intended as a criticism of the content of your edits and I hope it wasn't taken that way. I was more interested in the whys and whats of your edits. Some of the edit descriptions were descriptive but I didn't see any that said things like "Per FAC1" or "Per GA feedback", which coupled with the lack of commentary on the talk page over major changes, was why I asked the question. I didn't mean it in any way as a criticism or to take away from the hard and good work you've been doing on the article to fix it. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence was taken at all. My edit summaries were fine for explaining what, but I realise now not so good on the why. I will leave it for a couple of days and see what comments are left at the talk page. As you are still interested your help would be very much appreciated. One of the major concerns, which I was planning on doing next, is the references. As I imagine you have accesss or at least have had access to them maybe you could help in trimming them back a bit. Where there are multiple cites to one sentence we probably need only one. Journels, most books and newspaper stories are the best sources. If we reduce the number of Primary Sources (IFNA, Netball websites etc) it will go a long way to appeasing many of the delisters. I wouldn't get hung up on the primary source issue, they are better than no cite and if written properly are perfectly acceptable. If you are concerned about some of the trimming to the global section feel free to bring it up on the talk page. There is a case for including some of the history that I removed. AIR corn (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference thing was a bit on my personal: I do not understand WHY you changed it from two sections to put it into one section, especially given the sheer volume that was being used and from my perspective, making it messier and the text harder to edit.
 * The reference formatting is not a major concern and in a way comes down to personal preference. I found it difficult when splitting the article as I had to search through each reference individually and copy it over plus (if I was nitpicky) I think it was slightly annoying to have to double click to get details of each reference. It also means that every time a reference is moved or changed it needs to be removed from the bibliography. Are there any featured articles that put all the references in the Bibliography? Is there a style guideline in the MOS? I based my style on the Daniel Lambert article, where the books are in the bibliography and the others (news articles, websites, journals etc) are in the reference section. I will be willing to change it back to your style myself, it shouldn't be too difficulty. However it would be good to finish it first so it will be a lot simpler to fix if the issue is raised further down the line. As to the difficulty of editing with the references I think wikiEd might help. Once you get used to it you will not understand how you worked without it. Just go to My Preferences, then activate it under the gadgets tab. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Netball websites aren't primary sources and I don't think the delisters should be the primary concern. I would have put an emphasis on trying to integrate the feedback from the FAC over the delisters as I think making the article more FAC ready would have ultimately been better in terms of improving the article.  The delisters have their own agenda.  The cricket articles and association football articles and the gridiron football articles don't have people saying: You cannot use sources from your sport.  The association football article relies heavily on FIFA sources.  By focusing on their criticisms to what might be the exclusion of the FAC commentary, I really worry that the article was taken backwards possibly.  I didn't see any major criticism from the FAC people about relying on netball sources for netball related information.
 * I agree that some people commenting at the review had an axe to grind, but there were also some good points raised. I support you on the Primary Source issue and have defended it to some degree. However, if there was a choice between a book/journal or a website though we should go with the former. Even on controversial information one good source beats any number of slightly questionable ones. If there are is no option then the primary ones will have to be used and with the right attribution (i.e according to .......) no one should argue with them. I know there are not too many quality sports overview articles out there, but I would not put too much faith in the soccer one. I don't think it would pass the FAC process as it stands now as the standards have dramatically increased since it was promoted. Also the FAC review Netball received should not be treated like a in depth peer review. Basically editors look at the article and decide whether it is ready or not and highlight any points they feel don't meet the criteria. They are under no obligation to highlight all the issues and frequently articles are re nominated when the issues from an earlier review are addressed, only for new issues to be brought up. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want, I can make copies of some of the relevant pages from the sources I do have and send copies to you so you have access to a wider selection of sources outside what is available on Google books, one of the primary sources I've been using. I'd just have to take care of that on Monday or Tuesday of next week.  (And not a problem if you don't want that.  Can completely understand not wanting any form of offline contact.  I'd been debating making such an offer to User:Liveste.)
