User talk:FallingGravity

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Trump

How’s all the racial stuff going? I haven’t felt like looking yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: In case you missed it, the article is currently going through a heated AfD discussion. Right now I'm waiting to see how the discussion pans out before doing anything major. ^Falling_Gravity 04:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn’t noticed that, will check it out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Fake News Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TWiT.tv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evan Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Protests against Faure Gnassingbé

On 29 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Protests against Faure Gnassingbé, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Let's Save Togo protest rally in August 2012 called for a week-long sex strike by women to encourage men to oppose Togolese President Faure Gnassingbé? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protests against Faure Gnassingbé. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Protests against Faure Gnassingbé), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling

Please no not remove WWE events for Sports categories. It is technically a sport. Bigbrojd (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbrojd: Not according to Galatz. ^Falling_Gravity 20:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbrojd: This is not a sport. It has been discussed before on the relevant wikiproject and its clear per WP:NSPORTS that they are considered entertainment. Wrestling is a sport, professional wrestling is entertainment. - Galatz ^Talk 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom remedies

Hello. This revert violates bullet 1 of the ArbCom restrictions detailed at the top of that talk page. "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Note that the article is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Please self-revert and, if you wish to, seek a consensus for your edit on the talk page (your comment in talk is not a consensus). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I will "self-revert", but there's no consensus not to include a "See also" link, like you originally claimed. ^Falling_Gravity 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the self-revert. FTR, my editsum did not claim a consensus specifically against a "See also" link. But I dispute the "See also" link for the same reason that I and others disputed the body prose, which is why I referred to that consensus. Any further discussion of the content question should take place on the ATP. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help : review article

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix Billybon (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Economic Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi, I asked you two questions related to how Wikipedia functions on my talk page. Can you please reply, thanks. PZP-003 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if you want I can post the two questions here if that helps.

You never answered this question about the survey process so I'm posting it here below....hope that's OK

I have a concern/question about this "survey" - how long does it usually take before the survey concludes? ...Thanks PZP-003 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PZP-003: To answer your first question, I pretty much agree with Thucydides411's comments on your talk page. It may be frustrating to work with editors who want to remove content that doesn't align with their POV, but just reverting their reverts, without taking it to the talk page, will likely get you blocked from editing. As for your second question, the RfC survey could take a while to conclude, especially if opinions continue to be divided. In the end, some administrator will come by and decide which arguments make the most sense. ^Falling_Gravity 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give an idea of how long (approximately) "a while" is?? PZP-003 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, probably less than a month. It's ultimately up to the closing admin, and there's no firm deadline for these types of things. ^Falling_Gravity 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelyabinsk meteor

Hello FallingGravity!
Thanks for adding Category:February 2013 events in Asia to this article. I wonder though why you've removed Category:February 2013 events? The event was clearly of a "global" nature (at least judging from media coverage and scientific significance), and I believe the old category was adequate. Is there a reason to remove it, or to change it to the more regional "events in Asia"? I suggest to include the article in both categories. --Renerpho (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the "location" in the infobox, though including both categories seems reasonable to reflect the global nature of the phenomena (I think the eclipse articles follow a similar pattern). ^Falling_Gravity 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it back, FallingGravity. @Dhtwiki: I see you reverted the edit, maybe this is worth taking to the article talk page. --Renerpho (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]