User talk:Aircorn/Archive 4

Jack (webcomic)
Jack (webcomic) had a really fishy GAN in my opinion, from back in 2007. Concerns were raised, but they were ignored. I've made a GAR but I'm wondering — since the article is that bad, would it be wrong to send it straight to AFD? I mean, as I pointed out, the awards it's won are not considered notable, and I couldn't find any secondary sourcing anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Theoretically GA does not concern itself with notabilty (although it can be hard to meet the referencing criteria if something is really unnotable). I would have no problem if this went to AFD while under reassessment, I am pretty much the only one that comments there anyway. AFD usually closes faster anyway, so if it is kept the reassessment can continue, if it is deleted then the re-assessment is moot. Expect a few "but it is a Good article" !votes at the discussion, but a competent administrator will discount those.
 * BTW with articles that are a long way from GA status you might want to conduct individual reviews. They are much quicker than community ones. Obviously anything that could be considered controversial or should still go through the community. AIR corn (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize I'd AFD'd it 2 years before, but here you go: Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic) (2nd nomination). That one was kept entirely due to them arguing that one award is notable, even though many other AFDs have said otherwise — the utter lack of sourcing was never addressed. I don't know why so many people say "keep, it won an award" and completely ignore the whole sourcing thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN signature
Oops, thanks for fixing that! I'll be more careful next time I nom something. Thanks also for your note. Happy editing! :) Keilana | Parlez ici 05:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesians
Greetings, this is a notice to inform you that Chinese Indonesians, an article which you have previously reviewed at the PR, GA, or FA level, has been nominated at FAC. Should you wish to participate, it would be welcome. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Determinator p  t  c  12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review Request
Hello! I just wanted to ask you if you would be able to review the Wing Coaster article for Good Article status. Reviewing the article will be greatly appreciated but in no way am I telling you that you have to review the article...its your choice. Please respond when ever you get a chance. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't usually do requests and am too busy at the moment in any case to take on any more GA reviews. There is a drive on at the moment so it might get seen sooner than normal anyway. You might like to review some of the articles ahead of yours as that will increase the chances of someone picking up your article. AIR corn (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Elections in Croatia
Hi! Thanks for taking on the review. I just took a quick look at the notes you posted, and I'll tackle those in a couple of hours if that's alright. I'm confident those can be satisfactorily resolved. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't mind if a review takes a while - after all it gives me more time to respond and I'm in no rush. Thank you once again for taking time to review the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments. I think I resolved all of them, but there were some points that required clarification which I would like you to have another look at them (regarding the appeals and MEP/MP elections difference). Also I changed sourcing info of the image you pointed out, at the Commons, but I'm not quite sure if the licensing info supplied there is appropriate or not - the parliament specifically allows use of the image provided it is attributed to them - and I'm not sure about the bit about adaptations of the work ("to remix"). Can you offer any advice on that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since GregorB was kind enough to step in and promised to deal with the image issue by tonight, I'll wait until then before and then I'll replace the image if nothing else happens.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image now since the sourcing/licensing issue cannot be resolved (at least for now).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for taking time and effort to review the article. I'm sure that its quality improved as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Lupo the Butcher/1
Aware that you haven't had much to do with the article, but I'm notifying yourself of this discussion as a recent editor and a contributor to the talk page. Thanks, Eshlare (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re
messages on my talk. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect Rihanna
Hi Jc37. I have been watching the Rihanna dispute unfold (chiming in occasionally) and it appears that consensus on the talk page has been reached. I was hoping you would look into unprotecting the article so it is able to be edited once again. Regards AIR corn (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and, done.
 * I'm not sure, but I don't see a consensus so much as tomica stopped editing - But we can hope.
 * If edit warring starts again and I don't notice, please feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 03:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Myself, Kww, Jorgath (and I think  OohBunnies!) all seem to think the edits are an improvement. Jorgath suggested Tomica conduct a RFC, which is probably the best option. It is still on my watchlist now so I will let you know if it starts up again, although it is not an article I am likely to keep watchlisted for any great length of time. AIR corn  (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic games
Ooops. Haven't done one of these in forever. I couldn't quite figure out the rules. :/  The major issue is the article is almost completely unsourced and it needs that I think to be a GA. If it would be better for a community review, then that would be cool but I couldn't tell from the criteria for which type to select if that was the kind that was supposed to be used. : / And yeah, probably made a has out of it. -LauraHale (talk)
 * I notified three people who appear to have made the most edits to it, but it doesn't look like anyone has been really maintaining it recently. As the article had I think 100,000 + views in the past 30 days, getting it back up to actual GA seems important but I honestly don't know if anyone wants to do it.  Notifying help would be good though. --LauraHale (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply on LauraHale's talk page (it's been archived now hence my response here), I can see that notifying all the necessary pages is an easy thing to miss. I do have to disagree with you on the obligation to transclude the review though - point 3 of "How to use this process" from WP:GAR suggests it's a step that should be taken and it may well have helped in this case- Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was a bad oversight not notifying the olympic wikiproject. I always thought it was up to the reviewers whether or not they transcluded the review. I stand corrected, although current practice seems to be not to transclude. Just curious as to how it would have helped? AIR corn (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may not have done. Maybe a major edit to the talk page may have made some users aware of it via their watchlists but mostly it makes it easier to find the review - the only other link in is in the collapsed article milestones list - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 23:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would definitely help the passing reader. I asked beause I was rewriting the GAR instructions (had a few issues with experienced editors not knowing the exact steps); currently in my sandbox. I removed the transclusion part, but if it would help I will put it back in. AIR corn (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Spelling
Hi, I've reverted your change to this template. If you would like to create a new template with this name then fine, but please don't blindly copy from another template because it contains code and categories which are not relevant. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you fix it so it does not contain those code or categories. Spelling is a reason for clean-up so if someone uses that template it should not display an error. AIR corn (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked into this a bit further. Please see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 17. Although 6+ years ago it was deleted as a result of discussion. Do you think redirecting it to copyedit is still appropriate? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would work better than redirecting to clean-up. AIR corn (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I have redirected it there; I agree this is a better target for the redirect. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Invasion (Grey's Anatomy)
Hi, Aircorn. Thanks again for those additional comments at Talk:Invasion (Grey's Anatomy)/GA1. I believe I've addressed all the issues, and I was going to wait for you or BlueMoonset to respond, but TBrandley unexpectedly passed it. If you feel that I have not adequately fixed the prose and quoting issues, please let me know. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 22:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I will have a look when I get some more time (hopefully this weekend). I am a little concerned about TBradley's reviews so will probably check a few more of them out then too. AIR corn (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch
Do you approve of my revision of the lede? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A small nitpick would be that you have three sentences in a row starting with "Her music ....", but apart from that I think it is fine. Though I had no problem with the original lead, I prefer the conciseness of this one slightly more. If I may, I would suggest that with your recent edits you have gone from reviewer to major article contributor. It might be best for you to withdraw from reviewing the article. I would suggest that you simply fail it (the review is leading in that direction anyway) and then discuss further improvements on the talk page. It can be renominated by either you or TDA when it has re-stabilised. AIR corn (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will hopefully have some time to spare this weekend to finish things off.AIR corn (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And now a new batch of replies there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2012 Super Rugby final


