User talk:Aircorn/Archive 6

Add discussion
Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10


Thanks for the suggestion to notify people from the earlier debate, not to mention your idea to start a RfC in the first place. Cheers,  Gong show 06:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It is running very smoothly so far. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher funeral

In section of the funeral of Mrs.Thatcher I would add the comment of former Italian PM,Berlusconi.But I can not write in perfect English Mariacciolo (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


User:Aircorn/monobook.js is turning up in the MEDA cats because it contains the {{WPMED}}, which is being treated as a transclusion. Last I heard, Outriggr's script has not been working since the upgrade to Vector (several years ago) anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to help someone out at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part II AIRcorn (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that you only need the first line to get the skin; Outriggr's script certainly has nothing to do with that, so you can remove that from your .js file. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Article RfC

Hello, now that Hahc21 has unfortunately retired from Wikipedia, someone else needs to take over the RfC or else it will probably die. I am willing to help take it over but I don't know if it should be moved to Part II when there is still several proposals that are still undecided. I was hoping that you would have some sort of opinion on where this RfC should go next.--Dom497 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dom. I left a rather long reply at the proposals page. I think we should just propose the most likely ones at WT:GAN and then just move forward from there. I always treated that RFC as a brainstorming exercise anyway. I am willing to have a go at copyediting your instructions page if you want (I will be quite brutal I fear) or you could propose it as is and see what others say. I am tempted just to introduce the tabs and number 6 boldly though as i can't see any complaints about them. AIRcorn (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with you giving it a copy-edit if you want. As I was writing it I too did think I was going into too much detail but for some reason I just kept writing. :P --Dom497 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I will also propose numbers 1 and 3 within the next few days (kinda busy right now).--Dom497 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am going to send out a message to all WP:GA members as it is better then just mentioning it on the nominations page.--Dom497 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
How much longer do you think we should keep Part I going for? We got a good response from the notice I sent out and I think within the next week or two we should move to Part II. I talked with Hahc21 and got a good understanding of what he wanted Part II to be (which I kinda agree with and was similar to what you said about bringing it to WT:GAN).--Dom497 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Your message worked well. I see we got another proposal which will happen with these open ended discussions (not a bad thing though). Three and six have enough response that I would just make an announcement on the main WT:GAN page along the lines of "Following a recent rfc (linked) the following proposals got unanimous support. If there are no further objections I will look to impliment the changes in a week or so."
  • (Wording of proposal 3)
  • (Wording of proposal 6)
BTW, I thought I saw Hahc editing again. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ya, he told me when I emailed him that in 2 weeks he may be fully back but for now he's just going to take it easy. Regarding the RfC, there are a few issues: with proposal 3, should come the redo of the nominations page that I worked on a while back. Hahc said he would take a look at and likely get rid of the "old green" so I don't think we should bring in the tabs just yet. Regarding proposal 6, how is that even supposed to be implemented??? Really, shouldn't it just go in the instructions or something?--Dom497 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it should I will add it in now. I am not sure that anything needs to be done to the nominations page except removing the instructions and adding the tabs. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
So just to make sure I understand, when bringing in the tabs, the only thing that shouldn't be removed is the introductory rectangle, correct?--Dom497 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thought it easier to simply give an example of what I was suggesting [1] AIRcorn (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I know I've been sending you so many messages but are the instructions complete or you still working on them?--Dom497 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. You might want to get someone else to give it a going over. AIRcorn (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked Casliber (talk · contribs) if they wouldn't mind giving it a check. If they are happy I will mention it at WT:GAN (or you can if you want) and we can hopefully just do it within a week. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes (mostly minor) that I think you should check (just for the sake of it). Also, how come you removed the "Giving a second opinion" part (just curious)?--Dom497 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at the nominations draft...I liked your design better so I think we should go with that. I also added the intro. After you give the "clear" I think we can go ahead and officially add it and start a feedback process.--Dom497 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, can you take a look at this page and make it sound better?--Dom497 (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It was pretty good. I guess we are ready to go then. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Just some food for thought; what are we going to do with the reassessment instructions?--Dom497 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
They are still there under the reassessments page. AIRcorn (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was are we going to move them under the instructions tab, just leave them as is, or do something else with them?--Dom497 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I was just going to leave them where they are. I think it may confuse new reviewers if they were under instructions. After all this I see someone at WT:GAN still didn't notice the tabs. Still I think they have come up great. AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

