User talk:Aircorn/Archive 12

See this. I'd appreciate your thoughts, and maybe we could expand it a bit using the source cited? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Piotrus}. I appreciate the heads up. Aza24 was a big influence on the Arts section. I only really wanted to get the article into a decent shape as it was in a bad way when I came across it. I don't really have much attachment to it beyond that, except for trying to keep it from degrading. My only concern with your edit would be adding too much to this article as it is covering a very broad topic and needs to be kept very much in summary style. So I would be against expanding it too much and if possible would prefer it integrated into a existing paragraph. I see you mentioned splitting humanity out on the talk page. That may be a good approach as this article covers human the species and not so much human the concept. Not got a lot of time to help at the moment and my next big project here is going to be food when I get the time. I trust you and most of the editors watching the Human page enough to keep it to a good standard and still have it on my watchlist. Cheers Aircorn (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool, and kudos for tackling the giant overview topics like those! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you also open a GAR discussion about Halo Array? It contains a lot of issues, several unsourced statements, and has no reception section either, which it probably fails WP:GNG, thanks. 59.187.213.131 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. David Fuchs has been working on a few of these recently ad might have a better idea. GNG is not part of the criteria. If you are worried about that AFD is a better option (or proposing a merge might be more realistic) Aircorn (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Almost all of what you reverted was obviously to anyone even glancing at it simply proper boring copy editing. Nothing more. Take a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Hern%C3%A1ndez_(umpire)&diff=1022230333&oldid=1022229964

And the deletion that you point to, as was clearly explained in the edit summary-did you read it?, was because the statement lacked an RS source. Which is obvious. The “source” is a only a claim in a complaint - of course a non-RS - and one that was dismissed, for heavens sake. What are you thinking?

Please review what you have done. And restore what you have reverted. Seriously - you think it best to not inline the name of the judge? What are you possibly thinking? Etc etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:6d05:49a3:e292:b737 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why my archiving process is "terrible". Everything that gets posted on my talk page gets archived. What more do you want? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your system is definitely better than AldezD, who just deletes theirs. By moving it though the history is incomplete, which just makes it harder to find relevant diffs. Aircorn (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean my annual move to a new archive file? That's to preserve the semi-protection, and follows the advice I was given by another admin, a number of years ago. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I have come across that method before, but it is not a big deal in the scheme of things. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Arguably, his "method" is better than mine because (presumably) all of his talk page edits are in one place. But everything from my talk page is in an archive file. I create each one at the end of the calendar year. (And sometimes botch the renaming, but that's another story.) --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Aircorn, thank you for your contributions here and where we've crossed paths. I appreciate it. I was hoping to have a sidebar on Claire Danes and why you disagree that there's a WP:BLP concern with the content as to not muddy up that process any more than it has been. I'm keen to understand your perspective (which seems to be more common than my own).

It is my understanding that content in a BLP must come from reliable secondary sources per WP:BLPSTYLE (and more broadly WP:PSTS). Since status quo's editor is WP:CHERRYPICKING specific WP:TERTIARY sources (3 of which are not about the subject nor the event in question), a certain narrative has been crafted that is contentious. On top of that, looking at the WP:SECONDARY sources reveals that many of the tertiary sources, including the 4 that status quo's editor has selected, result in published WP:BLPGOSSIP, that is WP:VERIFIABLE via tertiary sources, but false. Additionally, the subject is being misquoted (though the misquote can be attributed to several reliable sources). Looking at WP:PRIMARY sources of the quotes themselves reveals a violation of WP:PMC, though not at the fault of Wikipedia's editors. Given WP:BLPREMOVE, my understanding is that it must be removed immediately.

We have published contentious and false material that is poorly sourced and misquoted a living person, how is this not a BLP issue? What am I misunderstanding?

Cheers, SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay a lot of links there, not going to really delve into those too deep. I will give you my take coming from 12 (12 woah) years experience editing here and someone who is pretty strict on BLPs. First every BLP is a BLP and many other articles have parts that are BLP, i.e an article on a song will talk about the singer and those parts are covered by BLP. When you look at violations of BLP policy it is not always black and white, but more shades of gray. Saying Danes is a racist (which I haven't confirmed, but judging from the previous RFC might have been in there) is a bigger violation than saying she made offensive comments. Saying something negative that is not supported by a source is a bigger violation than saying something negative that is supported by a poor source.

As to sourcing it is not always cut and dry. I know there is something out there about self published sources in BLPs, but beyond that the quality of the source (certain depreciated sources aside) largely depends on how controversial the information being sourced is. For example the subjects twitter and self published blogs can be justified for some basic information or attributed thoughts. If we want to negatively label a BLP then a strong source is always needed.

As far as Danes goes what is in there is not too bad. In as much as it is supported by sources and is an accurate reflection of those sources. We can argue sources (I left my analysis on the talk page), but I don't see whats there as a major violation. The issue at Danes for my mind comes down to Undue. Undue is great, but a bit nebulous. I would argue most of the discussions on whether to include information comes down to this. How much does what we have in the article reflect the actuality of that persons life. I think it is clearly undue, but others obviously don't.

For a bit of advice. You are dominating the conversation there at the moment. Tol seems to have taken a step back, and I would suggest you do too. Discussions here are funny things and there seems to be an inverse relationship between how much someone writes and how much they convince other editors they are correct (I say as I write four paragraphs). Hopefully someone versed in policy will close it, but failing that you mentioned BLP eventualism somewhere in the conversation. If it goes the other way then one solution to undue information is to add other information. The personal life section is woefully underdeveloped and could do with some more information in general. Aircorn (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about self-published sources, though. There are 4 tertiary sources supporting status quo, 3 of which are very poor sources. Status quo states The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines. None of the secondary sources say she was banned from entry, and one of them has a statement from Kim Atienza stating they cannot keep her from coming back. This is why I'm being so pushy. You have a lot more experience than me, which I trust, and why I've come to you directly to understand, but if BLPs (and Wikipedia in general) is supposed to be based on what reliable, secondary sources say, why are we saying something about Danes that those secondary sources are not? Is this truly just a matter of severity? It's not true she was banned from entry in the region, but it's not libel, so the BLP issue does not require us to remove it? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I know this is a standard notice, but curious as to why now. I actually support a mention in the lead. Aircorn (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

As you took over the initial assessment in 2019, I thought Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hannah Arendt/1 may be of interest to you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, the GA Coordinator process appears to be moving ahead. Your name has been mentioned in that conversation, which was well-deserved. Thought I'd drop this note in case you were still considering becoming a formal co-ord, although if you don't want to, no pressure of course! Best, CMD (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In light of recent debate on modifications to Template:Infobox rugby biography, I've expanded it to include other issues that demand attention. As you frequently contribute to rugby union articles, please feel free to respond with your suggestions for improving the most recent discussion on the templates talk page. Kidsoljah (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Netball has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aircorn! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Jos Buttler has been nominated for a 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.
As you closed a GA re-assessment for this article in 2018, I thought you may be interested to know about this section GAR. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)