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2012 Super Rugby final. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. gaidheal1 (talk♫contribs) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire/GA2
Hello Aircorn. I've mostly finished addressing your GA review concerns of A Song of Ice and Fire. I asked another editor to help me out with one sentence, and I still have to read over the article another time to make sure everything is GA-ready from my perspective, so you might give it a look tomorrow or in two days. Thank you for your time. – sgeureka t•c 08:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will hopefully have some time to spare this weekend to finish things off.AIR corn (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My schedule has loosened up again, so I hope we both have time to finish the GAN soon. :-) I have made some changes to the article per your comments, and I left replies at the GAN page. – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk back
— Northamerica1000(talk) 09:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RE:GA reassessment requests
Eminem article has changed since four years, and I bet some parts are uncited, and some passages are too much. Friends has some updates since 2009. Lindsay Lohan... long story. Anyway, I hope I'm reasonable. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change is actually good, it means the article is being kept up-to-date. There were no obvious uncited passages that I saw, although it is hard to know without going into the references in-depth. The talk page is usually a good indication of problems in high profile articles and nothing jumped out there. To me the articles seem to be in decent shape and it will be a lot of work to do a full reassessment on those articles. If it is just based on a gut feeling or because it has been four years since the last review then it is not really something I really want to do (someone else might, but it can be a bit of a ghost town at GAR). Saying that it is great that you are looking to check Good articles and it is something that does get neglected. You might like to scan this for good candidates. AIR corn (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-assessment
I appreciate the notice you gave me regarding the re-assessment. As I am under an interaction ban with the various IP addresses that have been editing the article and the talk page and do not want to risk getting blocked, because most of the criticism are coming from some one who I have an interaction ban with, and because the article is mentioned on Conservapedia as being biased where the very biased project implies the article was written by radical feminist, I do not want to risk being involved because I do not want to violate my interaction ban. --LauraHale (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I see it you are under a interaction ban with Racepacket, who is indefinitely banned. So if you respond to an IP it is either not Racepacket or he is evading his ban. I can ask an ARB if you want for clarification. I have tried to make the background as I understand it obvious in the reassessment and will go through the community process to keep everything as transparent as possible. Conservapedia is good for a laugh and not much else, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. AIR corn (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

