User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2017/January
 | 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. |
Happy New Year MordeKyle!
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.
.jpg)
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
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 please stop with the tit-for-tat editing? There is a distinct difference between "had to" and "must" - it is by no means an issue of semantics. One implies that the deal with FOM is still on the table despite the final calendar being published; the other makes it clear that a deal was on offer, but never (to the best of our knowledge) finalised. If you have some other source that disproves it, please feel free to share it. But until then, it's quite obvious that you are making revisions to the page based on who the previous editor was, rather than based on what is in the interests of the article. This is extremely disruptive, and if you continue, you may be referred to ANI for violating WP:AGF. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Prisonermonkeys: You have absolutely no room to speak on this issue. The difference between these edits is in fact just semantics. Also, assume good faith, as I have made 1 edit because of the over importance placed on the simplest of wording. That is hardly disruptive, unlike your edits. Please also refrain from posting on my talk page in an accusatory nature when you have no leg to stand on. Please feel free to refer me to ANI for this, I'm sure the admins would love you completely wasting their time. I'd also like to point out that you did not assume good faith in assuming that I was not assuming good faith. Also, not to say that I did not assume good faith, but I do not need to assume good faith when you have proven to me that you do not edit in good faith. Have a good day. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- "The difference between these edits is in fact just semantics."
- To you, maybe, but as I explained, there is a distinct difference between the two versions. If you say that the deal "must" be approved, it implies that there is an unspoken vacancy in the calendar that will be filled when that deal is approved. However, if you say that the deal "had to" be approved, it makes it clear that an offer was made and only required approval to be finalised, but the final version of the calendar was published without it.
- "I'd also like to point out that you did not assume good faith in assuming that I was not assuming good faith."
- When you first reverted my edits to the dot point on Imola, you included in your edit summary a comment to one that was identical to a comment that I made when reverting a previous edit. Why did you do that, if not to prove a point? If you had worded it differently, then maybe I could accept it in good faith, but the fact that you used exactly the same wording makes it look like you are trying to throw my own words back in my face to prove a point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's an assumption you are making. The edit perfectly fit the reason for my revert. And again, there is no difference between those terms at all. Neither implies anything different than the other. This is just another example of your ongoing disruptive edits and apparent attempt of owning this article. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If you feel that the wording of the article needs to be addressed, you can raise the issue on the article talk page. However, throwing around accusations of braking 3RR and WP:OWN will not get you far. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never accused you of breaking 3RR, just another manipulation of wording by you. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the issue of semantics in the article, then please feel free to raise it on the appropriate talk page. Until such time as you do, I am going to assume that you have no interest in continuing the discussion. But if you want some free advice—and I doubt you will listen to it, but I will offer it anyway—branding peoples' edits as disruptive when all they did was change a single word in the article. Especially when there is no opposition to it from other editors, and even moreso when other editors agree that it is a better way of wording the article. And to make matters worse, the only apparent "problem" with the edit is that you personally disagreed with it, which is not grounds for accusing people of being disruptive. So don't try and take the moral high road and claim that people are making unsubstantiated accusations against you because so far, you've resorted to some very aggressive tactics to try and force your preferred edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Have I now? What aggressive tactics are those? {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the issue of semantics in the article, then please feel free to raise it on the appropriate talk page. Until such time as you do, I am going to assume that you have no interest in continuing the discussion. But if you want some free advice—and I doubt you will listen to it, but I will offer it anyway—branding peoples' edits as disruptive when all they did was change a single word in the article. Especially when there is no opposition to it from other editors, and even moreso when other editors agree that it is a better way of wording the article. And to make matters worse, the only apparent "problem" with the edit is that you personally disagreed with it, which is not grounds for accusing people of being disruptive. So don't try and take the moral high road and claim that people are making unsubstantiated accusations against you because so far, you've resorted to some very aggressive tactics to try and force your preferred edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
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 avoid edit warring, especially on high-visibility articles like 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting. I'm not sure exactly how many reverts you've made, and I have no desire to block anyone, but I'd really like to avoid full-protecting an article about such a rapidly developing situation (as has been requested at WP:RFPP. Continue to use the talk page to work out an acceptable solution, and if there's any way I can help resolve this dispute (short of taking a "side"), just let me know. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: Well maybe you'd care to actually view my edits. I have only reverted things that are repeatedly being added that are strictly against Wikipedia WP:BLPCRIME policy. I'd hardly consider that edit warring. {MordeKyle} ☢ 05:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The Healthcare Leadership Academy
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 Kyle, I saw your edits, the list was not how I think you assumed, it the faculty covered some very prominent people and thats what made the organisation interesting, so it is interesting to the reader to see why this organisation is so significant. Hope that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vopulus (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Vopulus: Sorry, this violates Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, the other section you re-added is a direct copy from this page, which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for the welcome and the help on the page,i was getting use to it so i didn't really understand how to reference but now i have,i won't have if it weren't for you so thanks again and you've got a nice page. Splix123 (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Also do you know how to get rid of the deletion sign now that a reliable source is there? Splix123 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| i figured it out now no worries thanks again Splix123 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
I have unreviewed a page you curated
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'm Fabrictramp. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, سید مجید حسنی زاده, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Glenn Martin Rand
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.
Dear Morde Kyle
Glenn Martin Rand is a credible source because he has contributed greatly to the art world, specifically the photography world. I believe he has a place here in Wikipedia, I was just poor in proving so. I should have added different sources to make it a stronger in credibility; however, this was my first time creating a page. Is there anyway I could get back what I have written and add more to not get it deleted?
Thanks you,
Alexandriasteffes (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Alexandria Steffes
- @Alexandriasteffes: Sorry it took so long to get back with you, I generally don't edit on Sundays and Mondays. Yes, there is a way to get back what was deleted. I don't exactly remember how though. I would say maybe doing a Google search will yield you a website that caches Wikipedia pages that have been deleted. In the future, when you create your page, create a draft to give yourself time to finish creating the article before publishing it in the mainspace. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Suspect names
I very strongly agree with you that suspect names should be avoided, at least until sources and/or investigators or authorities state definitely they were responsible or until conviction. As for now, no source seems to be calling the suspect in Québéc mosque shooting as the "shooter", he is called "alleged shooter". But the problem here is that this isn't the only article where people prematurely add personal details about the suspects. This can become a nuisance especially if there are unconfirmed or false reports about the identity. We need to establish a Wiki-wide some sort of procedure through Rfc and consensus about when to include names. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @MonsterHunter32: Ya, I have grown quite frustrated with this policy. The 2017 Chicago torture incident page is the only one I have not seen list the suspects names per WP:BLPCRIME. The rest do. There seems to be a disregard for this Wikipedia policy. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Many either do not care or wilfully disregard it. They use various claims and reasons for it. This is getting out of control and is affecting Wikipedia's quality. An example is addition of sub-standard and below-standard edits and sources being added to many articles. It is a very complex situation and unless rules are enforced strictly everywhere on Wikipedia, the problem will continue to grow. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have seen administrators at the article and talk page who have edited it. Perhaps they may be able to help, try contacting them about it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)