User talk:Aircorn/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Hi, Did you notice that the references I added actually cover all the quotes ? The first reference actually covers most of the section, so I added it at the end. “WarKosign” 16:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Hmmm I did a search for the quotes, but only found the last one. Just double checking you mean this and this source. I can't find one who walks a distance of 4 cubits in Israel may be confident of a share in the future world, "the thought of the sanctity of Israel overcame their resolution, and they shed tears, rent their garments, and turned back" and "To be buried in Israel is like being buried under the altar". Quotes must be present in the source referenced as quoted, otherwise they are not actually quotes. Okay I have looked a bit closer just now and found the quotes I am assume you are referring to, the issue is that the source says Palestine instead of Israel in each case, which is why my ctrl F did not work. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You know that Palestine (region) is another name for Land of Israel, right ? “WarKosign” 10:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a quote. It doesn't matter if it has spelling mistakes or factually incorrect information, you still need to say it exactly as the source says it. AIRcorn (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This quote is actually translation from Hebrew, and original Hebrew text says "Eretz Israel". We will use a source that translates this correctly. “WarKosign” 20:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign: If you can get consensus for this on the talk page it is fine by me. My interest was more in the use of the quotes and due wikipedia process. It is not an area I frequent, but I imagine it is a minefield to edit in. Best AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there Aircorn, from Portugal,

a bit saddened by the stuff which is (now) described in his career's last paragraph, i proceeded to improve this man's article. This leads to the question: as the tag you inserted last year is rather specific, do you think it should now be removed after my (hopefully we'll call it that!) improvements?

Thank you very much in advance, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ola Quite A Character. Thanks for bringing that article back to my attention. I meant to go back to it after some time had passed from the incident, but then forgot about it. I will have another go at reducing the undue focus on the NI game. Your edits look good though, hope you don't mind if I make some copy-edits. AIRcorn (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir, good job helping out! I (hopefully i'm right) went on and reinstated just one line saying he officiated that NIR/SWI match, without undue focus (i did write "controversial penalty" in the end, i think it's more or less balanced; however, if you like, you can remove and leave the sentence ending at "1-0"). Remember, my first intention was always to pay respects to Mr. Hategan and not berate him, but tell me what you think of my last edit if you will.

Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite A Character I am fine with your wording. I watch almost all referee and umpire articles so see a lot of fan complaints towards the referee after games. It is good to see some people editing these articles not just to complain about a game with a result they are disappointed in. Thank you and enjoy your editing here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing of that nonsense from this end, kind fellow user, i love (the) sport(s) but don't support any teams at all, not even this one for example. People waging war over anything just because of a match result (sometimes even BEFORE that), pathetic!

Thanks for your reply, happy editing yourself --Quite A Character (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: Women of War and Peace Play! January geofocus: Caucasus New, year-long initiative: Suffrage Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Aircorn,

I didn't know who else to contact; but a nominee of Playstation Portable for GA has recently been withdrawn; however it was withdrawn with the idea of surpassing GA entirely, and go straight to FA. Is there any criteria for articles to be GA before becoming FA? The article would have likely failed the GA review, as in my review, it simply wasn't written well enough. I just didn't want the editor to be confused if it was exceedingly unlikely that he'd bypass the GAN stage. Thanks for your time Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement for articles to be a GA before being submitted to FA. The FA crowd will look at your review so it won't go to waste and if it would fail a GA then there is no way it will meet the FA criteria. You could comment at the FAC if you want. It looks like a relatively new editor so they may not realise the step up in quality. I don't have much experience with FA reviewers at FA review, but I know some of them through other interactions and I would think they would be gentle in letting down a new good faith nominator if it is really far from being a FA. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries Aircorn. I didn't want to be super harsh on the guy, as he is doing good work. I was just worried that there was a guideline that I should make him aware of. Thanks for your help. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Genetically modified organism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I think I've addressed all your concerns on the GAN for Lonestar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Came down with a bout of food poisoning, but should get to this and a few others this week. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at this. With the qualifier that I have no more than a layman's knowledge of film, I think it's not beyond salvaging. I looked at a unified diff between the current version and the reviewed version, and most of what has changed prose-wise is in the lead or the awards section. Changing the awards to prose instead of a list is actually a good thing, but the new text needs a severe copy-edit, as does the lead. Otherwise, the prose is not terrible. It wouldn't hurt to do a spot-check of the sources: I haven't done that, though I can if you want me to. If you're busy, it wouldn't hurt to just rewrite the lead, and then send it to GOCE. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks. I am fine doing the copy edits myself. I try to keep these as Good Articles where possible, but sometimes find they are just too much work. Especially in topic areas that aren't of great interest to me. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/881279921

