User talk:Aircorn/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I agree that one game should not dominate a referee's career, but this was a very important international game where the referee came in for heavy criticism from sports commentators, respected journalists as well as other neutral international referees. While you state that you shouldn't focus on one game, both Wayne Barnes and Craig Joubert's profiles have dedicated sections on two specific games where they came in for heavy criticism. It seems as if you are unduly protecting Matt O'Brien? At the very least there should be reference to the game and that he made several controversial calls which influenced the result. This is not an opinion, but a fact. I would appreciate your views.

Nooooo! I was actually also making changes to the 2016 Wellington Sevens article as the same time as you. Here is my attempt, I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to use any of this to merge into the existing text (feel free to delete this from your talk page once your done using or not using it!):

The Cup final of the 2016 Wellington Sevens was contested by New Zealand and South Africa, after they won their semi-final matches against England and Fiji respectively. It was the second time the two teams met in the tournament, after New Zealand won their Pool A match 19–14 the previous day.^[1]

South Africa gained the early advantage in the match, scoring two tries in the opening six minutes of the match through Philip Snyman and Rosco Speckman – both converted by Cheslin Kolbe – to establish a 14–0 lead. An Akira Ioane try and Kurt Baker conversion just before half-time meant South Africa's lead was 14–7 at the break. A converted Seabelo Senatla try early in the second half restored South Africa's 14-point lead, before New Zealand took advantage of a yellow card given to Speckman, scoring two tries through Rieko Ioane while Speckman was in the sin bin. Baker converted one of those tries, reducing South Africa's lead to 21–19. Despite Speckman returning to the field and the full-time hooter sounding, New Zealand completed their come-from-behind victory, with Joe Webber scoring a try in injury time to secure a 24–21 victory for the hosts, ensuring New Zealand won their home tournament for the third year in succession.^[2]

Australian referee Matt O'Brien officiated the final, but received criticism for his handling of the match, with a number of decisions in the latter stages of the match being given in New Zealand's favour^[3] and South Africa's coach Neil Powell later saying that he would seek clarification from the officials.^[4]

Despite the loss, South Africa moved to the top of the 2015–16 World Rugby Sevens Series log, two points ahead of second-placed Fiji.^[5]

P.S., I do think the section title should be "Cup final" rather than final, as there are Bowl, Plate and Trophy finals too. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• TheMightyPeanut Oops. Should have known you would be on the case. We had a pretty similar version of the game down so I mostly merged the other points in. Feel free to tinker. BTW I looked through Craig Joubert again today and reckon it might not be far off a WP:GA. Its easily the best referee article I have seen. What are your thoughts regarding that push? AIRcorn (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'll be willing to do some more work on that article if required. Hopefully, that won't put it even higher on vandals' radar though! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for signing my comment at the David Bain talk page - I was so busy trying to figure out how to put my proposed changes in a nice little box that I completely vagued on signing! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sugar beet page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just re-looked at your List of genetically modified crops. Great job! I don't usually randomly chat on Talk pages, but here it's well worth noting how excellent, highly useful content can be created in a straightforward, no-drama way, even in a hot button area. :) Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Still got a lot of work to do to get it where I want to. Am looking for some more sources now and hoping I am still able to edit for the next six months. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have seen your work on 2016 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final. I really appreciate your work and want you to help on some other ones..

• 2014 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final
• 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final
• 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final
• 2009 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final

I hope you will continue to contribute and improve cricket-related articles GreenCricket (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Curry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Mullin. 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) 10:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2006 Lebanon War page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations. I noticed your discussion on this topic in relation to AfD closes, and was wondering if you could provide me with a link to where the backlog is. While I can't promise to have too much of an affect, I have merged several articles out of AfD when I have done a NAC close with that result. I figure even if I can do one or two a week it would help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion is where you will find the AFDs closed as merge. If you need any help wit any drop me a ping. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State v. Driver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hamilton Township and Princeton Township. 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) 10:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As you listed yourself as a GA mentor, I am contacting you for feedback on my first GA review, which is at Talk:Rule 184/GA1. I'd be grateful for any comments. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your detailed comments. Since most of the references in the article are paywalled, I only checked three of the references, all of which supported the article appropriately and I saw no close paraphrasing. Checking sources is obviously the weakest part of my review, but it is not something I see how to improve. The principal author of the article, David Eppstein, is a strong content editor, so I am inclined to say that we should trust him on these. Is this appropriate? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: I've checked the eight references with online versions (there are 24 items in the bibliography), to see that they fit their citation context and found no problems. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• You can only do as much as you can. I think your review is good and if you are happy with the changes to particle deposition or Davids explanation for why they don't think it needs changing then you should go ahead and pass it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that is what I wanted to know. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk)