 * Let me think about this. I will leave the article for a while to see if anyone else responds with some ideas so there is no rush. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The domestic competition section was an issue during the GA and I think we got conflicting advise from reviewers about whether or not it should be there. I don't recall what the FAC people said about that.  Did you use the failed FAC guidance to make those edits?
 * This came from the GAR and was something I agreed with. It could be an option to make it a subsection of the Global section, maybe adding back some of the history. The problem is that then you have two sections of history. I think that some of it could be moved into the history article. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And I guess that is my major issue for the whole of this: Were you prioritising the failed FAC commentary or the GAR commentary? I'd have prioritised the failed FAC commentary first, GAR commentary second.  If the GAR failed based on fixes made using the FAC commentary, then it seems less problematic than if it failed based on trying to fix based on the GAR commentary, where a lot of work was put into addressing a highly politicised article that may have had people making attacking assertions to score points on the ArbCom case, with quality issues being secondary to their goal.
 * I basically worked my way through the article from top to bottom trying to fix issues that I thought were relevant to both. The GAR focused mainly on sources, which I have not changed greatly yet. My main focus was on the prose and trimming/tidying up some of the sections. These were all mentioned in the FAC. The FAC also made reference to the number of citations used. So if we remove the least reliable from the article we will kill two birds with one stone. Even though the weren't overly mentioned, primary sources and source reliability will become an issue at FAC. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'd almost settle for the article being delisted, taking the article back to what it was when it initially passed the GA and then specifically working through all the issues brought up in the failed FAC. Then, ask some one else to renominate it in six months or so. --LauraHale (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is always an option and as it is always going to be in the history it is easy to do. I will contend that my edits, while probably not bringing it up to FAC standard, have improved the article. Maybe asking someone who commented at the FAC to compare the two and see if it is heading in the right direction would help. AIR corn (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Moray An Par (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
 * 2) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
 * 3) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
 * 4) Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
- JuneGloom    Talk  14:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RU positions
NP all the ones that were covered by the BRFA are done by one or the other of us (and the ruleset deleted). I currently have someone who inspects every edit and complains vociferously if it's not in accordance with "the roolz" so I have to treat WP as if it were a bureaucracy a lot of the time. Which is a shame, because it is the ability to get things done that actually makes the project a success. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Sweet. For what its worth thanks a lot for your help. The templates are sorted and up for deletion. The piped links are anchored so there is no rush to fix them. I can work my way through the rest semi automatically. AIR corn (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, why are you replacing a lot of the links in player biographies with redirects? For example, the link Centre (rugby union) has no functional advantage over Rugby union positions, and yet you changed the latter to the former in several articles. If you were changing from the former to the latter, that would make more sense, but this is just making pointless changes that put extra load on the Wiki servers. Every revision we make is one more that the servers have to deal with, which is why we are discouraged from making too many edits when one would suffice. But I digress: I won't revert any of the changes you've made so far in this regard, but I do recommend that you stop making any further ones. – PeeJay 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to explain this at the talk page. Basically the redirects serve the same function as the templates. If someone makes an article for the centre position all the links are going to have to be changed. Plus for someone writing an article linking to centre (rugby union) is more logical and easier than Rugby union positions#13. Outside centre & 12. Inside centre. That was what the bot above was supposed to do, I was just working my way through the ones that they missed. AIR corn (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your point about the potential for a lot of work if someone ever creates articles about the individual rugby positions, but how likely is that? We've gone for a good few years now without them, and I really can't imagine there would be enough content around to justify separate articles. For that reason, I really think it would be best to avoid redirects. – PeeJay 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually planning on doing just that. I have been expanding the overview topic, but feel the positions would work better as individual articles and that was my end goal there. I admit this might take a while as I have a few other projects I wish to work on first. The Flanker (rugby union) article already exist so I can just change the Rugby union positions positions for now and the then work on the others only when/if the redirects are turned into articles. Apart from the teamsheet articles it shouldn't double up on too much work as most flankers only play that position. AIR corn (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. BTW, apologies if I came across as officious. I don't mean to take it upon myself to tell people what to do! – PeeJay 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah mate you were fine. I tend to get caught up in an idea and can get ahead of myself. The more I think about it the better it is to not rush this and just make the changes as necessary. I was probably spamming yours (and others) watchlists with the edits. AIR corn (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Richie McCaw
