User talk:Aircorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Eric Lindemayor[edit]

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 Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Manny Pacquaio article[edit]

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)

Unusual GA from a few years ago[edit]

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)
  • 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)


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)

Your GA nomination of Genetic engineering[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Your GA nomination of Genetic engineering[edit]

The article Genetic engineering you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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)