Thanks. I was wondering what had happened to this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason I reverted on the Judge templates is that those templates are used in approximately 94 United States District Court articles and 13 Court of Appeals articles and the changes adversely affected the articles. Otherwise, I would have let the changes stand. The changes created an extraneous column in all those articles. That's why I had to revert. Safiel (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Aircorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LSU Free Speech Alley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article history must be preserved for CC-BY-SA attribution purposes. Thank you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note The Wordsmith. This was a little bit of an unusual one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Free Speech Alley was closed as merge, but with no redirect. I queried this with MBisanz, suggesting they remove the no redirect part (see User talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Free Speech Alley). At their suggestion I moved the article to Free Speech zone 1[1] and merged the content from there, so the article history is preserved. There is no history left at LSU Free Speech Alley apart from the move and speedy deletion.[2] I have run into this issue of merging and then deletion closes a few times, and apart from removing a cross-wiki redirect there seemed to be little reason not to leave a redirect behind (I have even added a suggestion along these lines to an essay). AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. Since the attribution issue is satisfied, I've gone back and G6 deleted it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I should probably have left better reasoning instead of just using twinkle. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Manuel, Andre, William, Joseph I and Joseph II have been merged into the article Robidoux family.

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you have had some past involvement editing this page which has an unfortunate history. This is because David Bain's conviction for murdering his family in 1994 became the most contentious, high profile murder case in New Zealand's history. Even though his conviction was subsequently overturned, there are some die-hard fanatics who still think he is guilty - and will not leave the page alone. One of them is User:Akld guy who argued with me for weeks on the Talk page about whether Joe Karam believed David Bain was innocent. He kept deleting the words: ..."who believed David was innocent" after Karam's name even though I provided both primary and secondary sources for this.

The article is also far too long and full of unnecessary detail. On 10 October, I removed material from a number of other sections in the article that seemed to me to be inappropriate, irrelevant or intended to present a certain point of view. Most of these details had been added by other die-hard editors trying to prove that David was either guilty or innocent depending on their perspective. When I removed this material I was accused by Akldguy, Mr Maggoo and DiscoStuart of not being neutral. I started a new section on the Talk page called Revenge editing to discuss this. DiscoStuart reverts my edits without discussion. The other two edit based on their personal biases without reference to wiki rules. I feel that I am wasting my time trying to compete with three die-hards who are all supporting each other. Care to take a look? Histrange (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi histrange. There were a few problems and a lot of strange things happening with that article when I was editing it. I left it because it was too much of a time sink arguing every single point to death (wp:tenditious). It was a shame that some of the good NZ editors left it, but I can understand why and don't really have a case to answer as I did too. I haven't looked at it recently so won't comment on the meat of your comment above yet, or here. I do agree that there was a strong push for either making the article biased to either his guilt or innocence from different editors though when I was there. Anyway you have caught me at an interesting time as I am currently waiting for surgery to fix a finger I stupidly nearly cut off. The up side is that I will have probably a few weeks of light duty, which doesn't really exist in my line of work, so will have more time to edit here soon. @Akld guy, Mr mago, and Disco Stuart: to let them know of this as they are mentioned here by name.--AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your finger. I hope it comes right. My view is that certain editors need to be prevented from editing this page. As you point out, these editors are extremely tenditious; they struggle to understand logic or wiki rules and just keep making the same point over and over again. Discussion with such people is fruitless and leads to on-going destabilization of the page. Histrange (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you deleted the section I added on controversies. 99% of other English Premier League referees have such a section. If this section is considered a non-neutral point of view (which my addition isn't - I am a fan of none of the four clubs involved), then I suggest that for consistency you remove the corresponding sections from all referees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:678:21D:F100:8CBB:1434:DB29:B70E (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am working on doing just that.[3] Not necessarily removing the controversies themselves, but incorporating the notable ones back into the career. For a fuller explanation of my reasoning see this[4]. More specifically criticism and controversy sections encourage editors to add minor incidents to biographies which by there very nature are very undue. If it is notable enough that it affected there career then it should fit there. Like everything there are exceptions (i.e. the Darryl Hair and the ball tampering incident in cricket), but these usually are notable enough to have their own article and section. AIRcorn (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn and thanks for your message on my talk page. Sorry to hear about your finger - I hope the upcoming surgery goes well, and I guess having more time for wiki-editing is some kind of silver lining?! I was involved at the beginning of the current round of disputed editing on the article, after I was left a message by User:Histrange asking me to weigh in on adding the words "who believed David was innocent". I agreed with the other editors who said it should be left out, which ended up with Histrange taking us to WP:DRN which was fairly not fun and ultimately a waste of time as the reasons given for leaving it out (which the mediator tended to agree with) did not seem to be really heard. Since then I have stepped back again, as like you I find much of the editing of the page tendentious and the back and forth gets exhausting. I have no agenda in editing the article - I'm from Australia and had never heard of Bain until I started editing this article after a call for uninvolved editors to help out (that was some time last year I think). Since then I have obviously learned a lot about the situation, but I still have no opinion on who is right/wrong :) So I've tried to edit the article and engage in discussion based on wikipedia policies, but it does get exhausting due to the strong views/passions of many other editors. Anyway, all that to say, it would be great if you can have another look and add your experience to the discussions. If there is a specific question that people are looking for opinions on, I'm happy for someone to let me know and I can add my thoughts, but overall I'm currently feeling a little over it :) Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