Hey. I'm editing a bit again, so I may look over the Richie article later on. It's great you've got it to GA, but getting to FA can be pretty tough, especially with prose. At the moment I'm looking a bit at New Zealand, and fixing up Crusaders (rugby) (which has deteriorated a bit). I'll hopefully get to the Richie article after that. - Shudde  talk 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I was a bit ignorant optimistic about FA when I started here and reading through a few nominations I am not sure if I have the skills yet to get any articles there by myself. My work on New Zealand unfortunately stalled so I am glad you are looking at it. I would be willing to help out where I can. As for Richie he can wait, it would probably be easier to do after the World Cup as it will continually need updating over the next few months. And it might even have a happy ending. AIR corn (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your GA nomination of Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
Thank you for taking the time to do such a detailed review. It will take me a few days to go through your notes and make changes but your suggestions seem reasonable. GabrielF (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NZ Geographic
This is a very belated response to this, only just saw it. I'm not sure, but I think my workplace has a subscription to it-- do you still need the article in question? sonia ♫ 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please. It is in regards to the Ken Ring (writer) article. It is needed to replace reference 22 (Gareth Renowden (19 September 2006). "On The Farm Truffles & Stuff: Ringworld". Gareth Renowden. Retrieved 27 March 2011.), which is not a very neutral site, but was the only mention of the NZ Geographic article I found online. There is apparently an article (in issue 79) followed by a response (in issue 81). AIR corn (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Got them. If you email me, I'll scan the relevant pages and attach them- not comfortable with just putting them up online. sonia ♫  06:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent. sonia ♫  21:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks AIR corn (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Australia Maccabiah rugby union team
"Delete all after merging in the team squads (as collapsible boxes) into the Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games." - See my comments on the page... the team articles are not just about those teams competing at the 2009 games, but all of the national sides which have competed since it was introduced into the Maccabiah.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at the discussion page. AIR corn (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

netball...
Thanks for all those great questions and for asking Don to take a look at them. :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I would love this to become a good article and in my opinion at least it is currently very close, definitely not a quick fail. AIR corn (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dance with Dragons
Are you deliberately not reading what you're deleting and the edit summary reverting you? You deleted three sentences. Only the last of them could be considered speculation. Therefore, if you wish to remove speculation, you should only delete that one sentence. What is so hard about that? -Rrius (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The other sentences are unnecessary and still OR. There are so many twists in GRRMs story that we can't even be sure that the hound is dead. And saying "her motivation in this lie has yet to be explained" is hardly useful. Theres more important information that is yet to be explained. AIR corn (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OR? I'm not sure you know what that means. Brienne has been told the Hound died and that Arya was last seen on the Saltpans. Her statement to Jaime cannot be true. There is no research involved in saying so; conclusions are not OR. Noting what we learned of that storyline in ADwD and how it conflicts with AFfC is important. Your assertion that more important information still needs to be explained in no way justifies excluding the rather obvious step of pointing to the inconsistency with what we know she learned in the previous book. -Rrius (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Last we saw Brienne was about to be hanged. We don't know what happened between then and meeting Jamie. While it is likely that your speculation is correct, it is still speculation. And why are you adding back in speculation that you agree is speculation? AIR corn (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not speculation, and it is not mine. The Hound didn't suddenly spring back to life, and Arya didn't magically appear in Westeros while still living in Braavos. I have already said you that if you want to get rid of the last three of the sentences, you should feel free, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out that what she says in book five conflicts with what we know she learned in book four. Facts are not speculation, and no amount of your calling them such will make it so. -Rrius (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fantasy. Characters have already come back to life and it has not been shown that the hound ever died in the first place. Maybe Arya was magically transported across the narrow sea. Maybe it's an impersonator that Brienne believes is Arya. This is far fetched speculation, but more realistic speculation is still speculation. AIR corn (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what you are suggesting is flummery. Again, what has been demonstrated as fact is fact, not speculation. -Rrius (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let it go. It has been taken to the talk page and other editors have agreed with me. Take it back there if you still insist on inserting it. I also notice that you ran into the same problem at Talk:The Winds of Winter where a group of other editors disagreed with you on a similar case. If you are the only one insisting you are right, while a group of unrelated people are saying you are wrong, chances are you are wrong. AIR corn (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting/GA1
