User talk:Aircorn/Archive 3

Add discussion
Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One Issue

Hello. Please comment here and put up your opinion regarding this issue. Your help will be much appreciated. Thank You. AnkitBhattWDF 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An award for you!

  The Netball Award
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Aircorn, with the netball award. Great job for working with your fellow editor's to make this a good article. It's a great example of the positive outcomes from teamwork in Wikipedia. Thanks for all your positive contributions, and GO TEAM! SarahStierch (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Following this and this, it appears you have been appointed—by me—as a mentor to my GA reviews. Welcome. I was not rejecting your initial offer; I was simply giving Tomtomn00 (talk · contribs) a good faith first refusal. On reflection, I suspect Tomtomn00 may have misunderstood the function of that list, because someone that I now realise has only 343 edits, cannot, with all due respect to them, mentor someone else. I am a little busy at the moment. When things quieten down a little nearer the weekend, I will pick an article, start the review, and invite you to ride shotgun --Senra (Talk) 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, if I hadn't recognised the name I wouldn't have said anything. One of the good things about GA reviewing is that there is a reasonable amount of flexibility and each reviewer has their own style, I am a little more thorough than many. As for choosing your first article to review, I would recommend one in a topic you know reasonably well and one that at first glance looks reasonably good. You may also want to choose one that you can check the references easily. It is also easier to review "narrow" topics, for example a song is easier than a band or music genre. Although, as I said on your talk page there is really nothing stopping you picking any article from the list. Here are some examples of recent reviews I conducted to give you an idea of how I go about reviewing; Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1, Talk:Led Zeppelin/GA1, Talk:Irenaean theodicy/GA2 and Talk:The Shirelles/GA1. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I have one in mind—Reculver—which is right in my comfort zone, if the significant editor Nortonius (talk · contribs) agrees when it comes up for GA :) --Senra (Talk) 23:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I have commenced a sandbox review of Reculver if you would like to have a look before I publish --Senra (Talk) 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I only had time to quickly read it at the moment (have not even looked at the article yet) and I am very impressed with the layout and tone of the comments. I would suggest doing at least a scan of images. I am not an expert either, but usually go to the commons file and make sure it at least has a source and a license. For fair use images a bit more care has to be taken to make sure there is a detailed rational specifically for this article and it is supported by its use. For example in Led Zeppillin there was a fair use picture of merchandise but merchandise was not mentioned in the article at all. It is entirely up to you (some reviewers do and some don't), but I find it useful to use a table checklist to make sure each of the criteria is fulfilled. In many cases it just needs a tick to say that it has met that criteria. It also lets other editors know that you have checked them. There are a few, but this {{GAList}} is my prefered one. Sorry that I don't have much time right now. I will give you more detailed feedback tonight. AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I intended using a check-list ({{GAList}} seems fine) after the editor had gone through the majority of our comments. Unless you prefer I publish that list now too? I will take a look at the images. Let me know when/if I can move the sandbox to the review. My main concern is I don't want to be too voluminous or appear too harsh and thus demotivate the editor. I have positioned the editor to expect the review proper to start "in a day or so", so take your time --Senra (Talk) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Images in Reculver have been checked so I am good to go when you are --Senra (Talk) 10:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

Thanks for the update about the Netball article. :) Good to know. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver GA

I am more than happy to pass Reculver as a good article following its review where I feel I may have been over zealous and ended up putting the nominator 'through the mill'. Thank you for your support during this review process. Please confirm your agreement for me to pass this article --Senra (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit request

Hi Aircorn. I am Jivesh and 18 years of age. I have been a regular editor here since June 2009. To be honest, I came here only for my girl. Lol. A few weeks ago, I asked Sandy (You know her, right?) to suggest me a very good copy-editor. On her talk-page, I received amazing response. I was given a list of vet good copy-editors but most of them are unavailable (Maybe they are busy in RL). I know you are as well but i saw that since yesterday, you have been making a few edits. So, I thought this may be the right moment to make a humble request. Could you please copy-edit "Best Thing I Never Had" and try to convert quotes into original prose (wherever possible). Actually, FAC reviewers (from what I have seen) hate quotes. I am waiting for your reply. Take care and happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jivesh. Yeah Xmas is not the best time for many people. I am busy up until Xmas, but will see if I can give it a once over sometime next week (unless you find someone else). By the way I am quite comfortable at GA level, but have yet to try my hand a a FA, so may not be the best person for the job. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter. I will wait for you only. I fully trust Sandy's and her colleagues' recommendation. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me know when you will do it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Best Thing I Never Had 2

Oh you don't have to be sorry. :D Yes, I will be very happy if you copy-edit it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can I still contact you while working on the article? I mean if there are certain things with which I need help. I really appreciate the review. By the way, we say female protagonist because what the singer is singing does not form part of her real life. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free. AIRcorn (talk)`
Thanks. You are very kind. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness

Aircorn, you are giving me trouble. Please respone at my Talk page.