At the risk off scaring Aircorn off for good - I'm sorry Melcous, but you contributed to the problem with your stance on the Joe Karam innocence issue. Your reasons for leaving it out ignored the primary and secondary citations which justified putting it in - which it now is - based on additional citations which I was forced to dig up because of the inflexible stance adopted by you and AkldGuy for a whole month. If you had followed wiki rules relating to reliable sources, I would not have had to take it to WP:DRN Histrange (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Melcous. I am back home now, healthy enough and with a decent internet connection so will look at this again. Before I left last time I was looking at good WP:Good Articles on similar topics to see how they set these out. I was reaching the conclusion that sourcing was the major issue as much of the article seemed to be based off editors interpretations of court transcripts or relied too heavily on books with questionable biases. I will have a look through and see what I can do.

Histrange. Melcous is one of the good guys at that article, which is why I sought there opinion. If they disagree with you and so does dispute resolution, then chances are I will too. Even if I didn't then there is not a lot that can be done as we rely on consensus here for better or worse. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I know she has good intentions - but consensus cannot be used to ignore one of the five pillars on which wiki is based - which includes reliable sources. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." WP:Consensus Histrange (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus rules everything (except some certain high level foundation directives that I will not go into). If you really want to fight that battle an WP:rfc is your next course of action. They can be a bit hit and miss in terms of participation and can drag on for a long time though. To be honestly this issue is the least of the articles problems and energy would best be expended elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, as you'll see from my brief message on the article's talk page, I think you have done some really good work in trimming the article and trying to keep it balanced and informative. Good on you! I've made a small edit to try to keep to WP:SURNAME as much as possible (when it is not necessary to distinguish between which Bain is in view, if you think any of these are less clear then I do, I'm ok with you reverting those ones) and also to remove a few words from the lead. One other thing I noticed is that some of the references are now not fully cited - this was something I did quite a bit of work on in this article previously. I'm not sure if this is because they are new references or if in the editing the full cite details were taken out for some reason - I haven't had a chance to look at it properly yet. I'm a bit busy for the next few days, but if you'd like me to, I'm happy to look at them after that and put the citation details in. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I made a few fixes along those lines. I think the phrase "Davids sister Laniet" was used multiple times when Laniet would suffice. Not sure what happened to the references. I didn't purposely change the format of any of them and a bot usually comes along and rescues orphaned ones after deletions, but I will go through manually and check them now. By fully cite do you mean that they have author, date and publication details. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

His officiating of Europa League final is notable. Please stop removing it. SLBedit (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the addition of criticisms is WP:undue. Will take it to the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn I have only just read your comment posted a couple weeks ago where you said "Consensus rules everything (except some certain high level foundation directives that I will not go into)."

