User talk:Aircorn/Archive 8

Regarding your closure here, I should note that referencing wasn't the only problem. Prose, breadth of coverage, and possibly neutrality were also concerns raised. There was little to no effort made to address those other issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS. With a community review closure I tend to base my closing comment on what the majority of the review was focused on. In this case most of the discussion centered on the sources so that is what I commented on in the close. This does not mean I didn't read your other concerns. The prose critique started with I've seen better. This is a pretty underwhelming reason for failing a GA. The examples you gave were good, but not a major prose problem. You may have more of a case with the broadness comments though. However, with broadness I usually like to see sources that demonstrate things are missing. For example saying that criticism is missing is all well and good, but it really needs some reliable external source showing that this is a major enough aspect of her career that we should mention it. Finally I can only really go on what comments are left at the review. Three other users commented and they all mentioned sourcing and none of the other issues. I would suggest in the future you go for an individual reassessment as they are more similar to the initial GA assessments. Community reviews work better when editors are unsure if an article meets the criteria or for controversial topics. In fact I would recommend that any editor confident in the criteria (as you seem to be) should use the individual process as community reviews are usually poorly attended and tend to drag on. AIRcorn (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to conduct an individual reassessment in this case since I had previously been involved with the article (although hadn't worked on it in a very long time), and probably would've been told to go for community assessment, plus I wasn't quite sure myself of it was worth keeping as GA at the time I opened the reassessment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I should be talking to you, or someone else involved in the referee project regarding this kind of thing. I was wondering if there was (or could be) a stat table for games/matches worked by an official. I don't know if using a template for a player would work for now, until a plan is in place for something like it to happen. Please let me know if there's something in the works when you have a moment. No rush. (Thanks for the project, by the way!) Mandoli (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mandoli. What exactly are you looking for? Many wikiprojects have some way of presenting stats for referees. I know WP:cricket keeps them pretty well updated (see Ian Gould#International umpiring statistics for an example). Player infoboxes usually have some parameters that cover referees and these usually include games officiated. Personally I don't like the stats that need to be constantly updated as they too easily end up out-of-date if no one actively changes them. Also with refs it can be hard to get a consistent look to a table as different sports have different aspects they like to focus on. For example the number of red and yellow cards given in football is seen as an important stat, but that doesn't seem to apply to other codes. If you let me know of an article you are interested in getting some stats for I can try and make a table or adjust the infobox so that they are present. You can then use that as a template for other similar articles. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not looking for anything fancy. Was about to work on some form of a "games worked" stat table, with just regular season and playoff games for particular hockey guys. I don't want to get into all of that technical stuff with percentage of calls in periods. (I know of people who do that kind of thing, but I feel as though it's their job to maintain that information, which is something I probably couldn't do on my own time.) To be honest, I don't want to work on anything special. (Plus, I'd only edit once per year.) I think I just confused myself saying that, so if I made you confused... Sorry. Mandoli (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, this was opened as an individual reassessment, and the opener—not a very experienced Wikipedian—hasn't edited on Wikipedia in five months (and their last edit was to this reassessment page). I was wondering if you could take a look and see whether it ought to be closed, or perhaps converted to a community reassessment. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, you offered to help move this nomination along after Sturmvogel disappeared. Surtsicna, the nominator, has reappeared, and believes that all of the issues originally raised have been addressed.

Is there any way you could take over the review, see if the issues are addressed and whether there are any more you'd like taken care of? It would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam, I will admit that I am new to wikipedia editing but I take issue with you deleting all my hard work. I agree that citing work is extremely important and I just did that for the Tom Henning Ovrebo article. What I believe you are advocating for however, is extremely dangerous. It is IMPERATIVE that history not be erased or hidden. If we are going to speak about such a controversial game and moment in history it is IMPERATIVE that we provide as much detail as possible about the event. I for one DO NOT believe in hiding history. I believe that I am not doing a disservice to Tom Henning Ovrebo because I am speaking of true events. Yes, he did have a 16 year career but such a humongous blunder that left such a mark on the beautiful game must not be papered over. If ovrebo claims that people still abuse him nearly 10 years after the game than I am pretty positive such an event should be explained in detail on his account. I am not a witch hunter but I seriously don't agree with hiding history. I write this message with all due Respect. Thank You - Icychris14

@Icychris14: Thanks for responding. Just a few small points before I get to your argument. Contact with other users is best done on talk pages. That way I will get a notification when you leave a message. User pages are generally only edited by the person who owns the account. You can also sign your posts by using four tildes (eg ~~~~ which will result in AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)). It makes it easier to see who wrote what, dates the post and links back to that persons talk and user page. The same applies to any posts on article talk pages. When replying indent your comment with a : at the start of the paragraph. That will make it clearer who you are replying to in a longer conversation and is the generally accepted convention. There are lots of other intricacies when editing here, but those are the basics and you will pick the others up as you go.

