User talk:Aircorn

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

Feedback on GA review[edit]

As you listed yourself as a GA mentor, I am contacting you for feedback on my first GA review, which is at Talk:Rule 184/GA1. I'd be grateful for any comments. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. Since most of the references in the article are paywalled, I only checked three of the references, all of which supported the article appropriately and I saw no close paraphrasing. Checking sources is obviously the weakest part of my review, but it is not something I see how to improve. The principal author of the article, David Eppstein, is a strong content editor, so I am inclined to say that we should trust him on these. Is this appropriate? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: I've checked the eight references with online versions (there are 24 items in the bibliography), to see that they fit their citation context and found no problems. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You can only do as much as you can. I think your review is good and if you are happy with the changes to particle deposition or Davids explanation for why they don't think it needs changing then you should go ahead and pass it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that is what I wanted to know. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety[edit]

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk)

Thanks. I was wondering what had happened to this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Judge templates[edit]

The reason I reverted on the Judge templates is that those templates are used in approximately 94 United States District Court articles and 13 Court of Appeals articles and the changes adversely affected the articles. Otherwise, I would have let the changes stand. The changes created an extraneous column in all those articles. That's why I had to revert. Safiel (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: LSU Free Speech Alley[edit]

Hello Aircorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LSU Free Speech Alley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article history must be preserved for CC-BY-SA attribution purposes. Thank you. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note The Wordsmith. This was a little bit of an unusual one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Free Speech Alley was closed as merge, but with no redirect. I queried this with MBisanz, suggesting they remove the no redirect part (see User talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Free Speech Alley). At their suggestion I moved the article to Free Speech zone 1[1] and merged the content from there, so the article history is preserved. There is no history left at LSU Free Speech Alley apart from the move and speedy deletion.[2] I have run into this issue of merging and then deletion closes a few times, and apart from removing a cross-wiki redirect there seemed to be little reason not to leave a redirect behind (I have even added a suggestion along these lines to an essay). AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. Since the attribution issue is satisfied, I've gone back and G6 deleted it. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. I should probably have left better reasoning instead of just using twinkle. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Manuel, Andre, William, Joseph I and Joseph II have been merged into the article Robidoux family.