Are you planning on concluding this soon. It has been three weeks since the last comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note at Gabriels talk page asking him if he was still willing to do it a couple of days ago. If he doesn't get back to me soon or someone else does not take it up I will have to fail it. AIR corn (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I was just nudging older reviews. No problem with failing nominations if no progress is being made. Your review has provided valuable pointers for improvement. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor2205 Julia Gillard article nomination reply
Thank you Aircorn i would prefer if you did delist it as its not a good article applicant. Thank You very much!. Should you reply to this i would appriciate if you did so on my talk page. much appreciated --Editor2205 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union: Gameplay
Sorry for ignoring you but I've been on a Wikibreak for the last week (holidays at a site with no broadband). But I've read through your section and the three paragraph section reads very well. The only issue is how to bring this into the main article as it covers areas already covered by the laws section. Do you want to delete the laws section and add the gameplay instead? ...or trim the laws section back and introduce gameplay in front of it? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realised afterwards that it was going to conflict a lot. To be honest I don't know what the best solution is, hence the different paragraphs. It might be easiest to just use the one or two paragraph sections (it only really needs to introduce the game) and not alter the laws much. Either way I think the laws section should stay. Scrums and lineouts in particular. I am more than happy to copy edit, offer advice at the talk page and help out with any reviewer concerns, but you are doing a good job on the article and I feel comfortable with you structuring the article. However, I can have a go at incorporating the two sections if you want.
 * On a related note, I am thinking about splitting the current gameplay article into laws and gameplay as they are really two different concepts. I have started writing a law article at User:Aircorn/Mainpage, which is almost exclusively based off the law book. I think it could be useful, but god it is hard to cover all the exceptions, keep it accurate and not make it completely boring. Gameplay I am hoping could be more interesting, covering tactics, structure, types of passes/kicks/tackles and general information about playing the game. There is going to be alot of overlap though, particularly at set pieces and breakdowns. When I finish it will give you another main to link to from the parent article. AIR corn (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping the scrums and lineouts as it was brought up on the previous failed FA attempt. I'd be more than happy for you to incorporate the two sections, your work, plus its good to see other users apart from myself editing the page. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Question
Where are your comments about Wait Your Turn? And I assume I am one of the "antagonists"? Calvin  • Na Na Na C'mon! 13:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Near the bottom, with bullet pointed examples. AIR corn (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tit for tat nominations
Hi Geek2003. I understand that you are upset that some editors are putting your articles up for deletion, but retaliating by nominating their articles is not the best way to go about saving them. It is very WP:Pointy and wastes a lot of other editors time. AIR corn (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed the proper procedure and tagged the page first earlier this month before requesting to have it deleted.Geek2003 (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PR limits
The guidelines for Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Blanking
See what your good efforts brought forth. I'd like to know: why shouldn't that editor worry? I worry when editors place spurious cn-tags. Especially, yes, in an FA. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The blanking is not an issue, because as you know they are within their rights to remove this information from their talk page. I have previously left messages with that editor and they have changed their behaviour, so I have no doubt that they read and take notice of them. It was a suggestion to use archiving and while it is best practice it is not a requirement. As for the edit which brought this on, it was obviously done in good faith. Seeing as you modified the sentence following the addition it even led to an improvement in the article. In my opinion it didn't warrant the "Are you blind" edit summary and slightly accusatory message left at the talk page. Yes the tag was unnecessary and you are right to worry about such things. My worry however extends to new editors that are obviously very keen being discouraged from editing. My response was to that end and nothing more. AIR corn (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course