  • The saga forms a cycle.
  • You've added a lot of "rev". I use Sfn (check it), which forfid and will have to remove. If you add "rev" again, I will retreat it as vandalism. --Philcha (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin Luther article section on fate of the soul

Hello, Mr. Aircorn, I am a bit concerned if you are going to revert all of the corrections I made on this interesting section of the article on the fate of the soul after death in Luther. I have a graduate masters degree in Luther studies, and I find this added section on the soul after death horribly deficient. The corrections I made in it have improved it. If you are concerned that my corrections have tainted the article out of WP:GAR, then may I suggest that if you want to revert my corrections to this problematic section, you simply delete it altogether. Believe me, as a Luther scholar I can tell you that it is inaccurate if you revert my changes. Cheers to you too! Thank you for advising me of how matters stand.Drboisclair (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(rugby union)

Hi Aircorn, I appreciate the work you are doing achieving consistency with the WP:RU but in the case of Anthony Herbert (rugby) I had only moved it to (rugby) a few weeks ago. He played in both rugby union and rugby league so just (rugby) would be the correct disambig. I've also moved Mark Robinson (rugby born 1975) for the same reason and proposed the move of Paul Quinn (rugby union) to Paul Quinn (New Zealand politician). But like I said, all up its very important work. Cheers Mattlore (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those. I agree that dual code players should be (rugby), no matter how many games they played. I must have miss-read Anthony Herbert and forgot about Robinson's game for the Warriors. Could he just be Mark Robinson (rugby) now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
He probably could be moved, though I'm a bit weary about having a Mark Robinson (rugby) and a Mark Robinson (rugby union). I guess with hatnotes it is fine though? Mattlore (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Son of Neptune

I noticed that you tagged The Son of Neptune as a short lead statement. i have since expanded a bit upon the lead and I was wondering if it was fine now, and if not what would need to be changed. Thanks, --Kangaroopowah 04:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Amarnath Temple Good Article Review

Thanks Aircorn for reviewing the article.

I will be working on the suggested points.

It is however important to point out that some of the comments has been purely out of the title of the article which says it is for "temple" but the article is actually about a "pilgrimage to the cave temple"

So one of the things I would change about this is the title.

This also is the reason it has to be written like a travel article, because it is about a pilgrimage that people make every year.

once again the words like "very famous temples in Hinduism" is due to large number of pilgrims in a tough terrain, however, the sentence formation needs change, citing the number of people and also the other aspects for its popularity (like some of famous people being named after the temple).

Rest of them as you said needs rework thoroughly and I will be taking care of them.

Thanks for you time reviewing this one.

Cheers mate

Uday (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Aircorn. You have new messages at Talk:The_Son_of_Neptune.
Message added 04:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Kangaroopowah 04:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the Son of Neptune is GA quality now? --Kangaroopowah 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2011 FA Cup final

Hi, I know I have taken too lng to do it but I just haven't had much time for wiki lately. I am back on now and will try and get it finished soon. Adam4267 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Lee

Hi, I think about about done now on the Bernard Lee, with as much additional information as I can find. There's more about his overall acting style and demeanour in there, as well as some additional informaiton about his private life. I'm hoping that this now fills it our sufficiently, but please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the additional comments: I've done some further editing, which should read okay (I hope!), Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Final comments now sorted. Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments and I'll see what I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 13:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Son of Neptune

Sorry for bugging you, but could you review the GAN on The Son of Neptune if you're not too busy. Thanks, -Kangaroopowah 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cracker Barrel Old Country Store/1

Fine with me. Looks good! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pusztai affair

I have put my name to conduct the Good Article review of the Pusztai affair. I was interested in this controversy at the time it was in the news and always thought that adding genetic material from snowdrops (which are poisonous to at least some mammals) to potatoes and then feeding these to rats was an unwise experiment. I see from a preliminary reading of your article that there is a lot more to the controversy than I had realised. I will start the review in the next couple of days. Good luck! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the bigger challenges has been WP:NPOV. It has been worked on by two other editors as well WLRoss (talk · contribs) and John Quiggin (talk · contribs) and we all seem to have differing viewpoints as to the controversy so hopefully it is reasonably balanced. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with an RFC/U?