Peer review request for Thomas Ellison

I'm currently attempting to bring the article Thomas Ellison to Featured Article standard. I've opened a peer review, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Ellison/archive1—any feedback, however brief, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

- Shudde talk 07:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Goathouse Refuge

Hello! Thank you for helping us out with the Good Article status for Goathouse Refuge, is there anything else we need to do to improve it? Or is it good to go now and we can add the article back as a Good Article? --MangoDango (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think it is very close. I am just editing it to try and make it sound a bit more encyclopaedic (it came across a little too informal). Still a bit to go - I am a little slow at the moment. Have some time today, so will hopefully finish it soon. AIRcorn (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce GAR

Just wondered where it states that it's okay for someone involved in GAR to delist it as GAR. I'm also making some comments on your thoughts on Philanthropy Thanks--Aichik (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell she hadn't edited the article or been involved in any GA disputes prior to it being put up for reassessment (found only this edit). "Reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." You can comment on a reassessment and still close it. If you look at the current archive or any that cover the last few years you will see that I have closed many after commenting on them. I would rather not, but seeing as no one else seems to be interested in closing these then I don't really see any other choice (at this time to my knowledge only one has been challenged Talk:Kumbakonam/GA3). I admit you could reasonably argue that Jennie is a significant contributor as she has made a lot of edits.[2] "Significant contributors to the article are 'involved'". Most of what I have noticed seemed to be rearrangements, copy edits and responding to edit requests. I would consider her less "involved" than myself, and I have considered closing it a few times. I would rather someone else did, but we can't keep these open forever. I might make my hint a bit stronger or another option is to post at the WT:GAN or WT:GAR page and hope someone notices. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Goathouse Refuge GA status

Thanks for taking the time to improve Goathouse Refuge. If you have already interacted with the editors involved with the article disregard this, but I didn't see any further feedback or a pass/fail re: a GA review. Part of the confusion may be that, as you saw on the WT:GAN page, I removed the GA template from the article after the questionable review last week but in my haste I didn't also remove the template from the talk page, so the article was never actually removed from the list of GAs. --RM395 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Talk:No worries/GA2

Thanks for your comments at Talk:No worries/GA2.

I've added some additional notes at Talk:No worries/GA2, pointing out discussion of multiple other countries.

I made a list noting five (5) total countries discussed in the article.

Perhaps you could revisit Talk:No worries/GA2?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I added more info on New Zealand. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Care to reevaluate your position at Talk:No worries/GA2? — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I never really had a position, but yeah I think it is meats the Good article criteria. I left a note with Nerdfighter about closing it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I posted to a few Good Articles related talk pages asking this to please respectfully be changed to a community reassessment, as it appears from the nomination opening statement that the nominator is biased. Can this be closed as a community reassessment, instead? — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I would just wait and see how nerdfighter closes it. If it is delisted just list it at WP:GAR for community reassessment. I don't think it would have any trouble being listed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait, wait, so even with six (6) people expressing unanimous consent to Keep the article status as WP:GA, the nominator can still de-list it if he wants, against the unanimous consensus expressed there? And force the page to go through a frivolous process to get the WP:GA status listing back? Doesn't that seem like a waste of time? — Cirt (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I urged the nominator to close it as keep. However, as getting a GA only involves one reviewer the process for reassessing should be the same. A community GAR is a safety net of sorts and as the only regular contributor there I would much rather more editors did individual ones. Also I think it is better to stick to process for obvious cases so they can't be used as an excuse for the less obvious ones. We don't even know that Nerdfighter will delist it yet, so this all seems a little premature. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, I appreciate your attentiveness to this matter. Your explanation to Nerdfighter (talk · contribs) was also very helpful, and I thank you for that. Hopefully he will close it soon. Do you think it's ready for closure? — Cirt (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I would say it is ready. If he hasn't closed it in a couple of days and has made other contributions without responding to the GAR then I will assume it is abbandoned and close it for him. I have done it with a few other GARs that seemed to have been forgotten about without any complaints. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New Zealand