TB
 TheSpecialUser TSU 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Jawadreventon (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

genetic engineering articles
Thanks for your kind remarks! I really appreciate that you took time to write to me. Glad that the shape fits what you were thinking -- I will have a look at your sandbox for sure. btw am very happy to discuss all this.Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project
I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. I'm contacting you because you expressed an interest in a previous discussion in regards to a more stringent enforcement of BRD. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just testing the waters at this stage to see how much interest there would be in such a co-ordinated task force. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes/GA1
Thanks for the heads up!- Running On Brains (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

re: GA reassessments
I know. Should I close them as fails and delist the articles? I'd appreciate a second opinion here, I've never done this before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tried my best to follow the ArtHist template instructions. Can you see if I did everything correctly? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Na zdrowie AIR corn (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Paulo Francis.
Hi,I only want to say that the Paulo Francis article needs a copy edit made by a native Anglophone editor, and, that not being my case, I can only hope for this to be arranged as sooon as possibleCerme (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have made a request. It looks like there is a backlog there of 2 500 odd articles. I will add to my list of things to do, if no one beats me to it. AIR corn (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Regarding the second opinion on M-102... --Rschen7754 06:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. AIR corn (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

edit to genetic engineering
hi aircorn -- about your last change to genetic engineering.... ref is from 1997 - 15 years old. I don't believe its true anymore that it is easier to take genes out of bacteria and viruses... it is routine all around. i think that viruses were chosen for GM crops used for food b/c crops with genes from viruses are made to resist those viruses. i think bacteria was chosen for gm crops with genes from bacteria, because a) scientists wanted proteins that were not in higher organisms (glyphosate resistance) b/c this made things safer -- also b/c it was easier to find/select for genes resistant to glyphosate in bacteria b/c they divide faster and evolve faster.   and since 1997 there have been hundreds of field trials of gm crops for pharming, that do have genes from higher organisms in them.    so i think the statement you added is just not true...Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I didn't really take notice of the date when adding it. AIR corn (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * :) thanks, glad we see it the same way!Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Techniques of genetic engineering
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Techniques of genetic engineering, appears to be directly copied from http://dna.ezinemark.com/process-of-genetic-engineering-17f5db94a16.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Techniques of genetic engineering if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Curious about what you are thinking here... why split this out?Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel it is too long for the Genetic engineering article and having its own article means that it can be linked via a main from the GMO, GM crops and any other relevant GM article. Will shorten the section on Genetic engineering when I get time and expand/improve the layout of that page. AIR corn (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will you share your overall plan? You've also made a separate page for history that duplicates much of the material.  Is your plan to get rid of the genetic engineering article altogether and merge it with GMO article?  Not clear what will be left for the genetic engineering article itself, with these two chunks taken out... I am asking that because I had always thought those two sections were the entire point of the GE article.  The applications section could just as well be in the GMO article. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Genetic engineering is an overview article and should be written in WP:summary style and so most of the sections should be WP:Content forks. The history one should have been done a long time ago asit is quite common to have a history of article for many major topics. The techniques one was a bit more of a stretch, but is probably still better this way. Now we can link to these articles fromthe other related ones GMOs, crops, food etc. AIR corn (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a new Regulation of Genetic Engineering article too. Mostly focused on regulation of release. I spent hours trying to clarify the structure of these articles when nobody else had their hands in them, and I feel like you are breaking that back down again and creating pages with overlapping content that is going to bring things back to the mess they were (e.g. in your new History page, your stats on current commercialization were 2 years old.) To me it's just not good to have the same content in several different articles - it's impossible to keep everything aligned and updated. But I don't know, maybe you feel like my changes went too far in the other direction. Aircorn please, before you make more major revisions to the structure of all these articles can we please discuss the big picture? I am asking you to talk so we can come to consensus. I am not sure what the right place to have that discuss as there are others who care about this. But please let's discuss the big picture. I think we both are working in good faith to improve these articles, let's work together. