User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2016/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding vandalism warnings

Hello, 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)

To clarify further, only a level-one or maybe two warning should have been used. Thanks again. smileguy91talk - contribs 01:43, 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.


Jerschw (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jerschw: This is not less confusing by any means. The widely know name for this group is ISIS and ISIL. Daesh is the Arabic language acronym for the exact same thing, so there is no difference, only that it is non-English on an English Wikipedia, and that every source we have says ISIS/ISIL.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jerschw: Pardon me for butting in here but I think it's worth noting that other similar events in the US, like 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Curtis Culwell Center attack, 2015 Maryland terrorism plot, 2015 San Bernardino attack, University of California, Merced stabbing attack, June 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot, 2015 New Year's attack plots all use ISIS/ISIL and make no mention of Daesh, so in keeping with standard formatting, I think it's appropriate to continue to use ISIS/ISIL in addition to the reasons stated by @MordeKyle: Also, even the attacks in France use ISIS/ISIL as standard on their respective articles. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:53, 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.

HI

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.

You confused me with your message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganhxd (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Morganhxd: I'm not sure which message you are talking about, as I have left a couple messages for you. Also, please sign you comments by typing four tildes(~) at the end of your comment.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:44, 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 Glenn

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.

maybe you should check his page before reversing what i did

@97.127.80.163: First, please be sure to sign your comments by typing four tildes. Secondly, you need to have a source for this information. I am aware of the recent passing of American Hero John Glenn, but a source is still required for this type of information. Please read this great essay titled Verifiability, not truth.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

LDAP injection

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)

It clearly was a copy paste from somewhere. I could not identify the source, but it was pretty obviously a copy paste.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Humour me, why is it obvious. It is not obvious to me. If it were, I would not have declined it for speedy deletion. SpinningSpark 08:19, 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 page

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.

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 granted

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.

Hello MordeKyle. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

KGirlTrucker81, you should take your own advice, particularly the WP:DTTR#AGF subsection of that essay. Mistakes get made, being snarky doesn't help anyone. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I know, but is only a level one notice which AGF anyway. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 00:13, 11 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 Patrolling

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.

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)

@Comatmebro: You could do both! If you feel WP:GNG is not met, you can tag it as CSD A7. As is Wikipedia policy, you should also place a BLP PROD on the page because it is unsourced. If you feel the subject may meet the guidelines for inclusion, but there are no sources(such as a politician or a professional sports player), you may find that the speedy deletion is not appropriate, in which case I'd suggest just placing the BLP PROD.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! This is very helpful. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:21, 11 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,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

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) .

Error handling Software testing

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)

@Meters: the page has been deleted several times already. The creator just slightly alters the title each time he makes the article. See Error Handling software testing and Error handling software testing.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably a class project or something like that. Meters (talk) 03:47, 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 page

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 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)

@JDDJS: It is not a very counter productive thing to do. It is however counter productive to mark an article as reviewed when there is still multiple issues with the article. Even now, as all of the maintenance tags have been removed, it still has multiple problems with it.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
To review a page, it does not have to be in perfect shape. If that was the case, nothing would ever be marked review. Reviewing articles is to point out glaring articles. That is why we have maintenance tags in the first place. (The maintenance tags were removed errounsley by the creator. I have since re-added it). And you may not be aware, but there is a severe back up on the New Page Log. I am trying to do my part to reduce the backlog, but if you un-review pages that I already carefully reviewed, the backlog will not be reduced at all. If you feel that I missed issues when reviewing a page, than please feel free to address them yourself in any productive way that you want to. However, please do not un-review a page that I already have reviewed again. It is not productive and just undermines the work I have done. JDDJS (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@JDDJS:The article did have some glaring issues that had not been addressed when I un-reviewed it, and I intended to address those issues but something else came up in the meantime. I am also working to reduce the back log, but this does not mean an article should be reviewed hastily. Try not to take things so personal.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not review it hastily at all. At the time it was already marked for deletion for it's lack of references. It made a claim to notability for his academic work, so it did not qualify for speedy deletion. There were plenty of wiki links in the article, it was not an orphan, it was formatted correctly and there were no major issues with the writing. I tagged it for notability and lack of categories. So what glaring issues did I miss? And I cannot help but take this personally. You undid my work, and still have not provided a valid reason for doing so. If you found any glaring issues that I missed, but didn't have the time to fix, you could have easily added a maintenance tag for said issue (there are maintenance for virtually any major issue that an article could have) which does not even take a minute. JDDJS (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The main issue was the writing style that was using terms like something to the effect of, at this time he is 25, when the info box says he is 33. The whole thing read, and still does read, like a resume. This is Wikipedia, your work is going to be undone a lot, you may want to get used to it. Again, I marked it as un-reviewed and had to run and take care of something. Have a good day.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:19, 15 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 Robertson

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.

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)

@Picknick99: what other comments are you talking about?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. There may have been a couple of spelling errors, but certainly nothing wrong with style or cohesion. Not sure if all-embracing templates are really useful. I would be inclined to cite one or the other, but not five at once. Picknick99 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Picknick99:It's just a copy edit template. You seem better informed of the subject that I, so I didn't want to change some of the titles of her filmography, but there appeared to be some issues with a few of them, as well as some other grammar and spelling issues. It's nothing personal, it's just to point out the issues and mark it as reviewed so I can move on to helping reduce the massive backlog of unreviewed articles. Happy editing.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, MordeKyle, of course it's not personal and I don't really take offence. I realize you guys have a hell of a backlog to deal with and it's better for everyone to get pages reviewed sooner rather than later. We all need each other don't we, and to be honest I'm quite glad that you encouraged me to have another scour round for references because I found some I might not otherwise have come across.

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)

@Picknick99: Sure, click here. As far as the appropriate use of a source, as long as the source is accurate and not being used to validate something that it does not validate, it is fine. If a source is for a statement, it needs to accompany that statement.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I think I should move them to a more appropriate place. Rather spoils things if the first (and second) ref anyone comes to links to a page where they're going to ask your credit card details. It may be permissible, but I still thinks it goes against the grain of a free encyclopaedia - could even say it is discriminating against those who aren't lucky enough to have our easy access to credit cards. I think I should write to Jimmy Wales and call him on it. Anyway, it's 2.30 am here so I will say good night and thanks for your input, it's appreciatedPicknick99 (talk) 02:30, 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 Pang

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.

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)

@Adam9007: This person does not automatically meet WP:N because of her position in a notable company. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I don't see any significant coverage.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing significance with notability. I never said the person was automatically notable because of a connexion. If there's any indication that reliable third party sources might exist to establish notability, it's not an A7. Whether the subject actually does have the coverage or not is a matter for standard deletion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:10, 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 Almanack

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.

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)

I looked through your contributions recently and also declined The Challenge: Invasion because it is a season of the notable TV series The Challenge. This connection is easily close enough to warrant an AfD discussion rather than speedy deletion. Remember that speedy deletion should only be used in unequivocal cases where an article would not pass an AfD and meets a very specific set of criteria. Notability is not inherited, but significance is. I recommend slowing down a bit and ensuring that you aren't tagging articles with credible claims of significance with A7, as doing so drives away new but unexperienced editors trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. Appable (talk | contributions) 06:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Appable: Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:35, 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.

Gramogram

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2016/December&oldid=1139502966"