I'm drafting an RFC/U on Shrikantv (the fellow who filed the pointy RFC on the Upanishads article) at User:Ian.thomson/Shrikantv. While you have not interacted much with him on this issue, you have seen some of his behavior (which I believe continues because few people have commented on it). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how much help I will be as I have only really followed the GA reassessment. I would be willing to put my perspective in a comment when it is filed though. BTW Good article reassessment is not really a RFC as it should only concern the WP:GACR. It is a minor distinction, but it could confuse some people (I would simply call it a Good article reassessment). AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Quinn move request

Hello, you previously commented on a Paul Quinn (rugby union) move request that was subsequently closed with 'no consensus'. I have restarted the discussion on this and invite you to participate again. Schwede66 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Won't the GA reassessment be closed now that the article has been kept? X.One SOS 05:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I messed up the article history template slightly, but it should be sorted now. AIRcorn (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review?

Hello, I just wanted to ask if maybe you would be able to review the Starlight Spectacular (Canada's Wonderland) article for me please.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this daunting task

I sincerely admire you for keeping a calm head and taking charge in an evenhanded way.

If I may ask, since I certainly don't think I should touch any part of this edit: On the talk page, I've added wikilinks and did some minor copy edits since the version now at Demi Moore. If, in your judgment, these are technical, neutral changes, would you copy paste this more wikified version?

Again, with thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I will wait a little bit longer just to make sure before making any changes (it's been months already so one more day won't hurt). If no one else beats me to it I will put in the second version with the wikilinks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

GA subpages

There is a bot that monitors the GA subpages for new entries and then adds {{good article}} to them. Are your recent efforts consistent with that coding?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Left a note at GA bot (talk · contribs) and GimmeBot (talk · contribs). The only other bots I can think of are AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) and LivingBot (talk · contribs), but they seem to be working fine. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is either GA bot (talk · contribs) or LivingBot (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

my talk p.

Thanks for the note to the editor, but I don't get angry at things like this, & I hope nobody else gets angry on my behalf. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster edit

Is there a reason you completely reverted my edit at and described your edit as only changing the format? Could you also cite the style guide that disallows lists in the lead? In absence of that the bullet list should remain as it is in fact a list of data and makes it easier for the reader to scan. AzureAnt (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Leads are supposed to summarise the information in the body. The current version did that adequately and by adding the list it became overly detailed. Prose is generally preferred over embedded lists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists) and in the lead section this is even more important. There is no exact guideline that says you can't have a list in the lead so if you beleive a case can be made I would suggest opening a discussion at the talk page so others can comment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


I actually cant believe i did that. I remember discussing on the TFD but not voting twice there. Cant actually even remember reading through that more than once. I really must be losing it. Thanks for pointing out. Not sure if i should remove one entirely or just strike through.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. As i say cant even remember doing the first one. Thanks for pointing out. Hopefully a reason gets made mandatory though. Sick of seeing pages tagged with no obvious cause and no rationale provided.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Good articles/Everyday life

Hello Aircorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Good articles/Everyday life, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please fix the incoming links. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts

Hello Aircorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please fix the incoming links. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you please do a GA review?

Thanks for expressing an interest in Talk:Foley_Square_trial/GA2. Would you mind doing a GA review of it? I think the article is in excellent shape, but it needs someone to finish up the GA review. I've had a hard time getting a reviewer, and when I did, the reviewer "retired" before concluding the review. I'd really appreciate it if you could finish up the job. I'll quickly address any issues you raise about the article. Thanks for considering it. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's on my list. I currently have three others in the works (one I haven't started yet) and a few re-assessments I am involved in. Will try and get to it this weekend. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I'd be happy to return the favor anytime. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to nag, just pinging on this. --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neary finished. Sorry for the delay. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No biggy, I'm sure you're busy IRL. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Review time

I am interested to learn how much time you generally take to complete a GA review on average? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer - About one-and-a-half to two hours.
Longer answer - It depends a lot on the size and quality of the article. My first read through probably takes an hour to an hour-and-a-half for an average length article (checking references that I feel fall under 2b and making notes as I go). Checking the pictures can take just seconds or quite a few minutes again depending on number. I feel this is my weakest part and I spend a bit of time double checking different permissions so it is probably longer than some reviewers. If the article is already good quality and my concerns are responded to then I don't spend much more time with the article (basically just pass it and update the talk page). If quite a lot of work is needed to be done to the article or I have queries about my review from the nominator a further half hour to a couple of hours could be invested in the article. Most of my reviews have been pretty smooth though and not much extra time is required from the initial review. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inadequate GA review of Joint attention


Since Joint attention is an Education Program article, I decided to give it an adequate and informative review (I do detect some problems), although I agree with you that it is basically in good shape. So I initiated an individual GA assessment. My problem is that the previous review reverts every change I made to the article and is reverting my individual GA reassessment.[1] What should I do?