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the amount of work you are putting in and will stop for now. There is already a request for comment about some of these articles where the structure has been brought up (we have both commented), but it does not really discuss the question fully. Maybe the Genetic engineering talk page would be the best place as most people interested would have that watchlisted and it is the natural parent. I don't know of any other topic with the same complexity as this one, but if you look at Evolution or Global warming you will see that it uses main templates for most of its sections. The above links (to WP:summary style and WP:Content fork) probably explain it better than I do, but each article should cover the topic and link to articles that go into more and more detail. For example a reader might be interested in genetic engineering so type that into the search engine and come to our Genetic engineering article. They should get a good overview of the topic touching on every major aspect. If they want more detail on a topic (say the regulation), then they can easily find there way to the Regulation of genetic engineering article. this should cover an overview of all the regulations involved in genetic engineering (from approval, to the lab and release). From there if a topic has enough information they can get even more detail, leading to Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and from there to Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union or Genetic engineering in the United States. It is kind of like a heirachy, with each sub article going into more and more detail. This keeps all the articles at a readable size and allows the reader to easily find the information they want. AIR corn (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks!!! I somehow missed your comments over there and read them today.  Thanks!!  Yes let's move this over there.  My biggest concern is having the same subject matter covered in depth in different articles.  I don't see how that is a good thing.  Making subarticles is great but what is left in the head article, in my view, needs to be stub-like -- very short and general -- and watched to keep it that way, so that we don't have weedy outgrowths all over the place saying different and even contradictory things.  It would be so awesome to have a map showing all the articles and how they relate... I am guessing that the overall genetic engineering template could totally do that, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I read somewhere that if sub articles are created the lead should be in the head article. Makes sense in theory, but in practice it doesn't always work. I think the Genetic engineering article at least should have a bit more detail. They should be relatively easy to manage if we watchlist them. If someone puts something in the wrong place it can be moved easily. One thing I have found is that if you get the article up to good quality then it is easier to patrol. It is like a car, once it gets a few scratches you become less concerned about new ones. I was pretty much following the template design with the sub sections and I think it works as well as it can. What would be more useful (and I know you have been doing this) is to merge the topics that completely overlap or that are never going to reach full article status. For example Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Switzerland is unlikely to make it beyond a stub and I don't see to much value of Genetic engineering in New Zealand or most countries. It is out of date, but I started listing some relevant articles with the aim of merging or organising them better here some time ago. AIR corn (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Supernova articles merge suggestion
I added this suggestion as a prompt for discussion, not that there has been much. I would love to have your opinion on this put on the record, but unilaterally killing it seems a little out of line. Convince me and I'll kill it myself, but right now the supernova sub-articles are a confusing mess (not so much type Ia which stands well on its own). Lithopsian (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am working through the Good articles with merge tags so I am going only on the discussions and what the articles say. According to the articles there is a Type 1 classification and a Type 2 classification. Merging a type 1 subclassification into a type 2 does not make sense. It has been four months which seemed like enough time for others to comment. You might want to leave a note at WikiProject Astronomy and see if others will comment. AIR corn (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Steps for community process for Concussion article?
Thanks for taking an interest and delisting Post-concussion syndrome.

For the Concussion article, you mentioned the possibility of using the community process where I might get more responses. Could you please briefly tell me the steps involved in this, and also a little about the social context I might expect? Thanks.

And I am not a doctor. I am just a person interested in the topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. The instructions are at WP:GAR. Basically the easiest way to do it is to add "{{subst:GAR}}" (without the quote marks) to the top of the articles talk page. That should add a template that gives you two options, one for individual and one for community. Click the community link and a new page will be created. This is the page the reassessment will be conducted on. Write a concise explanation as to why it no longer meets the criteria and sign it. Then you need to notify any major contributors and the major wikiprojects. A bot will do the rest (linking the talk page to the discussion, transcluding the template on WP:GAR, etc).


