User talk:Rector Trinity

Welcome!
Hello, Rector Trinity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm...
Is there a particular reason you are requesting a GA review of...apparently dozens of articles? G M G talk  16:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you really asking or is this a test meant to give newcomers the boot? Umm, because reassessment requests are perfectly permissible? Umm, because there's nothing wrong with Good Articles being checked by uninvolved editors for errors potentially overlooked by GA reviewers? Umm, because opening dialogue is not a crime? Rector Trinity (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would have been helpful if you had actually contributed some explanation as to why you think an article is not GA status. The handful I have checked certainly adhere to the Good article criteria so I can only assume you're not familiar with the usual protocol. If you find a GA article that has a missing comma, add the comma. Don't request a GA review.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  10:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this also part of the test? Do tell, what rationale exactly would satisfy the "usual protocol" to have Good Articles reassessed? Must I submit to the High Council a 30-page thesis filled with incomprehensible wikispiel? Does the lack of a specific rationale mean that Good Articles are untouchable and beyond reassessment? Are GA reviewers perfect and beyond reproach? Yeah I'm not familiar with the "usual protocol" (cue the hyperlinks), but is that really relevant to the discussion or is the "community" just looking for an excuse to tell newcomers to buzz off? But don't fret "master", I'll do whatever you say and hope that nobody steps on this little church mouse when it does come across a Good Article and give a damned Good Reason for its reassessment. Rector Trinity (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for snapping at you Catfish Jim, I know you meant well. Rector Trinity (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nominating several dozen articles for reassessment in the course of a few hours with no explanation or attempt to resolve whatever issues haven't been pointed out is disruptive. Stop it. You may consider that a warning, because it is.  G M G  talk  21:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Disruptive according to whom? You? Now how can a GAR request be disruptive if filing one is encouraged by the so-called "community" ("be bold" and whatnot) and amounts to a single template that "any uninvolved editor can remove"? Didn't it occur to you that I already stopped before you chimed in with your "warning" and that if I were really disruptive I would've put back the GAR requests Catfish Jim removed? So think before you talk sh*t, because what's worse than filing GAR requests is lobbing pathetic passive-aggressive death threats at newcomers so "experts" like yourself feel big when everything about you is either a lie or insignificant. Is the test over now or has it just begun? Rector Trinity (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure you're not a newcomer. And pretending to be is...a little embarrassing.  G M G  talk  01:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Based on what, circus clown police instincts? If anyone's being pretentious it's you with your so-called "expertise" on newcomers. Now that's embarrassing. (Oh, by the way, your passive-aggressive mass deletion of my GAR requests after my 00:44 comments is just an extension of your needing to feel big when everything about you is miniscule. Now that's...just sad.) Rector Trinity (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)