There is some OR, synthesis, using animal sources to cite human behavior, some uncited information etc. There are 19 citations to chimpanzee articles. Also, if the article is going to include animals other than humans, it should mention dogs and other animals, rather than leaving the impression that only humans and some primates are capable of joint attention.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to suggest at WT:GAN that you do an individual reassessment, but didn't get to it. I just read the article through once checking prose and MOS and made sure the pictures had licenses so mine was not in any depth at all. I will leave a note at Canoes page explaining the process, but it might ultimately come down to doing a community reassessment (which means it will sit around for at least a month with very little action). AIRcorn (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that I'll fail it, unless there's something that can't be fixed. For example, the article could focus only on humans - most medical articles have separate one's for humans and for animals. (I remember reading recently that Penis is one of the few that doesn't have a separate human article!) On the other hand, Joint attention makes a lot of statements, and since the sources aren't always referenced well (e.g. page numbers missing on some books that are on the web), it's hard to check. But some things are common sense - like not using an article on chimpanzees to source human behavior. I'd rather do a community assessment, as it's going to be work to review, but I know that community assessments often end up a morass. What do you think? Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Try the individual one first, I will help out where possible. Community reassessments (unless they are popular supposedly controversial articles like 9/11) sit around for ages with no comments. Presently I am the only regular contributor there so it won't get much more attention. If Canoe reverts again it might be worth opening one just to keep the peace. I will help out where I can, although subject knowledge is pretty low. I don't think focusing on animals and humans fails the criteria as long as the distinction is clear. The sourcing could be an issue though. Have watchlisted the review and just left a note at Canoes page. It might pay to let the supervisor know as well as the student if you have not done so already. It might also be a good idea to ask WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) to comment. She is heavily involved in WP:MEDS and regularly gives second opinions on Good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus type 2

Have attempted to address your concerns and renominated for WP:GA. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Years Featured in OTD

It's a good thought, but in practice it actually makes updating a little more difficult, because now it increases the likelihood of accidentally adding a duplicate entry. The thing I like about the staging area as it was before was that it's very easy to move blurbs in and out: just cut and paste. And if someone needs to add a new one for to balance the Main Page, they just grab one from the eligible section—no need to compare the entries there with the ones that are listed. I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish: giving the updater more information to hopefully give more attention to the ones that haven't been listed yet or have only been on a few times, but I think I prefer the ease of updating more. Maybe that chart is better suited for the talk page? I've also started adding notes after I do the updates so that when next year rolls around, I'll have some sort of record as to what I did and why I did it. See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 19#2012 notes for an example. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw your note (it was what inspired me to make the table), but this gives a lot more information. It's not really that much harder to update. You can still copy and paste, you just have to know what part of the table to take it from and leave the {{*mp}} in place. I don't think duplicates would be a problem either since if chosen will be next to each other and will be pretty obvious. I think the benefits of giving the updater more information to help choose which articles to use outweighs the minor disadvantages with updating quite overwhelmingly. I was even tossing up putting in a location and category field. Would you reconsider or should I take it to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
You can take it to the talk page if you want, but it's mostly (98%) me who does the updates, so it's pretty much my opinion that counts. :) The thing is there are a lot of different things to keep in mind when doing updates: chronological, geographic and topic diversity, number of times something has appeared, round number anniversaries ... so having one less thing to worry about is good. You know, here's what I'd really like to see: that complete chart (with category and location) on the page notice and all the blurbs nowiki'd. Also, the background color of last year's blurbs would be different. This would make it really easy to make the decisions ancopy and paste (everything on one screen, no risk of duplicates)... let me try that. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, check it out: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 20 and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 20. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That looks awesome. I will see what I can do to keep ahead of you in creating it. Is it possible to make the template immune from the cascading protection? It doesn't appear on the main page itself, and I would imagine most editors would become interested in that day either when it is on the main page or just before. AIRcorn (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I cannot edit the April 21 one either. Does it have to be an editnotice template? Could a normal transclusion work (i.e. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 20/staging area) AIRcorn (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Alas, cascading protection is an all or none proposition; there's no way to exclude individual pieces from it. The reason I went with the editnotice is that I wanted to have the color-coding available during editing. I suppose you could get around that by editing in preview mode, but that's not immediately obvious to everyone. If you want to start on conversion, just start with April 22. I'll get to April 21 tonight when I do the updates. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that only admins or account creators can edit editnotices. I don't really feel like running the RFA gauntlet at the moment and I am not even sure what an account creator is (will apply anyway). I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice to see if it can be unprotected for some pages. Failing that I think we would be better having it in a form that most people can edit. That way it might encourage more to get involved, which is usually a good thing. AIRcorn (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, account creation is only granted to users who are active in the request-an-account process and experienced with the process. (emphasis theirs). Since I have never even heard of this process I guess I don't qualify. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jayne Mansfield