 * The important things to remember are to always relate the articles failings to the criteria, if you haven't already you might like to read this essay. The standard is not as high as everybody thinks. Hopefully people will respond to your concerns and add there own if they see any. The aim is to always get the article back up to the correct standard. You are welcome to comment further if you wish or can just leave it for others. The participation there is rather poor I must admit and some reassessments attract little outside opinion. Most of the time the comments are constructive and if an article is brought there in good faith it should run smoothly (albeit slowly). After a reasonable time someone will close the review based on the articles state and comments expressed at the review. AIR corn (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stargate (production team)
Two weeks later and no attempts to fix the issues have been done... believe it's time to delist the article and close the reassessment. Thanks. Till 06:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed the reassessment. Fixed it up to Good article standard myself and kept it. AIR corn (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article still sucks though. Till 10:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Saga (comic book) GA review
Thank you for your message. Regarding your statement "They are in essence doing nominators a favour by reviewing the articles and are under no obligation to accept your questioning or continue a review they are no longer interested in", well, all contributors are doing Wikipedia a favor with their edits, and that includes myself and you. But imagine this: Let's say I argued, when reviewing an article, that the pace of a story could not be "hurt" because it has no feelings; that the article is missing negative critical reviews, and when the nominator said he couldn't find any, I point out this one; that I couldn't understand why two main characters from opposite sides in a war were being so hotly pursued by authorities from both sides; and that the phrase "children's books" was vague. Let's say that the nominator, who implemented every other single correction and suggestion I raised, requested clarification where he did not understand a given comment, and that he responded to these four by: pointing out that the definition of the word "hurt" does not require feelings, that a reading of the linked review actually shows it to be overwhelmingly positive; that the article makes clear that one of the characters is an escaped prisoner, the other is a turncoat who helped free him, and that together they slaughtered a team of soldiers during their escape; and the phrase "children's books" was the phrase used by the source, which was not more specific than that. Let's say that I pointed out a passage incorrectly containing the wording "Such as including", and even though I had demonstrated a willingness to make long series of edits myself to the article, I instead became self-righteous and snarky with the nominator by saying, "Which do you want? 'Such as' or 'including'?" Let's say that nominator pointed out this comment this was a less constructive use of effort than simply removing one of those phrases, and that that in response to that criticism, I closed the review, claimed that the nominator had "no intention" of addressing the issues, and falsely accused him of being "consistently and aggressively uncooperative" since the start of the review. If I did that, then yes, I would be guilt of treating my review as infallible dogma, of outright lying about an editor's conduct, and of retaliating against mere question of the issues by flexing the power that had gone to my head in closing the review. Bottom line: All discussion or conflict on Wikipedia should be an open and honest exchange of ideas. Malleus didn't engage in that, and then libeled another editor who dared question him or point out that not all of his statements were correct. If he is a long term reviewer, then the rest of the review community should be embarrassed by his behavior, and your statement that that community would likely not take any action over that behavior only reveals that community to be another insular, corrupt bureaucracy on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry if I didn't put the article up for reassessment in the correct way. Thank you for your advice. Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. It is not the first time that nominators and reviewers have fallen out, it happened with my second review. The easiest solution is to just to move on, renominate and get a second reviewer. Dragging it out is not going to do any good. AIR corn (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from making sure that MF's behavior is part of the record by reporting his behavior on the talk page, I have no intention of dragging this out. One question: How do I delete the Talk:Saga (comic book)/GA2 page? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking a db-self would be easiest. Otherwise I use db-g6. You can either then start a Community GAR (follow the instructions at WP:GAR) or renominate. I should warn you that I am the only real regular contributor at GAR's and I have basically already said how I would close it. AIR corn (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Revdel
Hi for revdel to work we have to have a good final version. That means someone has to remove the text that we want to revdel. It is best if there is only editting from the person causing the edits that we want to hide, else we cause an attribution problem for all the other editors. In this case it is a bit obscure, and it would be satisfactory to deny the offending statement in talk, as this is only a talk page and does not look authoritative. In anycase if revdel is going to do anything there has to be a clean version to move on to. Also a final suggestion is to contact by email to avoid drawing more attention to the offensive material, and you can add a template to my talk. Thanks for watching out for troublesome writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks AIR corn (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Wikipedical (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Aspirin
Hi,

I have been busy with school and unable to devote the necessary time to dealing with the "hypothesized uses" section (among others) on Aspirin so i really appreciate the help. It would be really great if we could bring this back up to GA or better status, since I feel like certain sections have accumulated a lot of cruft since it was nominated for GA several years ago, and it is no longer at GA level.

Thanks again!

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was concentrating on the tags and the "hypothesized uses" section was typical of someone reading a study (or even a news report of a study) and including too much detail. Som uncited sections still that should probably have references and a copyedit wouldn't hurt, but it shouldn't take too much effort to get it to GA standard or beyond. AIR corn (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21™  08:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

