Open main menu


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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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,

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.
  • 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)

Category:Memorials to David Garrick has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Memorials to David Garrick, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello FallingGravity,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello FallingGravity,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.


Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.


The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.


Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

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) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "FallingGravity".