Open main menu

Contents

Your GA nomination of Dream MineEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dream Mine 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dream MineEdit

The article Dream Mine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dream Mine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion of Schultz materialEdit

That is a reliable source I cited; it cites and quotes and analyzes contradictory statements that Schultz has made about his early history. You did not have time to read all of that before you deleted it, so it is fair to say that you made a knee jerk rejection of the material. I plan to repost it. If you have a complaint about it, then bring your complaint to the article's talk page and see what others have to say first. You are not the ultimate authority, obviously, on what constitutes a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.228 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In my book, random blogs aren't reliable sources, so I've tagged your additions. FallingGravity 05:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 In other words, knee jerk rejection without even reading what the cited sources say. Here's a clue: some blogs are written by people with better credentials than nearly all journalists, such as historians, lawyers, and scientists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.228 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 
   And there is no "original research" there, which you would have known if you had ***bothered to read*** the 3 sources I cite. The 3rd source plainly cites, quotes, and analyzes the first 2 sources I provided, and it uses them to make the very argument about the contradictory nature of Schultz's statements that I summarized in my edit. Hence, my edit includes zero original research. Therefore I moved the first 2 citations so that they are now butt up against the 3rd citation, to nullify your baseless claim of "original research". All you really have left is an ex cathedra assertion that you don't particularly trust a "random" blog post...that you haven't even read.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.228 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 
I've read the blog post, and it doesn't even back up what you were arguing. All it says is that his parents couldn't afford to attend his graduation, while his brother flew out to visit him. There's nothing about free tuition at NMU, just that it was "dirt cheap". I see I'm not the only one noticing this problem with the text. Be careful because you're close to WP:3RR territory. FallingGravity 06:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You're as ignorant as a plate of dirt. I did NOT claim that his college was free. I stated that CUNY was free, which CUNY's wikipedia page backs up amply. CUNY was his hometown university, and far better academically than the university he did attend; thus he did not need to travel half way across the country to be able to afford to go to college because it was free right outside his backdoor. So even when you do finally get around to reading something, you can't take the trouble to compare it accurately to what I stated. Neither did I cite any discussion of his graduation ceremony. I cited the analysis of evidence undercutting his claim that he grew up impoverished, which that author approaches from several factual angles. I also cited Schultz's flatly contradictory claims about his supposed football recruitment/scholarship; curiously, you have nothing to say about that even though you're determined to delete that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.151 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bless your heart. FallingGravity 06:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignorant, perverse, and indifferent to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.176 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Distracted boyfriend meme for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Distracted boyfriend meme is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distracted boyfriend meme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dream MineEdit

The article Dream Mine you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Dream Mine 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Hello FallingGravity,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You jacked up the pizzagate article by saying it was an alt-right belief when consiracy theories are not exclusively alt-right at all.Edit

Then you have the gall to talk on your page about not "activist editing".

Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C801:1BB8:AC02:CE29:DD9A:9D1C (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The article says that the so-called "alt-right" helped spread the theory, not that it's an exclusively alt-right belief. My point in saying we should avoid "activist editing" is that we should stick to what the sources say instead of injecting our own beliefs. FallingGravity 19:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "FallingGravity".