they are within their rights, but it suggests they're not a team player. My comment, while possibly abrasive, was prompted by two things: the complete speciousness of the tag, which clearly indicated that they hadn't looked to see if something was properly sourced (and that is a serious matter for me--a cn tag on an FA is a slap in the face of the editors who wrote and reviewed and rewrote the article); and the general editing behavior of this editor, who in their AfD contributions is proving that they don't have much interest in working cooperatively according to our policies and guidelines--see their contributions on Repellor vehicle and the attendant AfD. Biting newbies is not something I promote, but this editor has 13,000 edits and has been here since 2009--and they still don't exhibit collegial talk page usage and can't tell a reliable from an unreliable source. They are disruptive, and I predict ANI threads and perhaps an RfC. I'll stop blathering on your talk page, I honestly don't want to bother you (you strike me as a nice person), but I've had serious questions about their editing already, and after 13,000 edits one should know when to add a cn-tag to an FA, and when not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there have been a few dodgy edits, which is why I had their talk page watchlisted. At that time they were delisting good articles en mass. It stopped after a few messages, although it could just have been due to the ANI thread. Either way I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt then. Oh well, I have at least tried to point them in the right direction. If they become too disruptive and refuse to respond then I am sure the community will deal with the issue. BTW when I went through the contribution history the earliest edit I found was 8th June 2011, which played a large part in deciding they were newbies. If they have been editing since 2009 then there is little excuse for the behaviour. I might watch this from a distance now, although I do hope the editor improves as the volume of contributions is impressive. AIR corn (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most recently I was alerted here, User_talk:Mandarax. I see now that I totally misread the toolserver page--they racked up their 13,000 edits since June (you were right: I wonder where I got 2009). And while they get that count by hitting "save" after every little edit, that's still an impressive number, and they didn't have a problem getting the legalese lingo down... Anyway, thanks for your response. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sam Tomkins/GA1
Many thanks for the review on Sam Tomkins. I intend on addressing the issues raised, however this is bad time for me, since my broadband has just been renegotiated and cancelled until it's reinstalled, which should be on this coming Saturday (24th) at the latest. I will correct the article as soon as possible, but please keep on hold until then. GW (talk)  20:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem AIR corn (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help
Hello Aircorn. I would like your help in an issue please. I suspect BiggerAristotle is a sockpuppet of someone and is using his BA account simply to create un-needed problems on the article Sonny Bill Williams. His edit history seems to also back up my suspicions i.e. He started his account to by editing about HP Sauce (as cover i suspect) but has since focussed mainly upon edit warring over the SBW article with gaps in between (again i suspect to add authenticity i suspect). He seems to lie in wait purely to edit war over the article- as his quietness over the past few days may show. He seems to thrive on removing any facts that show SBW's skill. So what i ask from you is help in how to put BA under investigation for sockpuppetry because i do not know how. A prompt response would be most appreciated. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be careful about making such claims. I have only ever filed one Sockpuppet case and then I was 99% sure that they were and they were also being highly disruptive. I know you feel BA is disruptive but the edits I have seen all appear in good faith and I even agree with most of them. I only watch Sonny Bill Williams page so I am not familiar with the other articles. The only suspicious thing I can think of is that he has started editing so confidently, but that could be due to previous editing as an IP or they could just have read a lot of our policies beforehand (I know I did). I don't know who you think he is a sockpuppet of, but am fairly sure you have to mention the alternative account when filing a request. The page you need is here, but I would advise against doing so unless you have more evidence than what you present here. If it comes to an investigation you may very well find yourself in trouble for violating WP:3RR. On that note you need to accept that the sentence you want to insert about simultaneous boxing/rugby careers is not acceptable. Your time would be better served looking for better references to back that claim up (it could be true but we need someone else to say it first). AIR corn  (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lastly, is it possible to replace the initial boxer/rugby sentence with the following instead: "He is possibly the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby." Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a well worded sentence attributing it to Sonny could possibly be used in the body, but I would object to it being used in the lead. The trouble is that he could possibly be anything, so it is not a strong statement at all. If you find a better reference then it would be much better and could go into the lead. I had a look before, but the best I could find was a boxing promotional blurb. Not good enough, but if he is then there should be a reliable source out there claiming he does. AIR corn (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Okay, thanks for your advice and guidance once again.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bryce Lawrence