Just checking...did you mean to do this and change the Jayne Mansfield article from being in the Arts (as a WP:GA and in Version 0.7) to only being in Television? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For GA yes. I am trying to fix the links from the recent topic split at WP:GA (Arts was split into Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture, Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama and Wikipedia:Good articles/Music). The links at the top of the talk page next to the GA symbol (i.e. Topic name has been listed as one of the arts, music etc good articles) where going to the wrong place in many articles. I was using AWB as there are a lot (at least a thousand). AIRcorn (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
But does this article (or any of the other articles about actors, like Amy Adams/Talk:Amy Adams, Hugh Grant/Talk:Hugh Grant or Joan Crawford/Talk:Joan Crawford) for instance) belong in television? I would think that Mansfield et al would belong in "Actors, models, performers and celebrities" under Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama but I probably just don't know where to look for "television" under WP:GA. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I bothered you with this, I've been trying to understand the change and someone who is more technologically adept than I says the wording of the change doesn't matter so long as the change is made (to put the cat-split into place). Shearonink (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologise. As there were so many I was just looking for key words to differentiate the different topics and some of those might not be ideal. As you friend says it doesn't make any difference to what the reader sees, but I will try a different approach to make things more accurate. The better the accuracy the easier it will be to tidy things up if the GA cats are ever split again. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Should it be television? Or should it be films? She is known as a film star. Television seems somewhat inappropriate.
I can't find any topic titled "television" at the GA articles page. There is a topic titled "Theatre, film and drama", and there are subtopics titled "Episodes" (which covers episodes of television products), Live action television and radio" (which covers TV products), "Cinema" (which covers the film industry), and "Films (which covers film products). What would be the outcome of putting television as the topic, as it is nor a topic and neither a subtopic yet?
I am trying to get this GA to an FA status. I hope technical glitches wont be a problem on the way. Aditya(talkcontribs) 09:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to film just now. The topic is chosen from this page [2]. The following "theater", "theatre", "film", "drama", "film and television", "television", "theatre, film, and drama", "theatre, film and drama" will all link to the "WP:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama" page. Previously the topic was classified as "art"[3], which linked to the WP:Good articles/Art and architecture page. Jayne Mansfield is correctly listed under theatre, film, and drama so I was merely making her talk page link to the correct WP:GA page. The mislinking was due to a recent split that moved Music and TF&D from the Art page. Any of the above italicised topics would work, I was just using television as there is no actor/actress topic and it was easier to work through the thousand or so entries by changing to one topic. I have changed to film for actors now as most appear in films. Technically it shouldn't make any difference, and the display will not change. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seven Network

My apologies for not following up the GA re-assessment for Seven Network. It had skipped my mind and other priorities had come up. Happy to see the GA status removed from said article. Andjb (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GMO Crops

Thanks for your thorough suggestions on the GMO Crops page for my student. I hope he follows through with your advice! I appreciate any help that you provide to my newbie editors. Waterbug42 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Richard D'Oyly Carte

Hi. I notice that you changed the GA category from Arts (not Art) to film. Looking at the Jayne Mansfield discussion above, I'm still baffled by the use of film here - as Carte was a theatre manager and never appeared in a film, then, surely, Theatre is better. But maybe I'm being dense. --GuillaumeTell 16:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed to theatre. AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP1.0 Categories

You seem to be moving articles classified as 'Arts' to 'music'. When you do that it places the article in Category:Uncategorized Version 0.7 articles, meaning it is an invalid category (valid ones are listed on this page).Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 16:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Aircorn. You have new messages at 5 albert square's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello. I remember you from the time you reviewed the article for GA status. Currently, I'm working on the article to push it to FA status after one failed FAC. Prior to that, could you give your thoughts on the article on a detailed level? Something of an informal FA review, I guess. I'd be really obliged, since I've become somewhat lazy towards the article and need a boost to restart work on it. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC is not really my thing, but if I get time I will have a look over it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Aircorn. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Message added 11:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asian arowana

Thanks for the reminder, I have closed it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Handled the ball/GA1

Hi, thanks for your review of Handled the ball; I have responded to your comments at the review page. Harrias talk 10:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding back "edit protected" in Template talk:Cleanup

Why adding back? Was I disruptive? Well, I read the consensus closure; however, one oppose and one supported in the current discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't mean you. Sorry about the edit summary, I can see how you might have got that impression. I meant the opposer. They are basically stalling the process because they disagree with the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That's okay; I get the wrong conclusion sometimes. Still, adding back the "edit protected" is not worth noticing because it is intended for uncontroversial requests. Right now, requesting another RFC makes the cleanup-reason request not "uncontroversial". Is there a point to adding it back or removing it? --George Ho (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Well my take on it is that the RFC closed with a strong consensus to make the reason mandatory. The edit request is merely changing the wording of the template to reflect this. So far no reason has been given to not do this apart from that it is unnecessary because the opposer "opposed mandating the reason". This is invalid because the RFC has already demonstrated consensus for this change. One editor with a strong opinion does not automatically make something controversial. Taking the RFC and the discussions above as a whole I actually think this is the least controversial change we can make. An admin will read the discussion before completing the edit request in any case and if they decide another RFC needs to be opened then we may very well have to go down that route. AIRcorn (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Onondaga 236

Cleaned up to the best of my ability. (Cleaning up my own crap from 4 years ago isn't the easiest thing in the world when you're writing's improved since then.) As I wrote on the talk page, I'm not opposed to the delisting only because it might be enough to get rid of the damned headache. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 13:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at Benzband's talk page.