I have left further comments on the talk page of this article, but can't really do much more on my own. This rogue editor would rather edit-war than discuss. The WP:3RR means I can't do much more at this stage. Others, including you, will have to monitor the article and delete this rubbish, or it will degenerate into the same crap pages this person has turned so many others without much hindrance. BlackCab (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock listed as GA?

Hello! Just had an issue brought to my attention. It seems you listed Wedlock as a good article, yet it seems the GA review failed. I've removed the GA listing. I just figured I'd leave you a note and see what happened. Regards, m.o.p 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It was sent to reassessment (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wedlock (band)/1) AIRcorn (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Found the ANI thread, but it has been archived so I guess I can't add to it. In hindsight I should have left a better summary when I listed the article. I left a detailed history of the article at the deletion discussion. I also found a sockpuppet investigation involving a few of the commentators, which while still open looks to have some merits. I didn't check for sockpuppet activity at the reassessment, but don't base my closes on numbers so it should not have any effect. A new reassessment can be opened if it is kept, but as far as process goes, while not perfect it was followed. Let me know if there is anything more I need to do. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy notice too. I probably would never have noticed this otherwise. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. I didn't notice the GAR entry. Sorry about that. m.o.p 02:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What confused me when I just ran into this is that the GAR is dated 1 November 2012 on the article's talk page, apparently prior to the "not listed" GAN result, when it actually seems to have occurred afterward. Can this be fixed? (If the article is deleted, it probably won't matter in the long run, but it's wrong now.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I copy-paste a previous article histories fields and then change the settings when updating the article as it is currently (hopefully being fixed soon) the easiest way to add to the template. I obviously forgot to add the new date and left in the one from the FA nom. Hopefully fixed now. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured that's what happened (I'm a big copy-and-paster myself); since the oldid was different. I've never been sure where the oldid field is supposed to come from (which edit is the one that matters), so I've always left those to the bot to do, back when it was working. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It should be the one that shows the articles state when the decision was made. It took me a while to find them. I just click on the view history tab of the article and click the date of the passed, failed, delisted etc version. The oldid is at the end of the url. AIRcorn (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn. What is going on with the Wedlock(band) article? There seems to be a few things going on here? I took JayJay as being too busy in real life to bother with this article, but I thought you had examined this, and that it why is was listed as GA? What is a "sock puppet"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowFatKid (talkcontribs) 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Sorry this editor was real busy with his life and did not have time to go back and check which "huge" you referred to at the time. Work has eased for a few mts so--The British captains of the 1830 era who called into the Bay of Islands in NZ made few detailed references to the trade in sex.The French captains who came less frequently to the area left considerable comment, but few had the time or inclination to count the number of slave girl prostitutes who clambered over their ships-they were just too numerous. One French captain in 1830 said that for every 10 girls he sent over the port side 20 more clambered over the starboard side. Slave girls outnumbered the sailors by about 3 to 1 . This wild sexual activity, which so appalled the low church LMS Anglican missionaries, with their start laced Victorian values,was common place and normal cultural practice among the polynesian Maori of that time in NZ. Women were usually offered for sex to any visitor who the chief wanted to cultivate. While the missionaries offered humanity and literacy the captains offered knives, axes, red paint, ships boats,jewelry, steel farm tools and at times muskets which was what the chiefs really wanted. One editor has made the comment that although the slave girls were as young as 9 these childen were unlikely to produce offspring. However most of the slave girls were about 16-20s ,so almost certainly produced some children from these forced sexual liasons. Records show an average of 80 ships per year at the peak with over 200 ships in one year. Not all of the sexual encounters were forced .It is clear that some free Maori women had long term relationships with sailors, especially if they had some status(man in Maori). Every time the ship returned they would hook up again, to use the modern expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My issue with huge was that it is rather ambiguous. Different people have different impressions of what is considered huge. It would be better to use a number or as that is not possible some other more verifiable expression. Maybe a partial quote. I don't have access to the sources you do, so can't really say what the most appropriate qualifier would be, I just don't think "huge" is the best. My main concern, and I think the concern of other editors here, is that much of the information added is not strictly related to demographics, that is the make-up of the population at the time. Saying there were slaves and a fair proportion or some other expression is fine, but this is the wrong article to go into details about what the slaves did. Same with the information about Moa extinctions, Kumara growing and Canabilism. These are not appropriate for an article on demographics. AIRcorn (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


