User talk:Aircorn

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

There are currently
2,926 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! and S Masters (talk).

GOCE copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.

Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions}, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa ^(Talk)

Re:Tawhiti

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

Chernobyl disaster edits

I gather you considered inappropriate the material I added to the lede regarding the Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment estimate of 985,000. Perhaps, however as the lede is presently written it starts at a low of 31 deaths (those that happened immediately following the accident) to a high of 200,000. This high figure is inconsistent with the body of the article, since the high estimate is actually 985,000. Anyone reading the article is likely to be struck by this inconsistency.

Could we perhaps rewrite this paragraph in shorter form (I acknowledge that my revision was too long and incorporated more information than necessary) so that the last paragraph of the lede would be consistent with the body of the article? It might also be less jarring for the reader to proceed from the low figure to the high figure consecutively, rather than jumping between the low, high, and medium figures. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apostle. The 31 figure is the immediate deaths and is really a separate issue to the estimated potential deaths as many cancers resulting from the radiation will not be apparent for some time. Before I got involved the lead read "from possibly 4,000 to close to a million", which I felt was too vague and so vast as to be almost meaningless. There are lots of references for estimates of potential deaths and I think the most reliable figures should be included in the lead with the rest discussed in the body. I joined a discussion here before making the change. We should probably discuss this there or under a new heading on the talk page before making any more changes. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Place Names GA Review

Hi, No, I won't be working on the review - partly because I've worked extensively on related articles and NZ naming conventions, which may affect my objectivity. I had always assumed reviews were a community thing rather than a single user! dramatic (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiti and Tawhiti

I saw your question about this on Grutness' page. Just my two cents' worth here: In Tahitian and Maori, the root meaning of Ta(w)hiti is "distant". Presumably the first settlers to Tahiti thought it was a bit of a hike to get there. Maori wh often corresponds to f or h in other Polynesian languages (or even within Maori dialectically, ie powhiri versus pohiri). In Maori in the traditional stories, sayings like "Ki tawhiti, ki tawhiti-roa, ki tawhiti-pamamao" the original sense could well have been something like "into the distance, into the great distance, into the far-away distance". Of course that is open to well-meaning later reinterpretation as "To Tahiti, to Great Tahiti, to Tahiti-Far-Away ..." and it becomes "proof" of a connection to French Polynesia. In other words, when someone says things like Tawhiti comes from Tahiti, I tend to take it with a grain of salt Kahuroa (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kahuroa. Glad to see you are still around and I hope all is well in the real world. I got Tawhiti comes from Tahiti form the 1966 New Zealand Encyclopaedia [1], which may not be the best source. It also mentions that Raratoka Island is named for Rarotonga. The same argument could apply to that as well, that it was named "down south" independently of Raratonga, especially as it is down south. I have no qualms about removing either or both from the New Zealand place names article, but it may be better to add an explanation that these names may have come about independently. I will see if I can find a source. Feel free to check the accuracy of some of the other info I added into that article. I left a note at the Maori taskforce page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force#New Zealand place names, but things seem quite quiet there. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well given the closeness of the languages its not surprising that similar placenames occur, and many prob do come from the islands, eg Hikurangi. But as u say, all we have to is rely on sources rather than work out whats "true". All good now in real life Kahuroa (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Garros

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

Your GA nomination of New Zealand place names

The article New Zealand place names you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Zealand place names for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the kind words. AIRcorn (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suha Çalkıvik

Hi Aircorn,

The AfD for Suha Çalkıvik was redlinked in the log, I guess Twinkle failed on you? I fixed it, you might want to go and weigh in with your original deletion rationale. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you please look at this diff and see if you have any problem with my changes (including any inadvertent close paraphrasing of the sources. If not, I will move it to article space and make future changes there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good to me. I would move them into the article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For the excellent message you left at User talk: Denise Loren conveying important information to a new user with a personal and non accusatory touch. Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm going to come right behind Jalexander with one of my own, for the same incident. That's an absolutely perfect way to do that. Thank you for being kind to our new users and helping them find their way! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of netball

It looks like when this article was split off from Netball, the content of the reference sources wasn't brought with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Thanks for the heads up. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference, the one that says "Netball Australia", still appears to be missing, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, Please take this in the friendly spirit in which it is offered, but I believe the close paraphrasing problem was carried forward when you moved the table of positions as well. Please consider whether it would be better to quote the rules directly. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to where the close paraphrasing comes from? It is referenced to three different sources. I checked the online one and while some similarities exist, there are only so many ways you can describe some positions, overall it does a good job. In fact, I feel it describes the roles better than that website. I am going to assume good faith on the offline sources. AIRcorn (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not question anyone's good faith.

The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals. Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle. This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.

compares with:

This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the "attacking" goal third, including the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html

Again, the article says:

The Wing Attack can move within the attacking goal third and centre third, but not in the shooting circle.

compares with:

This player functions as the "wing defense," and can move within and across the "attacking" goal third and center third, but not in the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html

I would put the bold text within quote marks. Racepacket (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but this may fall under "[Paraphrasing] is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing". As these are rules it is important to remain accurate and there are only a certain number of ways to say where on a court a player is allowed. However I have no problem with the wording being altered as long as the meaning is kept. I don't like the idea of putting them in quotes though, but am not particularly attached to that article so won't fight anyone over it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your call, but shouldn't you at least cite to http://www.internationalnetball.com as the source? Isn't that wording more accurate because the Wing Attack can cross between the attacking goal third and the centre third? Also, I am illustrating how inadvertent paraphrasing can occur, and I hope you are checking my work for the same potential problem, before clearing my sentences for article space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the book says something similar and it is perfectly fine as the source for the citation. As I said before there are only a few ways to explain the rules. AIRcorn (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read your description of Wing Attack literally, it says that she can move within the goal third, or within the centre third, but not between the two. Racepacket (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSMAS

I have left several suggested wording improvements in the review, which you should consider and check for possible paraphrasing. If you concur, I will move them into the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Will try and get around to it tonight. AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]