That appears to contradict the wiki policy/rule which says that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." See also: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I try to base my edits on Wikipedia rules while most other editors on the Bain page seem to ignore them. You seem to be saying that consensus is more important than the rules. If that is really true, there is no point in having any rules. The logical extension of your perspective is that editors can just add or delete anything they feel like - the rules can be ignored provided there is a consensus.

Can you please explain why you think consensus over-rules the rules on edits made on a day-to-day basis. I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm just trying to understand your perspective. Histrange (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The rules, or more correctly policies, were developed through consensus and as such can be changed through consensus. The community usually runs pretty long, detailed, well-advertised and sometimes acrimonious RFCs when debating these and they are for the most part well accepted when resolved. FWIW the directive I mentioned above related to one such rfc where consensus was reached (Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial), but it was overruled at the top.

There are different places within Wikipedia where consensus can be reached, with the talk page being one of the most common. There are also Wikiprojects (I recently sent a note to the WP:New Zealand one asking for more eyes at the Bain page) and they sometimes form broad consensuses relating to their articles of interest. This can be controversial and has caused issues, most noticeably in regards to the use of infoboxes. Then there are the policy talk pages. That is where the discussions on what should go into each policy are located. To confuse matters even more these are classified into policies, guidelines and essays (and even more confusing some essays are more well known and accepted than policies).

Anyway that is a lot of high level stuff that even I don't fully understand. What I think you are asking is how do you deal with a consensus at the talk page (local consensus) that you think doesn't match the consensuses at policy pages. There are a few options. WP:RFCs are the most common, but as I said earlier they can be unpredictable as to how many editors will show up. There are also noticeboards (see Category:Wikipedia noticeboards). WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N WP:NPOV/N or WP:COI/N might be the more useful ones with WP:ANI the last resort. What starting a RFC or posting to a noticeboard does is bring more eyes to a topic. Sometimes though you just have to accept that consensus does not agree with you and move on. AIRcorn (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"What I think you are asking is how do you deal with a consensus at the talk page (local consensus) that you think doesn't match the consensuses at policy pages." That's only part of the problem. I presume you have noticed that when I give my perspective on an editing decision, I almost always back it up with a policy/rule - which, in my eyes, justifies my stance on that edit. When other editors disagree, they mostly use tangential (seemingly irrelevant) arguments and don't even mention why they think the rule I am quoting doesn't apply. Maggoo is one such editor and such discussions are frustrating and fruitless.

But the other problem is that editors such as yourself who are capable of a more reasoned approach also don't seem to use policy to explain your position. Or you don't actually take a position at all. For instance, the current editing ban on Maggoo and I could be helpful because it would enable someone like you to settle a point of dispute between us. You took a position here, but you have not (yet) taken one on whether Mask of Sanity is a reliable source. And you took what I would call a tangential approach here. So far there is no consensus on these points.

This is equally frustrating as the ban appears to be temporary and Maggoo and I will probably go at it again once the ban is lifted. I tried dispute resolution on one particular point and the same thing happened - no one, except me, quoted any rules. So I looked back at the article history and brought your attention back to this page hoping you might be able to resolve some of these disputes in a less confrontational manner. If you can help to stop this edit warring over specific points, a more reasoned debate about what should or shouldn't be in the article would follow. But your apparent unwillingness to come down on one side or the other on specific issues between Maggoo and I ensures that conflict will continue. So I am hoping, in fact asking you to clarify your choices.

At the end of the day you may decide that Mask of Sanity is a reliable source. If so, it would help me enormously if you could explain in your response why the rules and polices I have quoted about the book's age and relevance, in your opinion, do not apply. Histrange (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Things like reliable sources are relative to what you are trying to support. For example if John's tweets "cats are stupider than dogs" then it is a reliable source for the statement John thinks cats are stupider than dogs. The question is not so much about reliability, but whether John is notable enough person that we want to have his opinion on cats here. If multiple peer reviewed studies conclude that cats have lower intelligence than dogs and this is backed up by reviews on the topic in high quality journals than we could be justified in having a sentence along the lines there is scientific consensus that cats have lower intelligence than dogs.

I have not read Mask of Sanity and I have no intention to ever do so. Callous as it may sound I am not terribly concerned over Davids guilt or innocence and I know more then I ever wanted from reading and editing this article. However James McNeish is more than notable enough to be presented here and Mask of Sanity is not self published so it has a reasonable level of reliability. We are also allowed to use non-neutral sources as long as we are careful.