Hey there, I know you have a number of rugby refs on your watchlist, just keep an eye on the Bryce Lawrence article will you. I've reverted already a couple of times, just the usual fan whine. Cheers Khu  kri  10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. He did have a bit of a shocker though. Shame talk pages can't be protected. AIR corn (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He always has been poor he was awful in the England - Argentina match as well, but I can't stand fan whine. Refs are fair game amongst supporters, but not on wikipedia, the only reason Wayne Barnes has a mention is due to the fact it went up to government level. Anyway Enjoy the rest of the tournament :) just hope you don't come up against France in the final, you just can never tell how they're going to play. Cheers Khu  kri  10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On Sonny Bill Williams
Hello Aircorn. I noticed you undid my edit even though I gave a reference with clear detail that said: "the nation is pinning its hopes on the rugby player they call Superman" and "His All Black team-mates have dubbed him Superman". So this reference says that his teammates and even New Zealand call him and dub him Superman. And if they call and dub him this name other than his own real name then isn’t that a nickname? I mean Richie McCaw has the nickname “Fluffy” and even though such nickname is rarely heard I do not see anyone removing it, because it is referenced as well. The same applies to Dan Carter’s nickname of “Dezzy” or even to such people as Piri Weepu, Ma’a Nonu or Conrad Smith who have nicknames on Wikipedia without even any references. So why is no one removing these nicknames? Also, you state: “Superman is no more a nickname than Money Bill William and neither should be used.” Well I object for one (I believe) reasonable argument- it is not for us to determine whether a name is “no more a nickname” If that nickname does in fact exist and there is a reputable reference to back it up. If a reference says that SBW has a nickname of Money Bill William or $BW then it is not for us to question it and oppose its inclusion in the article. So unless you have another good reason for your revert then I will be adding Superman again. Thank you and hope to hear from you soon.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi Aircorn, have you seen this? Do you fancy contributing? FruitMonkey (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I am watching it and if I get time and no-one else is too interested I will contribute. Shame about Wales, would have loved to have seen you in the Final. A good looking team for the future though. AIR corn (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry for my eventual inactivity on the Sam Tomkins/GA1 review. When I nominated it, I had lots of free time on my hand, but my circumstances changed over the months as the review got underway and I've found myself unable to contribute meaningfully. I'll take the comments on board in any future work on the article, and thanks for your work and patience. Also, congratulations on your country's win two weeks ago. GW (talk)  12:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... last week even. That mistake probably says it all... GW  (talk)  12:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No bother. The 3 month backlog is one of the biggest problems with good articles at the moment. I fail a lot of nomination due to editors no longer having enough time. I am thinking of writing a rant about it and would like to link to your comment as some editors seem to think a backlog is a good thing (or at least not something to worry about). I have a few ideas on ways to improve things, but first I need to convince people that change is needed, and that backlog drives are not the solution. AIR corn (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Julia Gillard GA nomination
Okay :) Thank you. --Editor2205 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Aniru Conteh
Hi. I have finished making the changes you requested in Talk:Aniru Conteh/GA1. For a summary of my changes, see User talk:Viriditas. For more detailed commentary, see the review page. Please feel free to spot check and make any changes you think will improve the article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have been watching the page. Looks good I will pass this now. AIR corn (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fine review. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cripples Bastards and Broken Things GA review
I'm not entirely sure which references you'd like to see replaced. Can you please provide more detailed and specific feedback, so I can either do so or demonstrate that the sources in question are, in fact, acceptable under our policies? I'll go through the prose in the mean time. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Left more detail under the review at Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1‎. AIR corn (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Not_Afraid/GA1
User:Ashliveslove, a relatively young Wikipedian, did a very brief review for my nomination Not Afraid at Talk:Not_Afraid/GA1 and I fear that it will not fully meet the criteria. I left a comment at the page, saying that I have addressed his one issue and I am concerned about if I should be taking any other responsibility. I see you left a note about his reviews and would like your view. Thanks! — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look for you. This was little more than a glance so take this with a grain of salt. I only reviewed the lead for prose and it was pretty good. A few minor points below.
 * "Not Afraid" has earned Eminem a total of six trophies, at MTV Award shows, the Grammy Awards, Billboard Music Awards and Detroit Music Awards. This is slightly ambiguous and could be written better. Maybe detail where they the trophies fit in.
