|
User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2016/December
Regarding vandalism warningsHello, and as one of your fellow recent changes patrollers, I'd like to say thank you for helping keep Wikipedia vandalism-free. I'd just like to point out that your warning at User talk:Nah can't say should (except in rare cases) be used as per WP:WARNVAND and WP:DBTN only when the user repeatedly vandalizes and has already been warned multiple times. From what I can see, this instance of unproductive editing was their very first edit. Thank you very much and I support you in your future endeavors on WP! smileguy91talk - contribs 01:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Correct name for Daesh (ISIL)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please see the Wikipedia page on Daesh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant I believe this is a correct and preferable term to denote this terrorist group. It's less confusing and it doesn't change based on the group's country of residence.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HIThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. You confused me with your message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganhxd (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John GlennThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. maybe you should check his page before reversing what i did
so you knew Glenn had died and you still reverse my removal of him as a living former Senator from Ohio because I didn't provide a source? just use common sense 97.127.80.163 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Why did you nominate this page for speedy deletion for copyvio? You did not indicate what you thought it was a copy of. SpinningSpark 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Grant Gustin pageThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can you explain why you reverted back? 70.79.40.30 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New page reviewer grantedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  Hello MordeKyle. Your account has been added to the "
PS: I am according you this based on your persistent insistence on my talk page. However, before you patrol any more pages, please read the instructions paying particular attention to the special, highlighted section about schools, which according to your answer you have clearly not read yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Don't you dare template me!The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick Question for PatrollingThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. If I come across a new BLP and I've given it 15+ minutes for additional content to be added, and the page has lack-luster content and zero sources, do I tag it A7, or BLP PROD? Thanks for the help! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello MordeKyle/Archives/2016,
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE 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) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) . The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Probably connected to this cluster: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Install/Uninstall Testing Meters (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreview pageThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Why did you un-review Rami Hashish? I looked over the page. The main problem with was the complete lack of any references, but it already had a BLPPROD on it. The article was well written, but I was unsure of notability, so I tagged it with notability. There is absolutely no need to un-review it. I didn't even know it was possible to do that. It is very counter-productive to do so. JDDJS (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not know why you archived the conversation so quick. It is not over. You still have not provided a valid reason. Missing one issue is not cause to undo a page review. While I agree that after later edits the page started to read as a resume, when I reviewed it I do not agree that was the case. However, if you did, you should have simply tagged with POV template instead of un-reviewing the page. I am fine with my work being undone for a valid reason. I have been an active editor on Wikipedia for over six years. I am extremely use to my work being undone. However, I have reviewed dozens, if not hundreds, of pages and never once before has another editor un-reviewed a page that I reviewed before. I did not even know that was possible to do. So again, I ask you to never do un-review a page I have previously reviewed. If you feel that I have missed issues while reviewing, simply fix them or tag the issues. JDDJS (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Annette RobertsonThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello. I got rid of the IMDB ref. I'm not at all sure I agree with your other comments - not sure whether to be amused or offended. But as one writer said - Britain and America are two countries divided by a common language.Picknick99 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way - what is the policy on references that link to a site where you then have to subscribe to consult? Some editor put two refs on my Flower of Gloster page which link to The Times archives (reputable enough of course!) but it's available for subscribers only. That seems to me quite out of keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia. I messaged the person on their talk page to make just that point, but they didn't even have the courtesy to respond. And even if the refs were allowable, they are in totally the wrong place. The page is all about a 1911 book, yet the references in question refer to a 1967 TV series and if anything should be in that section. But I don't think they should be on the page at all. I appreciate that you're busy, but if you do have the time to have a look I'd welcome your opinion. Best wishes from the UK!Picknick99 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Declined speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Gwendolyn PangThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello MordeKyle. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Gwendolyn Pang as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because being the secretary general of a notable organisation is a credible indication of "importance or significance". Remember that CSD A7 is a lower standard than what is required to demonstrate notability – it does not, for example, require that the article's text already contain citations to reliable sources that would be necessary to prove notability, but only that it contain a claim that, were it true, might reasonably make the subject a valid encyclopaedia topic (if proper sourcing could later be found). Adam9007 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Declined speedy deletion nomination of Poor Will's AlmanackThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello MordeKyle. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Poor Will's Almanack as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because it is only for articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organizations, web content and organized events. This article's topic is not within the ambit of that list. Appable (talk | contributions) 06:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi. I've declined your speedy A11 as it isn't made up. A quick Google search showed that it's a fairly widespread term. A11 is really for things that are unknown outside a small group of friends or colleagues, like student drinking games (Vodka Pong - like Beer Pong but more lethal), a new game that's a cross between water polo and baseball, or, indeed, new words - but ones that won't be found on Google (not even in Urban Dictionary) like squalfrunk (the feeling that you shouldn't have eaten your best friend's scarf). They may be real, they may not. We can't prove they're not - equally they can't reliably prove that they are and that anyone other them gives a shit anyway. This one may belong on Wiktionary (if it isn't there already), but in the mean time CAPTAIN RAJU and I have added maintenance tags. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