We have lots of policies here. I have been here 7 years and am still finding new ones. Very few editors will know them all. There are however five what we call pillars, which form the basis of what we are trying to achieve as an encyclopedia. The key one here is the second one: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It emphasises WP:Undue, which means we should not focus on one aspect to the detriment of others. This is particularly important in biographies of living people, which the community holds to a higher standard than most other articles. The relevant section here is balance, a key sentence being The idea expressed in Wikipedia:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies.. I know this is a lot for a new editor, but it iis only rally scratching the surface. If you are interested I have made my own essay regarding referees (a topic I am interested in across all sports here which explains my ideas on this topc in more detail.

So in essence I am not trying to hide history, just make sure it is presented in the correct weight. For all the details a better article may be the 2008–09 UEFA Champions League, which barely mentions the event. Since this article is on a single season as opposed to a biography of a 16 year career the extra detail does not unbalance the article. It can still be mentioned at Øvrebø and easily linked there so those looking for more information can easily find it.AIRcorn (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It obvious that his mistake affected football team's performance. His behavior must be elucidated to the public without any excuse because he is public. As you can see the replay. If you are not bias too, I think you know this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icesin 22 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Posting my reply here since the discussion was closed while I typed:

I appreciate your comments. I don't feel like I need to change my habits, and if the community saw it fit to approve my being nominated, I think that at least initially I would not edit much differently than I do now(in terms of what I do). One different thing I might do would be to be more deeply involved in UAA than just reporting(which isn't really a new area of participation per se). I respect and appreciate the advice given to me above about my AfD participation and I want to work on that even as just a plain old editor, if nothing else. I'm going to see what I feel like closer to the end of the year, and the user who approached me has said they will wait for me. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish you luck and will keep an eye out for your nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The red card image can be found at File:Red card.svg. (Yellow is File:Yellow card.svg.) I typically save red for a block, since that's most analogous to a sending-off from a football match. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Was a little tongue in check since he was vandalising referee articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review of Native American mascot controversy (NAMC). Just wanted to touch base because my previous experience, the review of Washington Redskins name controversy did not begin well because the reviewer began by making cuts to reduce the size of the article without my input. Size is a problem for NAMC also, but there are so many aspects of the controversy, few of which are sufficiently noteworthy to be separate articles, it is difficult for me to see splits in the current content. Perhaps separate articles on professional, college, and K-12? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I won't make any major changes and you can revert any minor ones I make without fear of upsetting me. Every comment or suggestion is negotiable to some extent. While I have only just started reviewing it the size has not been a concern at all. It is not even really part of the criteria (focus is more to do with gong off topic). AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I take that back slightly. I am about halfway through my first read and it is indeed massive. I may make some suggestions for trimming or moving at the end, but will leave that up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I started to make a separate list, but now think it would be easier to annotate your GA comments (in a contrasting color) to indicate how each has been addressed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Thats fine. Just remember that you don't have to do everything I suggest to pass. You are the content expert I am merely an interested reader. A lot of my points are more about providing context to someone who may not be familiar with the topic. I will stay away from the review page until you finish so we don't edit conflict. Just let me know here when you are ready for a second look. If you need my attention on something there straight away just ping me at the page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comments have been addressed, with the majority being edited as suggested.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Thanks I will have another look at it hopefully before the weekend. AIRcorn (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about time. Speed is not a factor on WP; as shown by how long GA Nominations spend simply waiting in the queue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about being slow to express my gratitude for your work on the article, but I so no now. I had a bicycle accident 5 weeks ago and am recovering slowly.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I really enjoyed reading the article and it is definately deserving of good status. Sorry to hear about your accident and I am glad you are recovering. AIRcorn (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Orchid task - there was only one team at the pitch. Chile kicked-off, scored a goal within the first minute (I presume), then USSR should do the next kick-off, but due to lack of all players, this was not possible. Lindemayor blew the "game" off. This was a VERY notable matter World Wide , at its time. To be a FIFA-referee in a match with just one team , isn't that orchid ? It was indeed "played" - formally. Boeing720 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC) SORRY - Eric Linemayor. Decide yourself. Boeing720 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "On November 21, 1973, ten weeks after the coup, in an almost empty stadium, the Chilean players came out to the field. They had no opponents. As threatened, the Soviet team didn't show up. The Chileans kicked off, dribbled down the field, and shot into an open net. High above the stadium, the scoreboard read: Chile 1, Soviet Union 0." at https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-09-11/soccer-match-disgraced-chile Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag that you placed on the Manny Pacquaio article, because there is another article that focuses on Manny Pacquaio's boxing career. This article focuses on the subject in general, also his career as a senator. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that unscientific and unverified book and its accompanying text. I was the one who tagged that entire section as needing major work and had been hoping someone else would do it.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

A few years ago I taught a class about Wikipedia and made the mistake of requiring students to go through the GAN process (I learned my lessons as far as that goes). :) You were kind enough to help out when we ran into a particularly unusual issue with the Goathouse Refuge article. A student mentioned to a non-Wikipedian friend/relative that they were still waiting for a review. That person then created an account and passed the article. I (with the account I used when teaching that class) posted about this on the GAN talk page here. I could've sworn things were resolved shortly thereafter with a legitimate review, but in searching the GAN talk page, article talk page, and your talk page (it came up here), I'm not seeing something definitive. Hoping you could clarify on the review page or article talk page? Thanks! --Ryan McGrady (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. That was a while ago and I only vaguely remember the incident. Looking at the history I made quite a few edits to the article, which I assume was to bring it more into line with what a GA should look like. That is probably why I didn't reassess it myself. Nobody else did either and it just got left in limbo (this happens unfortunately). I guess it technically is a good article as it has passed a review and nobody has reassessed it. However DGG (talk · contribs) has tagged it as promotional, which is not a good look for an article we classify as good. How would you like to proceed? I could reassess it myself (my edits are not that extensive so I would not call myself a "major" contributor). I would probably fail it in its current state. Or I could have a go at editing it to remove the promotional material and other do some tiding up. I would then become a major contributor and we can leave it as a good article unless someone disagrees and opens up a reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of it still reads like a charity promotion. (cute section on founder's motives, " differs from many other shelters in that ..." "run mainly by volunteers who clean litter boxes, change food and water, wash dishes and blankets, sanitize areas and perform other duties. " " medical treatment on-site, quality food, toys and comfort items" , "or those who wish to donate regullarly..." ) this is followed by a negative section based on a local newspaper story based on a posting on a website). My tag was placed in 2013, and there have been only minor changes. As Aircorn says, thiss hows the need for more effective action in dealing with problems. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Ryan McGrady and Rhododendrites: AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I used the other account for continuity, but I don't actually really use it these days. Weird that I thought it was resolved. Hm. I'll take a closer look at it sometime this week to see if it's something I feel confident about fixing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Genetic engineering you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article Genetic engineering you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Genetic engineering for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to your question at User_talk:Think_O_Lantern... It's not just the fact that it was a circular redirect, and I should have explained more (sorry about that). There is a lot of information on the Institute of Animal Biotechnology that would be lost if you were to just remove the page, and have it redirect to the Faculty of Agricultural Science and Food in Skopje. It also states at the top of the page (in: Institute of Animal Biotechnology) that the Institute of Animal Biotechnology is an independent entity from the Faculty of Agricultural Science and Food in Skopje; although it does rely heavily on it, and thus should require it's own page. I would agree with you that keeping the page could be redundant, but there is just too much information on it that is separate from the original page to just get rid of it. Unless, perhaps, we could merge the two pages and still keep the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think O Lantern (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Think O Lantern: I did consider a merge, but the article is poorly written and uncited. Personally I don't like to merge uncited material into another article as I feel responsible for the content. I suspect given the quality of the English it is a machine translation, but I can't confirm that (it weirdly has Norwegian words mixed in it). There is nothing remarkable about this institute that I can find[1] and being a Institute of a Faculty of a University in a very small country I am confident it does not reach our level of notability. I am happy for you to try and find some information to merge into the main article (just be careful it doesn't become WP:Undue), otherwise I will probably put it up for WP:AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mishmar HaEmek, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize this topic was discussed last year. I just now created a page where we can brainstorm: User:Atsme/MR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I probably won't be able to contribute much until after the holidays, but I am keen to follow through with this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood...as I find quiet time here and there, I will gather applicable policies/guidelines/essays, and copy-paste excerpts to our page. So far it has produced an unbelievable array of contradiction and confusion. Kudos to you and the editors you worked with last year for trying to bring clarity to this mess. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for becoming a member. We look forward to many more biographies on women writers and artists. Let me know if you run into any problems or contribute to the WiR talk page. Here are our priorities for January:

--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think, and I think you realise this yourself, that removing a whole section when it was well-referenced was appropriate. If you were unhappy, the correct course of action would have been to summarise the instances with references from various sources. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Stevo1000: The well referenced part was the reason I left a personal note on your talk page instead of just reverting. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve at that article. I watch almost all referee articles across almost all sports and I have never seen an experienced editor add so much obviously WP:Undue material that violates our WP:BLP guidelines so blatantly.

Being able to source something is the minimum requirement to adding controversial information, not a guarantee that we should. Removing material that violates BLP is the correct response until consensus is reached that it should be included. If you wish to engage on the talk page I am happy to discuss any controversial calls that you think merit inclusion and work towards this consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] : AIRcorn (talk)

to

[[User:Aircorn|AIR<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] : AIRcorn (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

...the Merge guideline issues we've discussed. In fact, events since we first discussed the issues have inspired me even more...^{Atsme📞📧} 00:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of other stuff to work on so no dramas. AIRcorn (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Al Lewis has been reverted as an WP:INTDABLINK violation. Please do not ever create an intentional direct link to a disambiguation page, as this causes error reports in our system. Thanks. bd2412 T 13:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of this and will avoid doing so again. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you review This. You had noted some gaps in referencing and depth of content. I have tried to make improvements. Can you tell me what is still missing? Thanks! --Jayron32 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Looks awesome. Good work. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aircorn - I have not forgotten our collaboration but have since been sidetracked with another pressing issue. Hope to get back to the merge proposal by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC) @Atsme:

I have caught up on the drama at Tonys. No rush on this one. I have the sandbox page watchlisted so will hopefully see if you edit it, otherwise just ping or message me. AIRcorn (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hope you can find this ok, way up here...take a look at this discussion (you'll have to advance the edit summary) and let me know your thoughts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