My !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedlock (band) (2nd nomination) was lazy. I did not detail what I thought was socking and what was not. The implied suggestion you were involved in socking was unintended. I see you are unrelated to the socks involved and regret any implication that you have acted inapproriately. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles GAR

Hey, it appears nothing has happened since the end of April with this GAR. I'm considering closing it myself. Okay? —Jennie | 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Recruitment

Hey there, I want to get this recruitment thing for Good articles off the ground so I left a brief description of what I plan to do on Hahc21's talk page. Please click here to see the message I left as your opinion will be extremely helpful. :) --Dom497 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so I know when the time comes, how do I even make a request for a message to be put on the top of everyone's watchlist?--Dom497 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea. I just know its possible. AIRcorn (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In recognition of your tireless contributions and patience at GA review and related pages! KeithbobTalk 20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rapid-fire redirects in violation of consensus at AfD's

Whoa! I just spot checked a few of your recent redirects, which you have described as "per AfD" in your edit summaries. These were closed as WP:MERGE, not redirect. Please self-revert and merge per the help page instructions at WP:MERGETEXT. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only redirecting those that are over three months old (some were six or more). That is plenty of time for anyone interested in merging to move everything across. Otherwise the backlog just builds. Any you think can be salvaged feel free to revert. If you want to merge information across go ahead. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no WP:DEADLINE, and certainly no WP:ANYTHINGTHREEMONTHSOLDISFAIRGAME. Removing content against consensus because it clears a queue is counterproductive. Again, please self-revert them, and either merge them or leave them alone. VQuakr (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is that the article should not exist. If someone !votes merge at a deletion discussion then they should be willing to do the merge themselves. Too often it is an easy out for !voters who don't look at the information in the other article. Feel free to revert any you want, I wont be self reverting. I will leave the rest for you to do. AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. As well as using multiple misleading edit summaries, at least one of these redirects was directed at a non-existent page [3]. Per your request, I have reverted your incorrect edits. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth a redirect is a merge, just one where no information is taken across. Happens a lot with some merge tags. So while my edit summaries could have been more informative they are not inaccurate. The redirect to a red link was obviously a spelling mistake, that happens too. AIRcorn (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not under the impression that any of these edits were in bad faith. The redirect to a non-existent page just was, to me, another indicator that you might have be too focused on clearing a backlog, to the point that it is was impacting the quality of your edits. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my thinking that three months is long enough for information to be merged following a closed deletion discussion. Maybe I will start a village pump discussion over it. I think you have wasted your time a bit re-reverting. I bet you a good article that over half of them just end up redirected again. AIRcorn (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Instructions

Do you think we should change step 1 (for reviewing) from "Familiarize yourself with the criteria" to "Go to the Recruitment Centre" on the Instructions page?--Dom497 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

New York City as WP:GA

Hey there, I understand you recently reassessed New York City. Anyway we could update this articles' to do list? Looks like it hasn't been changed since its demotion from GA status. I'd love to help in anyway I can. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal. I am very busy currently so I apologise for the slow response. My biggest concern is the lead. Myself and a few other editors are working through this at the talk page. Feel free to join the discussion and I will contribute as I have time. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It's taken me a minute but I think I'm up to speed with the discussions. From what I gathered, reduction of references in the lead is the only clear consensus. As I'm sure you know these to-dos should reflect results of such disputes, so I've updated it with this one task. At any rate I'm here to help and will do my best to stay in the loop. Thanks again! — MusikAnimal talk 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Also I know this is really silly but I keep wanting to add an {{unreferenced}} tag to your wikified user page. I think it would be really funny... but obviously inappropriate of me. — MusikAnimal talk 02:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