 * Reviewers compared the video to the song's lyrics and praised the video for such depictions. Not exactly sure what this means. The video was praised because it followed the lyrics in the song? Could probably be written clearer
 * However, the product placement in the video, by Nike and Beats by Dr. Dre headphones, was criticized. Didn't know Nike made headphones? Maybe remove headphones or add shoes.
 * The Puff Daddy and Keanu Reeves pictures may be borderline in terms of relevance.
 * The focus is probably a little off; it is the longest article I have ever seen for a song. Or it could be just a really important song I guess. Not really my thing though.
 * A few DABs that could be fixed Nike (twice) and subway.
 * Like I said this is only a short review, I only scanned beyond the lead. All in all it is a very detailed, well reference and looks like a good article. I don't think it is going to get put up for WP:GAR anytime soon. As for User:Ashliveslove I will keep an eye on him and offer advice when I can. He is obviously a good faith editor so with a little guidance might become a good good article reviewer. With the backlog like it is we need all we can. AIR corn (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher Nolan/GA1
Hi, I would like to have your advice on this one. I'm in favor for not providing GA to this article due to reasons mentioned in review. Still before doing so would like last minute advice. ASHUIND  18:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes as it stands it fails the broadness criteria. There is some good advice at the review page on how to expand the article so you can either put it on hold and wait for the nominator to fix it or fail the article. If you fail the article leave a note at their talk page recommending they renominate it when it is expanded. It is up to you, it depends on how long you think it might take to get up to good article standard and how much time you have. Many editors hold an article for seven days, but there is no set time. Looking at the amount of work needed you would be justified in failing the article now. AIR corn (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohk. Thanks for the advice. ASHUIND  19:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Re
I told him to participate, based on if he had any experience in editing episode articles, but reading my message now, I don't think that was so clear. Pancake (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Nominating GAs
Hello, thanks for the info. I used to edit wikipedia very often (mainly on music related articles), but over the last few months I've been very busy and I didn't start editing on a daily basis again until fairly recently. I'm likely a little rusty and have forgotten some of these things. Well take care. RG (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Single parent GAN
I just wonder if you have decided to review it? Someone crossed it from my list at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and you are the only one who mentioned it... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Is it ready? AIR corn (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We need good editors
I note from your edit summary at Talk:Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms that you are a little despondent about about Wikipedia editing. I do not want my editing to drive editors away from WP. Please persevere with the work that you are doing. I will be giving an in depth reply at the article talk page in due course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just frustrated and venting. In the end it is only a minor edit, but for some reason it is something I felt strongly about. That was a bitch of an article to write as I had to read a lot of papers due to the regulation not being very transparent. It just annoyed me that other editors seemed to be taking the work I put in lightly. I am not going to win this and it ain't worth fighting over, so the best bet is to probably work with it. I was thinking about splitting the USA away anyway, Europe needs to be done too. Another paragraph or two needs to be added to the US section as it is important to this article. I will leave it for a while unitl I cool down and maybe work at it later. You seem like a nice guy and I am sorry if this has caused any extra stress. AIR corn (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still formulating a reply over at the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ra.One/GA1
Hi would appreciate your help in reviewing this article if you get time. This is really a long one and was more of written as a publicity since people in India are pretty excited about this film. Will need some one like you with neutral point to help reviewing the article. Thanks. ASHUIND  15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Will look over it when I have time. AIR corn (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article still has several issues (unnecessarily long commercial analysis section, some unreliable sources being used and grammatical errors to name a few), yet it has passed a GA review, which is kind of unexpected. Scieberking (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ivan
Thank you for your efforts on improving such a substantial article. For purposes of further improve, I will look through it and give it a GA-like review on its talk page, in which I will list my remaining concerns. Cheers,  Auree    ★  00:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Scieberking (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservatism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservatism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Hello. Please visit this section of the Ra.One talk page, and provide a consensus so as to decide the future of my proposition. I will be glad if you also mention some comments regarding how to approach this (undoubtedly) longer and more detailed review. Thank you.  Ankit Bhatt  WDF  Ankit Bhatt  WDF  16:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heterarchy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heterarchy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)