why do you think these are not an improvement? JCJC777 (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC) JCJC777 (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism sections in BLPs attract undue negative content. This is magnified in referee articles. If there are notable criticisms the they belong in the career section. Also it looks poor t have sections with single lines in them. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that, though, I think the changes were good. However, the repeated references could be consolidated into one. – PeeJay 11:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I see a lot of bad edits in this area, so it is possible I overreacted here. I still dislike the idea of a controversy section, but will defer to you on the other edits if you want to restore them. AIRcorn (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am a newspaper reporter in Maynard, where AquaBounty has its legal headquarters (a few people, no fish), so am versed in that story. I added text and two refs to the GMO article. Also a past employee of Monsanto (2000-04), so versed in GMO in general and golden rice in particular. Good luck with your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I am essentially taking a top down approach to this area. After GMO I will probably work on the food, plant and crop articles. I find this area quite taxing and generally edit in bursts so it might be a while before I get to the salmon or golden rice articles. I have noticed your edits there and thank you for them. Feel free to contribute to the GMO review as much as you like. AIRcorn (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Myself, my long-term projects are to bring all the vitamin and all the allergy articles to GA. And a lot of trimming wrong information from articles about dietary supplements. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is important work. All the best with your endeavors and I will no doubt see you around. AIRcorn (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The article Genetically modified organism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Genetically modified organism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn - you have been deleting my contribution on the Christchurch mosque shootings page. Eventually you said Stop adding this. They weren't in the mosque and it is already covered below Could you please comment when deleting people's contributions? This is a perfectly good reason for deleting, but not saying so initially just causes needless frustration and edit warring. I'm trying to help here in good faith, but you are making it very hard.Mozzie (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I said it the first time too [1]. Better to expand on what we have instead of adding the same information in different sections. AIRcorn (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi Aircorn,

I'm one of the Wikipedia administrators keeping an eye on the above page. I can understand the page requires significant number of edits in a short while; yet, edits like [2], [3], [4], [5], may count as reverts.

I know you obviously have an eye out on 3RR and would not want to cross the line. This is a note just to ensure you don't accidentally cross it.

Thanks,

Lourdes

04:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Reducing cite overkill is probably a stretch and I would call the SKY removal an edit. Anyway point taken and I am just glad someone is watching over the page. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Since you took up the GA for Lonestar, would you be willing to look at Tracy Lawrence and Mark Chesnutt too? The former has been open since October with no takers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you could step in sir, I've done the easy bit  :) but there isn't an article history section to update? Thanks for your offer of help, I'm rather poor at this kind of stuff! ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