GAR Sibyl de Neufmarché
I am disappointed to discover (by chance) that Sibyl de Neufmarché has been undergoing WP:GAR for some time. Not due to the reassessment – anyone is welcome to nominate any article should they choose – but because the procedure set out in the GAR do not seem to have been followed. Namely: ''Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps: … 4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. . By any standards, with 169 extant edits, I would consider myself to have been a major contributor'' to the Sibyl de Neufmarché article. Please provide the diff notifying me of your concerns. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You can find the discussion at Good article reassessment/Sibyl de Neufmarché/1. There have also been discussions at the reliable source noticeboard, which are linked to from the reassessment page. AIR corn (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * “Sorry about that” doesn't begin to cover it. The GAR procedures are quite explicit (4., noted above), and have not been followed. Even if your motivation were per the GAR procedures, "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it", (and I'm not saying it isn't), common courtesy would require you to notify those who have spent a great deal of their time working on it. Surely, if you want to fix what you perceive to be a problem, asking those with some knowledge of the subject would have been a wise move. I note you have struck through some of your false claims that tags have been on the article since November 2010. Sadly, other false claims remain e.g. “Any article, rated good or not, with sources tagged as unreliable deserves further investigation, not to be ignored (especially as these have been tagged as such for two years). 1 November 2012”. The article was in fact tagged on 27 August 2012, less than 2 ½ months ago. Please now go through what you have written relating to this article and correct any false statements. Please withdraw your GAR, which has not been conducted in accordance with the GAR procedures. Two of the main editors of this article are now aware that you think there may be a problem (no thanks to you). I am prepared to look at the problem and work to rectify it - rather than to drive-by tag and piss off - (an opportunity I should have been given before GAR was initiated), but not while a GAR is in progress. I await your response. Daicaregos (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake not notifying you and have admitted it and apologised. I also made a mistake in assuming it had been tagged for two years and have already struck comments to that regard (apart from the one I missed). I did not tag it, and the person who tagged it backdated the tag for some reason. I went to the talk page first and then the reliable sources noticeboard. I also notified the Wikiprojects and assumed Jeanne was aware as she had responded at the talk page. I missed you and Pyrotec and am really sorry about that (and will make sure I double check the contributions in the future), but I would not have done the rest if I was just looking for a quick delist (including going the community route instead of the individual one). I don't know why the tags can't be addressed while the GAR is in progress. If that happens I will be more than happy to withdraw it. AIR corn (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I will withdraw it. The aim has always been to fix it and I do not really care how that is accomplished as long as it is. I am systematically going through Good Articles with various cleanup tags on them and now that it is correctly dated it will most likely be months before this article reappears on my radar. This should be plenty of time to resolve any issues with it. I am still interested in the question of what tags are acceptable on a Good article, but might move that discussion to the main talk page. AIR corn (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN Backlog elimination RfC
I just noticed your latest post at the talk page. I've replied there, but this worries me a little and I wonder if it is worth raising at WT:GAN. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I don't actually think Hahn is being deceptive, I think it is more a case of inexperience in running RFCs. Can't fault the enthusiasm and some interesting ideas and comments have come out of it no matter how it is closed. Also considering the backlog drives generally rely on a motivated editor to run them I think we can cut a little slack. Worst case scenario a new idea doesn't work and we change it next year. As long as not too many reviews are harmed in the process we should be alright, it can't be worse than the last one.... surely..... Oh and the alternative account nearly got me too. I was about to just revert the edit, but decided to see who it was first. AIR corn (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21™  20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: GAN reviews
Both reviews were awaiting response from the other reviewer who said he was busy and put it on hold. I was awaiting that to be done, but per my contribus ive not been onlinemuch in the past several weeks. Although i could work on them now. Both were very close to being complete.Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, just an issue left and then can approve . See the table on the review page.Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Done with Bahrain to GA
 * Was wondering if we could reserrect Guinea-Bissauy as previously MohammedCJ went off for school work and then i drifted from the page and was absent from WP for a few weeks? Ill get to answering your q's and we can finish it off this week?
 * I did stuff awaiting MCJ but he was busy and then the 2nd opinion queries onl came at 25 Oct and was closed at the same time, so i dint really get a changce to see it. Ive done most of what you suggested (see review page), only the tags pending. Is there anything else that needs improvement as well? SEEMS the tag is the only thing from the GA...if so can we finish this up soon?Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * update only 1 tag left. If there are no other constraints then ill answer this tonight and we can move?Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You will have to renominate it as I have already closed the other review. I got two others on the go at the moment, plus a few GARs, but will pick it back up. AIR corn (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, will renom. (seems like a waste of new page creation though), but its virtually done now.
 * Thought it was a little unfair (and discouraging) that it failed when i was waiting for the reviewer to get bback as he was busy and hten the first comment on the article to improve on also closed it. Yet on the other articlea host of volunteers offered to review yet and i came through and did finish it up. Undoing this can open it back up. and it IS doableLihaas (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All set on the talk page. You can choose the other review as tempalte as all but 1 issue is resolved.Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the last issue, asked a query there. See that review page.Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All set, last tag sorted by another user.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered most stuff, not really sure what to do or what was meant on the rest. Feel free to reorganise it tooLihaas (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving along real fine. Guess were almost done. The reactions section is already chenged per your suggestion n the firt review..