OMG, Aircorn...I'm beginning to think & sound like my 93 yo Italian mother trying to convert Italian into English on the fly - worse for me, when you add what little Spanish I know + Texan, and suddenly the house is no longer a green house, it's a house green!!   As I've said before...brevity is not my friend. When I make a concerted effort to use "concentrated text", the highly educated and diverse thinking editors on WP are likely to not understand my comment...but it gets worse...when I elaborate, I'm told the Forum is thataway ⬆︎...(but for me the "The Forum" is located in Ceasers Palace in Las Vegas)...which leaves all of us confused. Annnnyway, thank you for explaining what I was trying to express to Michig. Sidebar note: I called your attention to it because it was another situation for us to keep in mind when we get started clarifying the ambiguities in the Delete-Merge process. I love collaboration...prefer it over solo...am almost addicted to it...but Happy Hour comes first. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aircorn, Can you have a look at the lead at Radical feminism? I expanded the 'abolish the patriarchy' sentence in the second paragraph for reasons stated in History. The change expands radfem's view of society, and adds something about the objective using additional verbiage sourced from the same Atkinson quotation in section (#Theory and ideology) which was used to source the previous, shorter version of that sentence. In addition, it tries to deal with the "voice" issue by couching views about society as stemming from radical feminists and not in Wikipedia's voice. I think the earlier wording may have been responsible for user Alex of Canada's attempt to use scare quotes in order to place some distance there, but I reverted him because that was not the right way to do it, although I think there may have been a legitimate concern there. Anyway, see what you think. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot I only commented at that article because I was pinged to the talk page. I am not familiar enough with the body to start commenting on the lead too much. I agree with removing the scare quotes though, they are never a good idea. I like the addition of view society as fundamentally a patriarchy, but feel some of your change does appear to come across a bit strong for the lead. I personally would remove in which men dominate and oppress women and return the link to patriarchy. I guess you could say the same about in order to liberate everyone from an unjust society. It just reads a bit like a propogander speech. In my experience even sub groups of movements tend to exist as a spectrum so it can be best to introduce the general idea first before getting into specific view points. Again I haven't familiarised myself well enough with the article to make any strong suggestions yet. As an aside many of the articles in this area I run across seem to be developed a bit backwards, with editors debating the lead while the body is lacking. To be fair it is a pretty common problem in most of Wikipedia. Will be busy for the next month or so, but should have some time to edit more productively here more after that. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This was a pleasant ping to get! Wikipedia is not a compliment-rich environment as a rule. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been getting my feet wet learning how PAGs are changed/modified, and how difficult it is to change the status quo, regardless of the benefits that come with even minor changes. I seriously can't see a valid reason for rejecting updates/eliminating ambiguity that I can wrap my head around, other than there are just some editors who simply reject it for no good reason that I can see. It's crazy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah have been distracted with real life and other issues on here so to be honest have not had much time to even think about merges. Time should free up in a week or two though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See here You asked why I added atomic gardening to the see also section: the answer is that this too is a form of genetic modification, just less controlled. It's even mentioned at wikipedia (see here). KVDP (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs a bit more reason than that to add it to a see also. Lots of things are tangentially related to genetic modification and we must chose the links that will best serve the readers. In an ideal article the see also will be almost non-existent as the article will provide all the information and links needed. AIRcorn (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn, while I absolutely agree with you that color use or misuse is not a GA criterion and not relevant, I thought the points I made in my comment indicated sufficient failures to meet the GA criteria that a "kept" conclusion was unlikely absent the issues being addressed. The material added since the article became a GA is largely unsourced, including paragraphs in the section "2017-present: Return of the Big Two". Would you be willing to revisit your close here? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I did see that and should have addressed it in the close. I flicked through the article and while there were some gaps, without citation needed tags or specifics on the review page I take them with a grain of salt. Not everything needs a cite. However I did not notice the "2017-present: Return of the Big Two" section and I agree that is worse than the other sparsely cited ones. In my defense I have been doing a lot of these today and the article is large. I will undo my close and let someone else close it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, I used the term vandalism deliberately. When one destroys other peoples' work without any reason to believe that it is incorrect, even if it is apparently unsourced, that is vandalism, and particularly when one blanks a section. The insertion of simple "citation needed" templates would have been enough, and appropriate. However, in this particular case, had you scrolled down to the list of items from Lloyd's Register you would have seen all the necessary citations there. That's where I got them from. You could have done that too, which would have been constructive. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Vandalism has a specific meaning here. Good faith vandalism is an oxymoron. I am going through the Good Article requests and where possible fixing them, if not I am pinging the editors involved hoping they can fix the article themselves. In the Prince of Wales case a request was made a year ago and they themselves had opened a discussion, pinging you amoung others, and also asking for someone familiar with the GA criteria. Having sourced information is part of that criteria. I had a choice of delisting the article or fixing the issues. I chose to fix the issues. I have no problem with you reverting me, and I am glad that you could add the sources. My only issue was you labeling my edits vandalism. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that good faith vandalism is an oxymoron. I did not link to the WP definition of vandalism because I was not invoking your actions as a violation of that. I used the term in its common meaning. The vandalism is the act of blanking of the section rather than fixing the situation. The good faith is that the motivation was an attempt to improve the situation. Thus when Cromwell and his men during the Civil War destroyed statues and pictures because they believed these violated God's prohibition on graven images, the destruction was vandalism but the motivation was religious; they truly and sincerely believed that they were improving England. As for the Prince of Wales article, I originally stayed out of it because the community consensus on the ship's origins moved towards a position I did not support. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't like the insinuation that I was a vandal, but I am happy with your explanation. The slightly ironic thing is that from all the {{GAR request}}s I have responded to, this is the first time someone has actually improved the article. So thanks for that. AIRcorn (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the irony of the situation. Had you not forced my hand and only put in the "citation needed" template, I would have probably ignored it. I think we had a "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" situation. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to 2018 Australian ball tampering scandal: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Specifically, your wholesale deletion of external links. 12:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 12:47, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aircorn; saw your notice at RS/N. Just wanted to mention that I speak some German; not top level, but good enough to, for example, correct the title translations in the Hans Waldmann article you had referred to. I can help out occasionally with this sort of thing, if you need help. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not terribly invested in that article. My interest is more in WP:Good articles staying good. I think it looks bad for articles we claim as being good having cleanup tags on them. I need to know whether that source meets our definition of a reliable one so I can either remove the tag or delist the article. Either really works for me. If you can help in that regard that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maryland Terrapins football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darryl Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, why do you want to use external links? "They don't though", in response to my "please don't use external links when normal wikilinks work perfectly well", is not sufficient reason. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I want to point to a specific version of the page. One I updated afterwards myself and the other should be updated at some point. These updates would get rid of my examples. I thought I had done that originally, which is why I left that summary. I was wrong so updated it with my next edit.[2] Sorry if that came across a bit short. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I thought, when I saw it—a non-admin close of a long and contentious RfC. While I wish you'd said a bit less about the numbers and addressed the policy question(s), that's probably nitpicking. All in all, a perfectly reasonable close. Thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)but