PR category listing

If you update the list of categories for VeblenBot to scan, please use the address instead of the address on I have migrated this off of the toolserver now. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


[4] FWIW, the paragraph has been in the lead for a while. :-) I agree that AAAS isn't a great example, and I agree with your edit summary; there was a valid (in my opinion) request for attribution and simultaneously an attribution to Monsanto, which I thought was a poor example (for-profit company with financial interest). I think there is a reasonable argument for your edit though. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not had the time to follow the article as closely as I would like recently (I thought it was part of a recent spate of edits). It is a very busy time of the year for me at the moment and that article has become a bit of a time sink. It seems that labelling is a big issue at the moment in the US, but is probably only a small part of the overall contorversy, so there may be a bit of undue in giving it a whole paragraph in either case. I would ideally love to rewrite parts of the lead, but that will be a summer project (Southern Hemisphere summer). That is if I feel up to the challange. Other more relaxing fish to fry at the moment. It was a lot quiter from both sides before MAM made its appearance (not that that is a bad thing). Keep up your good work there though, you seem to know what you are talking about and appear to be a calm voice. Feel free to revert or rewrite my removal. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) You're probably smarter than I am in not following the article so much (I'm actually thinking that perhaps I should make a clean break from it for a while). Anyways, I'll leave your change so that others can comment, and I hope to see your rewrite in the future. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


  Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was already aware of the discussion and semi following it. I probably won't comment though unless someone specifically addresses my editing. AIRcorn (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Note that Hog tried to template your userpage: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Aircorn. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment archives


There's a question about good article reassessment archiving at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/56. I notice you have been active in this area, so I thought you might have something useful to add. Please take a look when you get a moment.

Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013


by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vigna may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • &quot;},&quot;attrs&quot;:{&quot;name&quot;:&quot;:2&quot;}}"></ref> Some species include:
  • <!-- Vigna subhastata was reclassified as Ancistrotropis subhastata.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

House of Gondola

Thank you for your advice. If you say that we are both wrong, would you mind not limiting to the description of my share of responsability? Thank you and regards. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment. I meant you were both wrong because you both said no one was going to comment on the rfc. As to the question of naming, unfortunately as I see it only you were wrong. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A tiny CCI primer

Given your note at the CCI page, I just wanted to stop and thank you in person for pitching in. :)

What I did with the bottom section is unusual - usually markup is done more like this - we use a {{y}} if we find issues and a {{n}} if we don't for two reasons - the colorful marks makes it easier to scan the page and see open issues, and they also make it easy to identify the scope of the problem as we go. They're not required, but I find them general helpful. :) The only reason I did the bottom section that way is that I was powering through the whole section at one time and the collapse speaks for itself in terms of open issues.

Any help you're willing to give there is appreciated. We have quite a backlog at WP:CCI. If you want to continue helping out there and have any questions at any point, please feel free to drop by my talk page. This kind of assist is much appreciated, and I will do what I can to make it easier. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GA mentor

I'm embarked on reviewing Murder of Leigh Leigh, and would appreciate you casting you eye over what I have done. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


I have initially reviewed my first article. I realize the importance of "not" being too rash, and would like someone to look over my suggestions and comments on the review page, if you have the time. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am so sorry. I have had very little time to Wikipede recently, and I don't envision that changing anytime soon. You would probably be better asking at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, but if I find some time I may have a look at your review. AIRcorn (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment

History of Somalia (1991–2006), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AHeneen (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Natalia Kills

