User:Icepinner

Disclosures

• I am a student at Canadian International School (Singapore). I have previously edited the page by expanding content and copyediting, but this was made at a time when I was not aware of COI policies. Upon reading WP:COI, I have avoided this page and will not edit it again, except for minor additions like grammar correction, gnoming, etc.
• I have a distant relative who works at SMRT Corporation, though in its marketing department. I don't consider this to be a significant hinderance for my work, but I feel that this is something I should indicate here.
• I have a COI with earth^[Humour]

GAN Reviewing

When I'm reviewing your nomination, please assume good faith. I have reviewed GANs before, but I admit I am not fully familiar with the criteria, and thus may make incorrect judgments, including suggestions that are beyond the GAN criteria. Should such issues arise, please indicate your objection. You have every right to object to my suggestions, and I have every right to accept those objections within reason.

I also spot-check every source where possible (typically for articles with up to 40 sources). Anymore, and I'll conduct a sample spot-check based on the square root of the total number of sources (courtesy of Kusma for this idea). Offline sources may also be checked.

I also don't like enforced QPQs; it takes the fun out of GAN. If you enforce a QPQ on any of my nominations, then your request will not be entertained. At least ask for it at the end, then I might actually do it.

FC reviewing

I typically do spot-checks in FC, though I may dabble with an image review. At this stage, it is much stricter compared to GAN. I will interpret sources by their literal meaning, though I will also be keen on hearing any objections. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances or all sources have been reviewed, I will pass source and image reviews. This is due to spot-checking being an incomplete inspection of all the sources, and it would be inaccurate to say that I would support it, considering there could be errors in the non-checked sources. For images, it is only a small component of the necessary criteria, so I would not support a nomination attaining featured status solely based on meeting one criterion.

If I have extensively commented on an article's PR page before it was nominated for FC, then it is my personal policy to not provide a review for its FC nomination as:

• I have already commented extensively on its PR page, so there's no point in giving another review
• The nomination would be biased

Exceptions to this are drive-by comments on the PR page.

LLMs

I have not used large language models to write articles, nor will I ever.

I used AI in the past to generate numbers for GAN and FAC spotchecking, but I have discontinued this practice since October 2025. I have used AI for research and source recommendations as well, but I have always made sure to check the actual sources so that they aren't "hallucinating". I condemn LLM-generated articles.

Acronyms

Some of the acronyms I use in my edit summary:

• Ad: added stuff
• Cng/chng/cg: Changed some stuff
• Exp: expansion
• Mod: modified some stuff