Thanks for that. I closed a few yesterday and was a little nervous as to the response. So far it has been positive. I am about to put some requests for closure up myself soon and have opened my share of RFCs so thought it only fair to close some of the longstanding ones. As to the numbers I find it helps to get an overall sense of how the !votes stack before getting into the policy side of it. I know you are not saying I did, but I don't just count !votes. It is more that I think there needs to be very good arguments when the weight of the !votes is strongly in one direction. I can probably say less about that part in my close and concentrate more on the policy aspects. Anyway thanks again for the feedback. I might have another crack at closing again when I get some more spare time. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How could you possibly overlook a GAR request for an article with this many problems? dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If it had so many problems then why did an experienced GA review request a request instead of opening one themselves. To be a little honest I was a little sick of seeing your name on otherwise good articles requesting a reassessment with vague or sometimes non-existent rationals. I got this one wrong, those quotes definitely needed a cite, but your overuse of the process was a little annoying. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn. I'm willing to close this reassessment, but having never closed a GAR before, I don't know the technical aspect, can't find any guidelines on how to close one, and am leery of breaking something. I would close it as "no consensus to delist, so flagged to keep for now, but note that this may change in future given this reassessment is being discussed as a small part within the ongoing arbitration case at [3]." If you can let me know how to close it, then please do so, or just close it using this rationale and note it's from me not you, to avoid impropriety. Cheers. Fish+Karate 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: That is a very fair close. There are instructions in the right hand side of the WP:GAR page, but they are a bit convoluted. What you are looking for are number 8 and 9. I have left a few requests at the bot noticeboard to try and automate this a bit better, but as is usually the pace here it may take a while. I will show you how to close it in case you want to do others and then I can go through and check everything after.

1. First at the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rommel myth/1 page replace the {{GAR/current}} template with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Outcome is your above rational. I usually bold No consensus or delist/keep but that is not necessary. No need to archive the discussion or do anything else to his page. A bot used to add this to the archive, but is currently broken so they sit in limbo. Nothing we can do about that until the bot is fixed. It is one thing I am trying to do in this area.
2. The article history at the article has to be updated manually at the moment. I am trying to get a bot to do this part as well as it is the most tedious. For this article it basically means adding this reassessment to the {{article history}} template under action3. It is probably easier to just link to an example [4]. The tricky part is finding the oldid. Way I do it is to open the articles history and then on the date for the latest version. The oldid is the number at the end (i.e.838513047 from [5].
3. Since it is kept there is nothing else to do. If you delisted it the class for each template should be changed to B or C, the {{good article}} template should be removed from the article page (the green spot that denotes it as a good article) and the article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare (or whatever list it is under).

By the way thank you for all the work you do closing rfcs and other discussions. It does not go unnoticed. From the little experience I have in doing this I have some understanding of he work involved and really appreciate what you do. AIRcorn (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

All done, let me know if I've mucked anything up. Thanks for the kind words, they're appreciated! Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: I forgot to mention that once it is added to the article history template the other link can be removed. That template was also missing a few parameters. Not your fault or a major deal, but I fixed them here for your information. Otherwise perfect. Thanks for closing that. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Marvellous. I knew I'd miss something! Ta, Fish+Karate 10:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)