So it really depends on what mask of sanity is supporting. So far most of it seems to be used to support things that other people said and I don't see that as a problem, unless there is serious contention that this is false. In some ways it is better than primary sources as it reduces the risk of original research. However I would object to using it to say anything that is an opinion, even if it is attributed to McNeish. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Peel umpired one first-class match of dubious status in 1894 (while still a player... It's all a little odd). While the category is perhaps technically correct, I've no idea who put it there and I fully agree with its removal. If I'd noticed it, I might have done it myself, but it just shows how much attention I pay to categories! Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Felt it was a little odd as the article (a nice read by the way) was very comprehensive. I only noticed it because I was starting up a new Wikiproject and was using the categories to find articles. Shame really as there are not too many decent articles about umpires or other officials. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you've removed reliably sourced content from Vic Carapazza, Phil Cuzzi, and Chris Conroy with your reasoning that it's WP:UNDUE. That policy does not support the removal of any and all content that may be perceived as criticism of umpires. A single sentence or two, sourced to two reliable sources, is certainly due weight. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. See WP:BALASP and my personal essay at User:Aircorn/Sandbox/REF for reasoning (also WP:BLPSTYLE may apply in some cases). I am certainly willing to discuss and retain any individual criticisms that are notable on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you a Celtics fan or something? He does ref Boston Celtic games and help them win. 96.234.124.29 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Got your note and passed it on. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that the decision to have Diane Zamora be the title of that article (even though there were two people who killed Adrianne Jones) was correct? See Talk:Diane Zamora - I know BabbaQ added a lot more about Zamora. Does this mean the title should be about her? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) I am curious why you are asking me. The article doesn't ring any bells. AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked because I noticed you commented on a similar kind of article, related to people known for committing a criminal act. Usually it's named "Murder of John Smith" or the like. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Eddie Long page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Video game referees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your work on referees. I just closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4#Sports_officials/referees/umpires and trust that the outcome is something you can work with. Note that I left open the possibility of re-using "Sports officials", if necessary, as a parent category.

While cleaning up, I noticed that you had previously moved the page Category:Sports officials from Georgia (country) to Category:Georgia sports officials, giving the edit summary "Standarise". Likewise, Category:Sports officials from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland sports officials. If you look around the other parent categories, you will see that Category:People from Georgia (country) and Category:People from Northern Ireland use those naming formats, which were thrashed out at CFD in times past and have since been followed in many precedents.

So, please don't move categories without prior discussion. For simple moves that would standardise things, CFD's Speedy page (shortcut: WP:CFDS) is the way to do it. Categories listed there are usually processed promptly after two days.

Kind regards – Fayenatic London 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thank you for closing this and especially for the personal notification. I was checking in on that discussion occasionally, but had not bothered for a while and might have not noticed the closing had you not left a message here. As I am typing this I have not yet looked at your close, but given you attention here I am sure it is perfectly fine. This was my first real foray into categories so even though I would consider myself an experienced wikidpedian I did not know that we were supposed to check all parent categories for previous discussions and then start a discussion instead of boldly (or semi-boldly) moving them. I assure you my name changes were innocently done as I was just trying to make the sub categories in the sports officials by country consistent. To be honest I am not even sure what is controversial about changing Category:Sports officials from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland sports officials and although I have some recollection of seeing the Georgia (country) vs Georgia (state) debates I did not realise this would be a problem with categories. Maybe if there was ever likely to be a Category:Alabama sports officials I could see the point in specifying that we are talking about the country. Sorry for the mini rant and thanks again for the personal message. AIRcorn (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I see that you acted in good faith, and I should have acknowledged that in my message. As for Sports officials, I see that BrownHairedGirl has converted these to category disambiguation pages for now. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have rolled back your removal of my edits on the Keith Stroud article. Please could you explain your reasoning? I notice you used an automatic editing tool to do this. I feel the addition was credible, newsworthy and cited properly. If you disagree, please discuss here before removing the edit again. Many thanks, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I missclicked with twinkle and didn't mean to automatically remove the edit (I made a dummy edit later to explain, but was to late). Have tagged for now due to undue and blp concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cowpea 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, non-robot this time. It's an excellent article and is almost ready to pass: I've just listed a few small items which should all be easily fixed. Looking forward to working with you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Thank you for picking up this review. It is easily the shortest wait I have had for a GA nom. I can't think of anyone better to review it and appreciate your comments. Have worked through most of your items, just have the references bullet points to do, which I will hopefully finish this evening (NZT). AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Cowpea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cowpea 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Never got a chance to say this. Missed your original message, I had no access to Wikipedia for three days and you caught me on the first. It was gone from my watchlist when I got back. '^^ Sorry. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor Nothing to worry about it. I am just going through the requests for second opinions to see if I can help. One bit of advice you can take or leave is that when I evaluate the broad criteria I think about what information is missing and ask the nominator about it. They usually know more about the topic and I am usually happy to take there word for it if they say it doesn't exist. I sometimes do a google search myself to double check and to make sure I haven't missed anything obvious. You can also look at other similar articles and see what sections they have (but be careful because they are all slightly different). It is not terribly helpful to say there should be more without specifying what this is. AIRcorn (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aircorn. Unsure how much time you have, but would you have a look at Joe Warbrick and give me your opinion on the article? I'm looking at taking to FAC sometime this year (been meaning to for a couple of months) but don't want to take it there if there are any major issues. Any feedback would be appreciated, even if it's only from a quick read through. -- Shudde ^talk 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Shudde. Not much time, but I have enough to read your article. FAC is a bit out of my league so take any comments with a grain of salt, many of them are pedantic.

