 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:MordeKyle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, I'm Wgolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tony Cox have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The name Tony Cox is used as a redirect for a disambiguation page-instead of editing it you should make a page-its not considered helpful to edit a page that is used as a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also about creating a new page-you just put something like Tony Cox (musician) or something like that instead of editing one already there! Wgolf (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Wgolf: This hardly constitutes as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Goodfaith. Also, just because the page has been used as a redirect, does not mean that a subject who meets WP:N shouldn't be the landing of the search. I'm not saying this subject meets that notability, but this should be considered and discussed. We should also not be too hasty and allow the editor to add the content and sources. If the subject is notable enough, they should be the landing of the search, as you can see with articles like St. Louis Blues. Thanks {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought it was the same person again-didn't notice it was another one. Still the article is a redirect and yes they can be edited, but it probably be better to make a new article. Let's just leave it alone now. Wgolf (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- BTW I have no problem if they do change a redirect-but it was a redirect to a disambiguation page that you would of needed to link it to also-I'll just keep it as it is for now though. Sorry for the mix up that has happened! Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
New users are always enthusiastic but sometimes a bit too much so. We very often offer help and advice to them to keep them on track, and more importantly, to keep them at Wikipedia. However if they try to teach long-time established users and admins, and especially very high calibre users such as GiantSnowman, for example, what they should be doing, it may not bode well for a successful Wiki collaboration. Keep up the good work and sooner or later you'll eventually get all the user rights you need . Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Firstly, I have no "need" for the user rights I was requesting. As I stated before, these rights are a mere convenience, and nothing more. Secondly, I would assume that a "very high caliber user" wouldn't revert cleanup tags without addressing the reason the tags were added, and then become rude and hostile before even realizing they were wrong, about everything. You say I'm new, but that is relative. New is not defined, it is only your perception. As far as the rest of the criteria required for the rollback permission, I meet or exceed them. You also did not point to a single one of my edits that would disqualify me from meeting those requirements, you only point to some messages left on my talk page. Then you say I just received reviewership, which is true, but no where does it say that this disqualifies me from rollback. Then, with other users receiving both permissions at the same time, you say that is irrelevant. Is every single one of my edits perfect, nope. Have I made mistakes with my edits, absolutely. The same as you and every single other editor. But, as you can see above, when I do make a mistake I own up to it and thank someone for pointing it out to me so that I may learn from it. You can take your high and mighty attitude elsewhere, I have no need for it. I will continue to do the work that I have been doing to fight vandalism without these great and powerful permissions that allow me to revert with one click rather than 5. {MordeKyle} ☢ 05:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was in the sandbox mode >.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by No-life1231 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
this is a good section. why did you delete it again? my friend, it cites reliable sources. i added citations to sources that document the info, and these are reliable, mainstream publications. u mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:200B:8534:D607:38CD:5124 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar. It's very much appreciated.
Have a nice day. :)
N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, I declined your speedy on this article. I feel like there's enough references on the page that this would be better decided at AfD if you feel like nominating it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Someone else deleted. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ks0stm: Ya, this is the 2nd time that page has been deleted. Thanks. {MordeKyle} ☢ 00:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You reverted my edit, but I had an edit summary - may I please have your rationale behind this.
Edit: I see that you noted that the removal was unsourced. However, the sourced content appears to be in error and is easily refuted by verifying that Republicans had majority control of Congress and the Presidency at the 109th Congress. I'd welcome suggestions on how to proceed here Shiggity (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Further edit: I see this has already come up on the talk page. Please disregard Shiggity (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you believe the source is flawed, then please provide a reliable source that refutes this information. Please take this discussion to the article's talk page. Thank you. {MordeKyle} ☢ 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The A380 actually is a supersonic transport. It is known to reach speeds significantly greater than the speeds achieved by the Concorde.
- @2600:1016:B021:6F48:8DF7:9C8B:65B7:6E5B: I would love to see you find a source on this. IF you do, please re-add the information with your source. Also, please sign you comments. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B021:3110:55E1:22E9:BD19:C0DC (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @2600:1016:B021:6F48:8DF7:9C8B:65B7:6E5B:I don't know why I'm even entertaining this argument, because you have already been banned for vandalism, but the Airbus A380 has been tested to a speed limit of Mach 0.96, which is sub sonic. {MordeKyle} ☢ 03:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- /64 range blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
While I appreciate your concern for style, I merely filled in a "citation needed" and copied and pasted the preexisting format. You deleted a citation that needed to be there. If you have issues with the overall formatting, then please make the corresponding changes rather than remove necessary citations. Thanks! Ryanmsfinley (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ryanmsfinley: This edit is a complete disaster of syntax mess-ups, grammar problems, and massive spelling issues. It would take me hours to fix YOUR mistakes. Feel free to do that yourself, and then re-add your sources. Also, do not change things on my talk page. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I had a Chrome highlighter extension running that somehow messed everything up, my apologies. I will not touch your talk page again, and given your tone I'd respectfully ask that you leave it to others to message me in the future about such errors and refrain from doing so yourself. Thanks. Ryanmsfinley (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ryanmsfinley: My tone? You make a destructive edit, that I reverted and left a template message on your talk page for, then you come onto my talk page, changing the title of another section and telling me that it is my responsibility to fix your mistakes... Ya... OK. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmsfinley (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@MordeKyle I apologize, you are (mostly) right. What happened is that my Chrome extension ("Highlight This") somehow deleted all of the highlighted words in my edits (including to your talk page), many of which were used many times throughout the page. When I previewed the changes, it did not occur to me to review the parts that I didn't knowingly touch.
I had no idea this would happen to the transfer pricing article or your talk page and didn't know it had when I suggested that you fix it. I thought you were objecting to some minor footnote formatting issue. Although it was a bit overboard, I understand your reaction and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Ryanmsfinley (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