Talk:World Health Organization/GA1

Please continue / finalise the review. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: How to review an article change

In hindsight I think a revert to the nominators version and a fail from the reviewer would have been the simplest solution

It depends. For example, see Talk:The_Glass_Bees and Talk:The Glass Bees/GA1 where I did just that in 2011. During the review, I made 51 edits to the article, which constitutes 14% of the total contributions.[4] That article is still not listed as a GA almost a year later because I refrained from doing what needed to be done to make it a GA, and that required major rewriting and revisions that would go well beyond a simple review. However, I was able to double my effort in Wildwood (novel) as a reviewer, where no major rewriting and revisions were needed. Instead, all that was required was cleaning up the lead, restructuring the layout, and moving paragraphs from one place to another. During my Wildwood review, I made no major revisions that added sources nor did I add any new content that would have changed the meaning of the article in any way, shape or form. In the end, I made 85 edits to Wildwood, which amounts to 29% of the total edits to the article.[5] In that case, I was able to pass the article. I don't think this is a question of simplicity, but rather, as other editors have noted, being able to work well with the nominator. At the time, I wasn't familiar with the nominator of Wildwood. If I had known that his ego and sense of self-importance were larger than the known multiverse, I would never have reviewed it in the first place, and would have gladly passed over it. The amount of time and energy I volunteered attempting to fix the numerous problems with this article was not just unappreciated, but derided. I think it is safe to say, I will never work with this nominator again. Personally, I am still upset that I failed The Glass Bees, because I knew that if I did the work required to pass it, it would go beyond that of a reviewer. So, I held myself back and tried to point the nominator in the right direction, a nominator who was not only appreciative and helpful, but truly interested in working with the reviewer. But, in the end, Wildwood didn't require this type of rewriting, and even though the nominator didn't give a damn, I was able to pass it with minor modifications which did not and do not amount to major revisions but rather major copyedits and cleanup. To me, this is an acceptable difference. I would encourage you to go through and review all of my GA reviews and to look for any outstanding problems. I would appreciate the feedback. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the only error Dennis could find in my entire review consisted of two words, "St. Johns", which was mistakenly placed in front of the word "Portland" while trying to cleanup Mr. Bratland's unintelligible prose, which appears to have been written for himself alone, since I couldn't make heads or tails of it. The sources are clear that "12-year-old Prue lives in Meloy's home town in Oregon"[6] which is referred to as Portland, in general. I confused this with "the protagonists' neighborhood" of St. Johns, correctly referred to as St. Johns, Portland, Oregon. Even though the sources say that Prue lives in Meloy's home town in Oregon, they mean that she lives in Portland, not that Meloy lives in St. Johns, Portland, Oregon. There is, as Mr. Bratland correctly observes, a difference between a neighborhood in Portland and Portland itself. Why Mr. Bratland refused to fix this most minor error of fact until now remains a mystery, but clearly these two words are as close to the end of the world as one can get, and all my edits should of course be reverted due to my insane and outrageous reference to Meloy's home town in Oregon as St. Johns, Portland, Oregon, instead of just Portland, Oregon. To seek forgiveness for this breach of accuracy, I am thinking of cutting my hair and joining a monastery where I can imprison myself in a monk's cell for the rest of my life as birds fly in through cracks in the walls to deliver me seeds and insects, which shall remain my only source of sustenance until the end of my days. "How could I ever have made such an error?" I shall think to myself, as I watch the birds fly through the leaking holes in the roof to deliver my next morsel. I shall remember this moment forever; "St. Johns", I shall repeat in my sleep, as a cold breeze pours in through the loose mortar of the cell's bricks, turning my flesh cold with its windy embrace. Like a dying man coming to his end, my last words will be on my tongue as the darkness settles in over my eyes for the last time. With my final dying breath, it will be on my lips—"St. Johns"! Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite predictably, Mr. Bratland is now using this minor error of specifically referring to Prue's hometown of St. Johns, Portland, Oregon instead of just Meloy's home town of Portland, Oregon, to support his contention that there's many factual errors, even though he hasn't been able to show that there are any. We know that the sources actually say that "12-year-old Prue lives in Meloy's home town in Oregon"[7] so my horrible, unforgivable mistake was in taking the source literally, when in fact, it was speaking of a "home town" in a very loose way. It should also be noted that Mr. Bratland's repeated appeal to a standard layout favored by the novel project is false, and ironically, this repeated claim of his demonstrates that he hasn't read the project page at all. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels says these subsections are "standard components" of novel articles, which many times are either not used or discouraged, as the text makes clear. It is not, no matter how many times Mr. Bratland repeats the lie, a "standard layout", nor does any GA or FA article use that page as a model for a "standard layout". Mr. Bratland would do well to read the actual page rather than project his own desires upon it. It does not say what he says it says. For example, under the character section, it does not recommend such a section as a "standard layout" at all, but rather, contrary to Mr. Bratland's repeated wishes, recommends against it. Most ironically, the majority of Mr. Bratland's changes go against the recommendations of this style guideline, which he is using, in a most creative manner, to support his unconventional changes. Virtually every section of this style guideline contradicts Mr. Bratland's changes, most notably its recommendations for the lead, the plot, the characters section, and background. This has been explained to Mr. Bratland, with no sign of recognition on his end. In Mr. Bratland's world, this style guideline is not about style but about "layout". Please note, the page in question says nothing about any standard layout, nor could it. Apparently, once Mr. Bratland has an idea in his head, no matter how wrong the idea is, there is no way one can convince him otherwise. There is a certain compulsion and narrowness of approach here that I cannot deal with, so this will be my last message on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think I'm done finding errors? I told you over and over it would take me time. It's taking me time and I'm still at it. A dozen times you assert that I can't name the errors, and a dozen times I told you, it's not happening in an instant. You only hear what you want to hear. That's your problem. You really have to let this go. Trying to whisper poison into the ear of the article's second reviewer is not seemly. All this ego and article ownership you accuse me of? That's you, projecting. Put Wildwood behind you and do something productive and rewarding on Wikipedia. What good is going to come out of this vendetta? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable! This from the guy who has been going out of his way to actively stalk and discuss my edits in at least three different current topic areas in the last 48 hours all because he can't let this go? You're fracking hilarious! It is currently May 22 where I am. Since my last edit to the article on May 10, you've found nothing wrong with a single edit I've made, but you've spent your time following me around Wikipedia, taking cheap shots whenever you can. In all that time, you've only been able to point to two words, "St. Johns", that were accidentally placed in front of the town of "Portland", confusing Meloy's home town of Portland with Prue's town, which is located in Portland. You couldn't bother to fix it, so instead you dishonestly used that to justify changing the content based on a "standard layout" that doesn't exist. You're the one with the vendetta, and you're the one who needs to put it behind you. Your hypocrisy and bad faith accusations apparently has no end nor any boundaries. You're actions show that you are petty and vindictive, and I don't trust a single word you say or write. Hopefully, this is the last exchange we will ever have. It's already too much. It's all about you, you, and you, isn't it Dennis? Dennis Bratland, 24-7, nothing else matters. "12-year-old Prue lives in Meloy's home town in Oregon".[8] Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I kept seeing this thing about hamburgers on your talk page, and I tried to ignore it for a while, but it wouldn't go away. Kind of familiar territory for you, I guess. I tiny disagreement gets worse and worse blows up into a huge war. Then you started repeatedly disparaging Night of the Big Wind and I felt bad seeing him slandered that way, so I spoke up. I know it looked like stalking, but at the same time I saw somebody being unfairly attacked, and I knew the right thing was to speak out against bullying. Having been the victim of it myself, from you. It always gets so personal with you, doesn't it?

