Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
rmv drive-by GAN per WP:GANI. see note on my talk page.
Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
Undid revision 1218923970 by Voorts (talk) I've reconsidered since the other top article contributors haven't logged on in 1 month+, and the top editor is retired.
Tag: Undo
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:MSincccc|MSincccc]] ([[User talk:MSincccc|talk]])|page=3|subtopic=Engineering and technology |status=|note=|shortdesc=American businessman and philanthropist (born 1984)}}
{{pp}}
{{pp}}
{{Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Editnotice}}
{{Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Editnotice}}

Latest revision as of 18:10, 14 April 2024


Net worth conflicting information

The main article says he has a net worth of $111 billion. The box on the side (sorry, I know you all have a wonderful name for it, but I don't know what it is) says he has a net worth of $99.6 billion and both give "September 2020" as the date for the estimate. Which is it? 82.15.132.29 (talk)

Arie Hasit's incorrect claim

Arie Hasit claims Zuckerberg's "FaceMash" put pictures of two males OR two females next to each other, but Zuckerberg said UNDER OATH during questioning that it was in fact "girls" whose pictures were being used this way.

Undid Musk cage fight revision

Hi, User:ZimZalaBim

Could you tell me why the cage fight between Musk and Zuckerberg is only notable once it has taken place? Surely, the amount of journalism and attention dedicated to this event is enough to note it, even if it does not transpire.

There are examples, for instance, where boxing matches are arranged yet do not happen, which are detailed in the associated boxer's article. The only difference between professional fighters and Musk/Zuckerberg is that this information would be in the "Career" section for the former and the "Other Activities" for the latter. TDW 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to duplicate the section you posted at Talk:Elon Musk#Undid Zuckerberg cage fight revision. Consensus is clearly against including this content on either page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is bluster, and not encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"might be simpler but not as accurate"

Can the problem with this edit be explained, please? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud I appreciate your most recent revision made to this page. Better to have this version than the long list of unreadable years in lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Well I have significantly contributed to upgrading the article's quality. Furthermore, I am one of the article's top five authors and one of its all-time top editors. This fact coupled with my extensive knowledge about the article's subject has led me to nominate it for GAN today. I hope the others are not against my nomination. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply