User talk:FallingGravity/Archive 4

Wikileaks as a source for quotation in the article "Doug Band"
You have repeatedly removed the qutoation from Doug Band which has its source cited on the WikiLeaks website. WikiLeaks qualifies as a reliable source as [|defined by the Wikipedia website]. WikiLeaks undergoes editorial review to ensure the validity of all documents which are release. This vetting process is thorough and complete. Journalists all over the world frequently use WikiLeaks information in trusted publications. The quote in question can be seen on the following main stream media websites, which may also serve as further citations for the quote:

Boston Herald Washington Times The New York Post

The validity of this quotation is not in question, multiple reliabe sources are siting the same quote. Your removal of the quotation is an injustice to the Wikipedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.20.96 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to add something, please discuss it on the talk page. Re-adding the same out-of-context quote will eventually get you blocked. FallingGravity 20:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you felt the quote was out of centext then you should have mentioned it the first time, instead of sending me a message saying the it was the quotes validity in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.20.96 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Interest in November editing meetup?
I'm thinking of holding an edit-a-thon this month (November), but this time for a group of interested, local editors. We could work on some Japan pages as part of Asian month. I know November can be a busy month--would you be interested in participating? What days/times work best for you? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"At odds" versus "differs from"
Re: this source, my edit and your revert, what do you mean, that stating Saudi Arabia supports and funds ISIS is not "at odds with" official US statements on the matter? You think it is consistent?

I've now used the exact language of the article. Let me know if you still believe this is opinion and if so, why. -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm not averse to attributing the statement to The Intercept, but it is such a simple statement of fact, that would seem uncalled for. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would argue that "at odds" phrases are not simple facts but opinions. An NPOV way to approach this is to state the Obama administration's position on counterterrorism and let the reader decide if they're "at odds". On the other hand we could attribute the original statement to The Intercept. FallingGravity 20:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree, where there would be differences of opinion. In this case it seems so cut and dry, I don't see the point. Nevertheless I've attributed the statement, since it certainly doesn't hurt readers. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent article!

 * 25 starts is the standard. I've made the request on your behalf: LINK. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The right has been granted by an administrator, congratulations! This will help to steer away some of the edit-conflicts generated by buttinskis that leap in moments after creation of a new piece. You might think, in the future, about getting the talk pages started for each of your pieces by assigning them to wikiproject work groups and rating the quality level and importance of each. Self-rating of quality is fine for the levels Stub-Start-C and B. Above that there is a formal process. Happy editing! --Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Roman Tmetuchl
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

What you think
Thank you for your helpful suggestion over at Talk:Fake news website. Maybe you could weigh back in there perhaps ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

NPR interview
Regarding NPR interview, please see talk page request answered by, at link. Sagecandor (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine either way, just want to try to come to amicable resolutions with as many parties as possible from that talk page, as perhaps you can see from the prior discussions on that page. :) Sagecandor (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of this picture


What do you think of this picture for Fake news website ?

It's free-use and showcases a few fake news websites.

Let me know what you think. Sagecandor (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The phone in the foreground kind of distracts since the fake headlines are blurred in the background. It might be possible to gather actual fake headlines if there are websites that don't use fancy graphics. FallingGravity 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay well if you think of any you could put them at here and let me know. Sagecandor (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Vitarelli
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Vitarelli 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Vitarelli
The article William Vitarelli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Vitarelli 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

edit request?
Hey it won't let me talk on the talk page so I created an account to become a registered user -- but turns out I fail not only at the game of life but also at the game of becoming a registered user. Since my laptop will be dying in 20 minutes, I'll just give you a barnstar instead:

Whether intentional or not, I soiled my laptop screen with coffee because you almost made me choke in laughter. That type of fool's errand will only humorously lead to him wasting his time & giving up. Give that pizza-gate troll a fool's errand again, and I'll give you another barnstar. xD

By the way, the reason it's so funny because of this episode of colbert report I watched 5 years ago where a journalist specifically reported a news story "that the weather was too hot to go fishing" and the inanity of journalism on display has finally become specifically requested to be found again.

In case my laptop dies or my explanation doesn't make sense -- you basically sent that guy on a snipe hunt so damn hilariously that I had to explicitly point it out (which I planned originally to do on the talk page where your epic literary accomplishment was birthed). I have printed the talk page discussion because I find your quizzaciously straightforward dictation & how you were able to make the request that he supply such unretrievable primary news coverage on whether or not a pizza building has a basement——under the ostensible pretense of "complying with WP:SYNTH——in such a beautiful, deadpan manner of speaking. Like seriously, you created a piece of literary art which I have printed (and therefore eternalized) for the creative work of literary art that it is!

Very well played sir, very well played... Funny gravity (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of citations and text
Hello there. I noticed you removed citations and text from Marina Abramović. Removing citations from reputed journals is not accepted under Wikipedia policy. [] The article has a controversy section as well, reflecting the fact of the artist's controversial image and supporting the citations. Therefore, please discuss on talk page to gain a consensus to remove those citations if you deem fit. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey there, this is the second time I noticed you have removed well cited (citations from reputed journals) and supported text from Marina Abramović. Feel free to add well-cited text that supports her work, but gain consensus before removing existing well cited material.
 * Also, for your information, BLP attack occurs when there is no "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Also, users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
 * The person Marina has a well cited and sizeable controversy section as well. Therefore, further repetition of removal of links will be reported. Again, you are welcome to add cited content there. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's ironic when you do what you accuse me of doing. Stop trying to spread your "Spirit Cooking" conspiracy here on Wikipedia. FallingGravity 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Read the consensus here regarding Controversy section. "controversial" will not be in the lead but the controversy section as it was on this day is passed as OK. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One editor said there should be no controversy section while another editor said it was "fine". This hardly constitutes consensus. FallingGravity 19:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Possible addition to an article
Hello, I notice you're an active editor of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I found a source with possible noteworthy info and/or opinion: Ars Technica: White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election. In short, Ars Technica's Security Editor, Dan Goodin, critiques the recent Joint Analysis Report on the Russian hacking as lacking solid evidence that the hacking is directly connected to the Russian government. I leave it to you to determine whether the source is valid or notable. If it is both, I just thought it would be worth including in the section of the article that summarizes the JAR, as the section currently does not indicate that the JAR did not sufficiently demonstrate a Russian government connection. It's for that reason that I hesitate to add the source myself, as this is a relatively high-traffic Wikipedia article and I don't see how I could be the first to find this; maybe this source was already dismissed out of hand and I would be re-adding invalid info. In any case, I'm more willing to trust your judgment than mine on this particular matter. Joshbunk (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware of the recent history of this and related content sourced to Ars Technica, but please review it and the associated talk page thread. Your recent re-insertion of this content prior to explicit consensus on the talk page is a violation of Discretionary Sanctions applicable to the article. FYI I will copy the notice of those sanctions to I see that you have recently been notified of those sanctions on your talk page.  All the active editors on those articles receive a copy at some point.  Please undo your reinsertion of this content and join us in the talk page discussion of this matter.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)