What is it you think you're going to accomplish with Wildwood? I know what my goal is. I'm trying to make the article correct, and I don't care if it keeps GA or not. What is your intention? Nothing good can come of what you're doing. Every time you sink yourself deeper into it, the worse you make yourself look. With your history of incivility and personal battles over what should be simple content disputes, that can't be good for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bratland, if I require your input or opinion, I'll let the palace guards know and they will summon you. Otherwise, your opinion is useless to me. You may go now. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right. Sometimes you think you're Jimmy Wales. You're giving orders on Wikipedia, because it's all yours and you're in charge of everything here. Riiiiiight. Got it. Wink wink.

You know, your most grievous howler wasn't Meloy's home, or the Robinson citation. It was mixing up the basic spirit of Wikipedia:Npov#Describing aesthetic opinions with WP:BLP's cautious approach to criticism of living people. Understanding what WP:NPOV says is fundamental. Going around trying to apply the standards of BLP to articles about things will get you laughed out of the room, Jimmy Wales. Can I call you Jimbo?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bratland, need I remind you that you openly admitted on this page at 03:56, 23 May 2012 that you have been actively engaged in stalking, hounding, and attacking me. I'm going to ask you for the last time: stop all your activity in regards to my edits, take my user talk page off of your watchlist, do not keep showing up to comment about me or interfere in any way with my contributions, and cease your compulsive obsession with my person. That is all, Mr. Bratland. Good day, sir. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen you repeatedly claim that the person you started a fight with "admitted" some awful crime. And every time you can never get a third editor to agree that the supposed admission exists anywhere except your imagination. You hear what you want to hear, like I've said.