• • The very first sentence is a little bit long for my liking
  • Place of birth in the infobox is different to the place of birth mentioned in the text. I am assuming one is where he was actually born and one is where he lived as a child.
  • Same with the School. One says St Stephens college and the other St Stephens Native School.
  • first ever is repeated in two consecutive sentences. Isn't ever redundant in any case?
  • virtually retired This reads a little awkward to me.
  • claimed by many Aucklanders that his performance was the difference between the two sides Do you mean Aucklanders in general or are you referring to the opposition players
  • By this time...But this time repetitive. Also both and both in the next couple of short sentences. The paragraph could maybe be tidied up a bit. A few other instances (e.g. plans/plan) where sentences could be improved slightly with some variation or tightening of the wording.
  • the Canterbury player and administrator would it be better without the "the" and maybe player should be clarified as there are a few things that can be played.
  • This is now officially regarded as the first New Zealand representative rugby side. I imagine that this is sourced further along, but that sentence is crying out for a dedicated reference number
  • Why is Thomas Eyton redlinked, but James Scott not
  • but his form was still poor. Didn't see any mention previously about poor form, just injuries
  • the RFU had continued to select Andrew Stoddart for the England team, despite him touring with the unsanctioned 1888 British team How does this equate to a double standard?
  • Whats a Chief Government Guide
  • Should The Telegraph and Bay of Plenty Times be italicised?

I enjoyed reading this and think it is a great article. Again not much experience with FAC so not sure how much help this is. It is mostly just things I noticed while reading it and I did not look closely at sources. Good luck with the nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think FAC is at all out of your league which is one reason I've asked for your comments. The process can be a bit intimidating but it's really not that bad (can be slow though, getting enough reviewers is one of the biggest challenges). Thanks for the comments, I'll got through and work on your suggestions. Thanks again. -- Shudde ^talk 08:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey. The article is at FAC but the comments have dried up. If you have the time and inclination it'd be great if you could leave some comments. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 07:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Shudde I have seen this and once I finish, or want a break from, a few other projects here I will have a look. AIRcorn (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just if you have a chance. -- Shudde ^talk 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, last summer I did a clean-up of the GAR area, which at the time had over 40 GAs under reassessment, the majority of which were individual assessments that had been opened yet not followed up with. Some of the individual ones I took over and continued with the assessments, since they had been abandoned yet the articles clearly didn't meet the GA criteria, and a couple were restarted as community reassessments (including one you recently closed, David Meerman Scott).

There are two individual assessments from August 2013(!) that I tried to get moving again:

• Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2
• Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2

Both of these were opened by Orlady—these were her first (and only, so far as I know) GARs. She reiterated her explanation of why she felt these didn't make the grade as GAs, and I felt she made a good case for it… but she didn't or wouldn't close the reassessment as delisted, and I certainly didn't feel I could do it.