You're real fast. Yeah nearly at the end. Sorry about the piecemeal approach, have a few other things on. AIR corn (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No probs. Were set now i imagine?Lihaas (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All set..Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we set? I b;elieve all is answered?Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just adding the source for the 200 figure and doneLihaas (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, from the article that i seconds before edited his house as being attacked. Perhaps "later" arrested?Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, perfect, can i start a FA immediately?Lihaas (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never had a FA before, was close once but i got busy suddenly and it closed ;) Is the DYK, GA still on?
 * btw- can you take a look sometime at Battle of Gao, MOJWA, MNLA sometime and see if it can be GA? THX.Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I once had a dream of taking New Zealand to FA status, but it burnt me out something chronic. Been meaning to go back to it, but have been quite happy dabbling in GA. As you can probably guess by my piecemeal approach to this article I am struggling to get decent stretches of time to edit, usually I only have a few short breaks during the day. I will add those articles to my mental list of things to do, but that list is getting rather long. God knows what is going to happen with the GAs being eligible for DYK proposal. It was passed, but there is still plenty of resistance. I asked again at WP:AN for admins to review the close, but wont be surprised if it gets archived again. AIR corn (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN Drive
The drive has started. — ΛΧΣ  21™  05:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hello, can you please see if you can answer my question here, seeing as how you are a regular GA contributor. Thanks. Till 13:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Mark Bergseid