Hey, erm, if I'm completely honest I'm not sure there's much to discuss, the controversy section's valid as it's (not to sound shady, I love her music) but it's probably the biggest event in her career thus far. As you can see, we keep editing the amount of signatures on the petition, it's getting over 1,000 every 5 minutes. I just think this event's too big to be categorised into her career section. What are your thoughts? Azealia911 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Matlow

I put a response up on the talk page for Josh Matlow about your assessment. I was confused by parts of it and am not sure what's happening now. Aletheia V. (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment archive

Hi Aircorn. I've recently opened a new GAR archive (number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke edits

Dear Aircorn - thank you for previously contributing to the discussion regarding the Matthew VanDyke page. As you may know, this page is currently subject to an editing dispute on both the Talk Page and the BLPN. In order to help resolve the dispute, please can you kindly confirm if your support for or objection to the debated edits has been fairly summarised in the table on the Talk Page? If your position has not been fairly summarised then I apologise and invite you to correct it (or let me know and I can do this for you). Thank you. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


I read what you wrote to Ozzie regarding the herbicide glyphosate. A new article has come out that may be of interest. I tend to agree with you and you make some good points. You should consider writing a response comment under the article. Glyphosate is blamed for every condition under the sun. (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases III: Manganese, neurological diseases, and associated pathologies. Surg Neurol Int 2015;6:45. Available from:

ITN for 2015 Netball World Cup

--SpencerT♦C 19:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Per Wp:NPOV and the source provided which is the BBC, this is relevant to the article. Woovee (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. AIRcorn (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015


Your recent editing history at Craig Joubert shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Woovee (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the report noted above with the result that you are strongly warned not to edit war in future. I have been lenient in not blocking you, and this will not be repeated in future. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Craig Joubert

This behaviour is not suitable because this breaks the discussion. The headline of this new topic has to be withdrawn and the reply has to be included in the previous topic. Thanks. If not, I'm going to report this to the administrator. Woovee (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a problem to be honest and since two other editors have also replied I don't think moving it is a good idea. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

I am making you aware of the Arb editing restrictions and enforcement due to your recent edits on Genetically modified foods and Seralini affair - your large-scale removals of sourced content in these articles, without engaging in discussion and seeking consensus, is disruptive and could result in arbitration enforcement. Minor4th 03:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

David Bain

Thank you for your recent edits to the David Bain article. The article needs input from editors who have not been involved in the past month's contentious editing, and I'm glad to see you taking part. I hope you will continue, because you seem (so far) to be not aligned with either the guilty or the Robin-Bain-did-it factions. Akld guy (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Akld guy. I saw this at ANI and as a fellow New Zealander and reasonably experienced editor I thought I could help. I have no real opinion on the Bain case. I don't live under a rock so knew about it, but never really followed it. I do have opinions on what makes a good wikipedia article though and that will be my aim when editing. AIRcorn (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Aircorn. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Afd of Major cricket

Hi Aircorn, this is just a courtesy reminder that you may want to vote on this AfD before it is closed: Py0alb (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Counterspin at David Bain

Hi Aircon, I saw you deleted my addition to the David Bain page, but surely this is a material issue that affected Collins' decision, and should be included? There doesn't seem to be any question of the fact of Michael Guest's approach to Judith Collins, it would be highly unusual for an accused's former lawyer to make an approach of this nature, and it clearly had an impact on Collins? Peterno500 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

Thanks for the reply. Counterspin included a lot of material that was personal opinion, but I am not aware of anyone challenging the accuracy of the letter that Michael Guest wrote? If the content of the letter is not contested, and if Counterspin happens to be the location of that information, I don't think that disqualifies it as a source? Peterno500 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You made an edit on the AE section on Prokaryotes. I do want to thank you for part of it. Suggesting a self revert is a very good idea. I have made a post on Prokaryotes page and reinforced that its a good idea to do it (hopefully asap). AlbinoFerret 20:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just realised that I changed the wording in the wrong section when I did my partial revert, so have changed the lead back to scientific agreement. I daresay the discussion will continue, but hopefully this cools things a bit. Sorry for any confusion. AIRcorn (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pranav Dhanawade

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket - possible merge

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)