But I agree. No need for me comment on your good work. You'll be busy enough with the next editor you needlessly piss off, and me commenting won't help matters at all. I hope this isn't like that 1RR thing you pretend to follow; I hope you mean it. I do. I'll leave you alone. Good day to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have mentioned a few times at other pages that to my mind the biggest strength of Good articles is the relative freedom we give reviewers. The criteria are there, but there is a certain leeway when interpreting them. If a reviewers asks for something to be done on an article I have nominated that falls outside my interpretation of the criteria, and I have no strong objection to it, then I do it. Reviewers are volunteers within a volunteer project and I have a huge amount of respect for them. If I disagree strongly, then I will make my case at the review page. I might be convinced otherwise or I might convince the reviewer. Or we both might continue to disagree and the article will fail or a second opinion will be sought. That is how I think it should work anyway, a collaborative process between me and the reviewer to get the article up to the required standard.

As a reviewer I take much the same approach. I base my style on SilkTork (talk · contribs)s, although I don't go into as much depth and am more willing to quickfail. I usually start with a blurb about my familiarity with the topic and put in a bit about how I see this as a collaborative process and welcome discussion about any of my comments. I then do a read through and correct spelling, grammar and other little changes. On the review page I leave a link to the diff from my version and invite the nominator to review the changes (I have an issue with their/there and spell things wrong occasionally). I will then use a table to say what concerns I have in regards to the WP:GACR, and a section with comments. The table is stuff that needs to be fixed while most of the comments don't strictly follow them; they are more suggestions on what can be done to improve the article. I have been consistently surprised by the number of nominators that take them on board and actually use them to improve beyond the criteria though.

Like I said first up, the strength is that there is leeway accorded reviewers. Some stick strictly to the criteria and no more, others will not touch an article and mention everything on the review page, while some give very specific instructions on how the article should be fixed. There is no right or wrong way and as long as reviewers are judging the articles against the criteria then it is fine. The criteria can be interpreted surprisingly low by the way. Issues really only occur when the nominator and reviewer disagree strongly about something and the reviewer won't let it go. Remember it is the reviewers prerogative to fail the article and it is not a major problem for the nominator to renominate. There is also WP:GAR to turn to. I know it is hard when you have put a lot of effort into an article fixing up issues to simply walk away, but I do think that is the simplest solution. Your review will still be present and I would hope any future reviewer will look at it before or during their review. You could even go into some other form of dispute resolution (third opinion, RFC etc) if you believed that was warranted.

You don't have to review articles the same way as me, that is just a style that suited me and it will probably evolve more in the future. Hell, I have not been doing it that long and am far from the expert in Good article reviewing. I just have a picture in my head on how it should be and have got in the habit of responding to queries on the talk pages. I would however suggest that anything beyond typos, grammar and minor formatting errors is mentioned at the review page first. I know we may disagree on what constitutes minor, but it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution. If you get no response there after a decent amount of time then I would support you in making the fixes yourself. I have had more of a think about Dennis's proposal and believe there is a case for reviewers to make more than non-minor changes to an article to get it up to standard (will go into more detail on the talk page). I had a look at Talk:Vannevar Bush/GA1 and I think it is an excellent review, better than most others I see. I can look at others if you wish, but I don't think your reviews are an issue, just maybe the way Wildwood was handled.

Speaking of Wildwood, I am going to treat your review as a fail, and conduct a new GA review. The major difference is that I am not usually as strict on re-assessments as I am on new nominations. I will review it according to my interpretation of the criteria, but will have a read of your review first. I know you don't want anything more to do with that article, but you are welcome to leave comments or take it to a community reassessment if you disagree. I can fix up the article history to better reflect this if you want (basically link to the reverted version and mark your review as a fail). Sorry about the WP:TLDR. I know I rambled a bit, but I hope I have answered any questions. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with everything you've said. I've brought this up before in another area, but is there a way to track reviews, either by list or category? I was hoping you might be able to go over all of the ones I've done and point out any strengths and/or weaknesses. I ask because I don't track any of the reviews I've done, but I've said (I think it was on the village pump) that we should be able to track these things more closely in-house. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I said I wouldn't, just that from the one I did check I didn't notice any problems. I can have a look at some others for you. As for tracking reviews I think that would be useful for a number of reasons, namely identifying and helping new users. When I look for them I just scan through the contribution history looking for ctrl F'ing for "/GA". Maybe something could be done on toolserver or with Bots. AIRcorn (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Toolserver. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)