These two are connected, in that the bulk of the explanation occurs in the Roycroft GAR, with the issues applying to both articles. I did ask Nikkimaria to check on the close paraphrasing for both, but she was unable to access the source documents and couldn't give an opinion.

You seem to be much more experienced in the GAR area than I am—and have done great work in taking care of the backlog of late—so I'm hoping you can determine the best course to take with these so they can ultimately be settled. I think we have to consider Orlady as out of the picture; she never did anything in response to my subsequent pings. Thanks for anything you can do with these two. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Many years ago I was the main (only) editor really keeping track of these. I took a semi-wikibreak and left this area. In my experience controversial or popular topics got lots of attention and most others none, which makes the whole area difficult and not really much fun to deal with. With abandoned individual GARs I would do as you have done (take over the reassessment personally or take to community review). However, three years is a ridiculous amount of time for an article to sit under review. I would be tempted to procedurally close it as abandoned, default to keep with no prejudice against someone else opening up a new reassessment. I haven't had time to have a good look at the articles in question yet, so don't really have a personal opinion on whether they met the criteria yet. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

U changed the article back but the article is wrong he recorded the video on may 22 2014 and went on his killing spree the next day. He didnt upload the video to YouTube the day of the killings why dont u do some research and u will see the articles wrong and look at the change I made as correct wikipedia is so pointless ya make a correction and someone changes it. Yet they encourage people to contribute??? Ya OK whats the point. So leave the article false dont matter to me. Cliffdimerandy (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cliffdimerandy: You may be right, but we can't just rely on your word. It needs to be referenced somewhere. Also you need to write it in a tone that fits with the encyclopaedia. You wrote it like a talk page comment[5] (i.e. it was written as if you were discussing the issue). If you link a reference here I will be happy to add it back in in the correct tone. AIRcorn (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well actually the quote from Elliot Himself in the article they quote from his day of retribution video he says tomorrow is the day of retribution so that means he made that video on may 22 2014 the day before he went on his killing spree may 24th. So Elliot's own words correct the inaccuracy of the article in the article it says he uploaded his retribution video before going to the sorority house and that s not true he made the vid may 22 and carried out the attack the next day my reference is in Elliot's last video which has been since deleted from his YT page but I have it saved on my computer. How can u not acknowledge he made the video on may 22nd? Further into the article it quotes directly what he said in his final video he made the day before the attack. My source is already in the article I just indicated to whomever can make these changes he made that video the day before the attack ks stating tomorrow (may 23) is the day of retribution so it should probably be changed in the article the way everything is written there now it contradicts itself Cliffdimerandy (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry type o didnt mean to type may 24 meant may 23 Cliffdimerandy (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source[6] says he uploaded it between the stabbings and the shootings. He may have said tomorrow in it, but it was obviously pre recorded and he moved a day earlier. That is why we need to be careful using primary sources. AIRcorn (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aircorn, I've come here to leave a note of thanks. The review was quite a lengthy affair (almost a month!) and you've done a splendid job. You're an asset to the project; thank you so much for guiding us all through the process. Schwede66 18:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It really was my pleasure. I don't usually take so long to review articles, but I think we ended up with a better product in the end. AIRcorn (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, it seems that things have settled over at Homology, so when you have a moment ... Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aircorn! I'm new around here, so maybe can you help me explaining why my recent editions on Carlos Amarilla were reverted? (I suppose) guidelines were strictly followed, with new and relevant information, and very reliable sources, so how could it be "undue"? If you have time to take a look on Portuguese and Spanish articles, you'll see it's basically the same points missing here (in English). Is there anything we can do to keep those important facts about him? Maybe do the editions yourself? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3m35 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi L3m35. I watch most referee articles so tend to keep an eye out for this stuff. WP:Undue in a BLP means it goes into too much detail on one aspect of someones career. In this example it gives more too much weight to this match over other matches. If you want to add this information a better article would be 2013 Copa Libertadores, where it would be much more due. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, just wanted to let you know I have replied to your GA review of Hi-5 (Australian TV series) if you missed it. You're probably very busy, but if you get a spare moment to take another look, I'd love to work through the rest of the issues. Much appreciated, thanks! SatDis (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

SatDis. Thanks mate. Have been meaning to get back to this, but am struggling to find the time (work has gotten crazy). Will try to do it in the next week or so (have a St Johns course this weekend which I need to study for so it might not be until next week). AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All good, thankyou SatDis (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)