yeah that is a problem with GAR. The template needs to be added manually. I am on mobile at the moment, but will do it when I get back home. AIRcorn (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That talk page lost all of its history except for the peer review. A five-event Article history is now there—I kept finding one more event. The GA2 review is the odd one; I'd forgotten I'd had to put it out of its misery when the reviewer was blocked for six months, but there was too much there to delete the page. Unfortunately, Article history doesn't offer an "unfinished" option, so I used the true but not as accurate as it might be "not listed" value, which is not the same as the suggested "failed", but seems to display as if it is. Oh well. (I also didn't bother looking up old id values; only the one that was already there has the link to the version that was active when the historical event occurred.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is not often that there is that much missing. I added the latest ID as it is quite easy to find. I don't think it is worth digging for the rest as they weren't listed as good in those versions. Thanks again for your diligence. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: and Aircorn, apologies, I forgot to look back here after asking, but thanks very much both for helping out with the process. It all sounds most odd! Much appreciated both, though, for going to the trouble. ——SerialNumber54129 19:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GAB^gab 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am considering another RfA in 2019. Next year is an Olympic year, so by this time next year I need to make a firm decision whether to participate as a media representative, as I did in 2012 and 2016. This will affect my personal and work commitments in 2019 and 2020. Given past experience of what is involved, I do not think I should accept without the admin bit. Before I even go to ORCP, I am seeking the input of a small number of people who gave well-reasoned opposes at my last RfA. I am seeking constructive feedback on my editing, and whether you feel I have addressed the concerns that you raised. I take criticism very seriously, and assure you that I will act upon it, regardless of whether I ultimately decide to initiate another RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite being first to oppose you last time I was wavering a bit on where to put it. When I first wrote my comment I originally did so in the neutral section. It was only after I typed it out that I decided it belonged under oppose. That was over three years ago and I was basing a lot of it on interactions I had four years before that. I did notice that during the RFA you acknowledged the block of Thivierr and I can even understand the thinking regarding Racepacket. At the time my main worry was that some of your decisions as an admin would be based more on who your friends are rather than what is the right course of action for the encyclopedia. However, I don't think anyone can doubt your commitment here and you must have some pretty thick skin; these seem like pretty good traits for a useful admin. Seven years is a long time, more than enough to ease even my long memory. I guess as far as advice goes I would suggest being open, honest and early in acknowledging your previous issues, in particular the desyopping. You are going to have opposes based on that no matter how much time passes, but you don't need a hell of a lot of new supports to succeed. I can't recall any recent issues from you and the few times we have crossed paths recently have been very pleasant. My default position would be to support you in another run this time. AIRcorn (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Aircon I should say that I am rather a newbie to Wiki and am rather unsure about a lot of things. There were a significant number of things that I thought could be improved on page you had perviously made major contributions to  Genetically modified virus. These changes are all ones that I would agree with. Because of my personal uncertainty with Wiki etiquet I worked in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maxj27/sandbox Would you be willing to take a look and say if and how I might best proceed. Thanks Maxj27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxj27 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

As per your suggestion, I've been helping out a little on User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review. I have a question. The references on Cold War are abysmal, but I'm gonna fix all those after waiting to see if no one objects. Do you see other GA-level problems? Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Lingzhi2 Despite best intentions a couple of weeks ago I have become quite useless here at the moment. Too useless to really dig into an article of that depth. I am too young and live too far away to really know much about that particular war either so not much help in a general sense either. I would guess neutrality would be a big area to check. Unless you know a lot about the subject the best way to decide that is by looking at what sources are used. You sometimes get a gut feeling that something isn't right, obvious red flags being tone or weasel words, but that can be difficult to explain. Sometimes the talk page holds clues. In the end it all comes back to how good the sources are and how they are used. With a GA we are not looking for a perfectly neutral article (I don't think they ever really exist), just one that fits in an acceptable spectrum. It is supposed to be a pretty light weight process so I wouldn't get too hung up on that though. Looks pretty broad, maybe too much - especially as it has lots of sub articles. AIRcorn (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! My tentative schedule for working on Cold War has been shoved way way way back. It may be a month before I even touch it again! But I will try to do so. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

...please...please...help...kill me.... (said Talk:Cold War/GA2). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And it is done. RIP AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Awesomeness free of charge" (Kung Fu Panda) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work at WP:GAR. You rock!  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lingzhi2. And thanks for getting involved and helping out. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)