Bergseid et al., "A High Fidelity Thermostable DNA Polymerase Isolated from Pyrococcus Furiosus," Strategies 4:34-35 (1991) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.86.42 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season/GA2
Hello, I haven't seen any comments on Talk:2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season/GA2 in over a week, I know these things take time but, I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten about it. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been screwing you around on that one a bit. I meant to do it ages ago and then my holiday arrived quicker than I though it would, so I decided to withdraw so someone else could pick it up. Of course nobody did, so when I saw it was still unreviewed a few weeks ago I figured I should pick it up again. I have read most of it and even made a few comments, but was going to wait until I finish before I put them in the review. Will hopefully tidy up this and a few other loose ends before the weekend. AIR corn (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really appreciate the review. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Think I have addressed all of the issues that were brought up in the review. Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genetically modified food controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Kumbakonam
Hi, can you please help in here - Kumbakonam reassessment. In spite of fixing review comments, it has been delisted. Most closure comments were given right before closure and weren't discussed earlier. I have fixed closure comments as well. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. In these situations I think your best bet would be to renominate it at WP:GAR and ask for a community reassessment. That way others can chime in on the status and the decision to keep delisted or relist can be decided by consensus. The instructions are on the WP:GAR page, but let me know if you need a hand with doing this. AIR corn (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
I really appreciate your constructive suggestions at GAN, I feel that they've made a marked improvement in the article. And I was delighted to come back from dinner to find that you'd passed the article. And I've made the additional improvements you've suggested. Anyway, again, thanks, and feel free to call on me if I can ever be of assistance. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 05:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Congratulations on your first GA. AIR corn (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Lynsey Nolan GA review
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article, I'll use the review to try to improve the article. I can see where you are coming from with the quick fail, although it is slightly frustrating. D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, i've began editing the article, and cut down it down quite a bit, and tried paraphrasing the quotes and cut quite a lot of them out, but i'm a bit stuck as to what needs doing, could you point me in the right direction? I am a bit confused as to why you gave such a brief review then failed it, if you couldn't give it a full review then why not leave it to another editor, it had been in the queue for five months so i'm a tad frustrated. Thanks D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi D4nnyw14. This is going to sound a little harsh, but the reason I didn't give a full review was that in my opinion it was a long way off meeting the Good article criteria. I think that is one of the reasons it took so long for a reviewer to pick it up. It was the oldest review so there is no guarantee that another reviewer would pick it up or that there review would be any different. You might want to ask to have a look and do a copyedit for you. She has written a few soap character Good articles and is an active editor. One of the more difficult things to do when you are a fan of a topic is to write concisely about it. It is a skill, but you have to think what can I leave out without altering the meaning. It happens in plot sections for movies, books and other media all the time, which is why there are guidelines for plot lengths. I also feel the prose is not well written, which is again a skill that you can learn. There are some good copy editors out there and after you have reduced the size of the article you can ask one of them go over it. There is advice at this user page on writing good prose. Sorry you are frustrated, but I think your best option is to do as much as you can yourself and then seek advice or even go through a WP:Peer review before renominating. AIR corn  (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know June, so will ask her if she can lend a hand. Thanks for understanding and explaining your reasoning better. Might sound slightly cheeky of me but would you consider rereviewing the article in future? - i just don't know if i would renominate and wait for a further five months. Thanks D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I won't make any promises on reviewing the article though. It is not really a subject area I am interested in and I only really picked it up this time because it was the oldest one in the queue. AIR corn (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks anyway. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey M. Smith
Hi Aircorn, thanks for the revert of the edits by Reviewer12. The article is a bit of hatchet job and so readers may be getting ticked off and doing rash things like Reviewer12. I'm trying to clean it up per WP policy and guidelines. Mostly I'm going through the sources which are the backbone of any WP article. I'm finding that there are quite a few sources that are mis-represented or contain links to Facebook, personal blogs and personal web sites. Also a lot of primary sources (which is OK depending on the context) and coatracking (ie the source does not mention the subject's name) Any input you have is appreciated. I am happy collaborate to improve the article.Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have made a big improvement to the article. I don't know if you have seen the AFD, but one of the concerns I raised was that these articles relating to fringe topics tend to attract extreme editors from both ends that make enforcing BLP a nightmare. Unfortunately I don't think that is a strong reason to delete. I will have a closer look later, but I would suggest merging the criticisms into the general article per Criticism. I know this is just an essay and doesn't make a definitive statement, it just happens to be one thing I agree should happen for most articles. The only other thing that I can think of is that you may have been a bit strict on your interpretation of WP:RS. I would have thought this would be alright for what it was sourcing (see WP:ABOUTSELF, even facebook can be used under some situations and official twitter accounts seem to have become a major source for even mainstream newspapers now). Unless you think it might not have been written with Jeffrey Smiths permission. AIR corn (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your detailed response. For me the first step is to go through the sources which was a major concern at the AfD discussion. In doing that I'm finding quite a lot of misuse and even possible manipulation of the bio.talk page thread here. So that's my first priority. After that we can look at NPOV issues, improving the lead, finding better sources etc. Regarding the source you commented on. I'm open to discussion. If it was Jeffrey's own web site I'd have no problem but the site belongs to Eric Randal so technically its not self-pub and there is no editorial oversight. I guess it might meet the standard for a primary source, I'd be open to discussing it further on the talk page :-)  Thanks for your input. cheers! -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Havana (film)
You removed several illustrations stating that they did not meet the "Fair Use" criteria. What criteria did they not meet please?

Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)  thanks :)
 * Number 8 Non-free content criteria. Looked a bit closer and they all seem to have boilerplate rationals and descriptions. Many of these are contrdictory and don't even match the image (i.e. describing them as posters and digital captures). AIR corn (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Number 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That is your subjective opinion.   I disagree.  Also, 99% of fair use rationales can be construed to consist of boilerplate.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do it the hard way. At a push I think you could get away with the ariel photo. You are completly wrong about the rationals though. AIR corn (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD Renomination
An article that you have edited has been nominated for AFD, and you may wish to comment. Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Drive
I am unable to close the drive in December 17, so, would you handle the close proceedings? (I am not willing to be blocked). Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it extends to closing a drive you started. If you are really worried though just tell me exactly what I have to do it and when (noting that I am in a different time zone). AIR corn (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was told not to even close my home's own door, so I prefer to stay in safe zone. All you need to do is add  and  to the Totals page. I guess that the   template should also be removed, but only after all submissions have been checked. I can issue the barnstars and change the tenses in prose later :) Thanks. —  ΛΧΣ  21  03:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. Going to bed now so it is half an hour early for my time (and various degrees earlier for other places), but I am sure that can be sorted out. Better check it, the tlc template didn't work so I removed it. AIR corn (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. it was  without "tlc". I have fixed it. Thanks :) —  ΛΧΣ  21  00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, recommend referee for political article?
Hi Aircorn,

We talked regarding concussion and post-concussion syndrome. I have been contributing to an article on ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

There is beginning to be a dispute, maybe the beginnings of an edit war, between me and another editor. Might you suggest someone who could help referee this situation where hopefully it will not get bad and will instead stay positive? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Aircorn, thank you for the information you sent me. I think I'm leaning toward third opinion as needed.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)