Jump to content

User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2016/October

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


Daisy Coleman

The {{PROD}} tag should not be used twice as was done on Daisy Coleman. The article should be taken to WP:RFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of vehciles simulated by iRacing.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of vehciles simulated by iRacing.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Sugarfoot Moffett

Hello MordeKyle. The article stated that Moffett worked with the Jackson family since the 1970's and with many notable musicians later. All that is easily verifiable by simple Google search. It was in my opinion not eligible for speedy deletion under the {{db-a7}} criterion. I've rewritten the article, it is now a brief piece of referenced information. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

TV25.tv‎

Just to let you know, I declined you A7 (TV stations are usually significant, if not notable), but you can always comment at the ongoing AfD. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of iRacing cars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of iRacing cars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I am inviting you to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com. Cotton2 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

For reporting this vandal. :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:28AA:8490:C872:4D54 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

I reverted your edit to Central line, as you were adding irrelevant material to a disambiguation page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Whoops, thought I was reverting vandalism, thanks for fixing that. MordeKyle (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Information icon Hello MordeKyle. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Jack Barry (politican). It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: the article also met G11, the addition of A7 to the nomination was just for good measure, as you can see the article has already been deleted because of the blatant nature of the article. Hasty does not really apply here, thanks. MordeKyle (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem :) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Derek Percy

What's your problem? GiantSnowman 20:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The section above clearly indicates that you have real issues properly identifying new pages - maybe take more time and care over your edits in future? Please highlight specific grammar issues that are of concern on the Percy page. GiantSnowman 20:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I don't have a problem. Your new article needs some cleanup, which is very common for new articles. The article has some grammar issues and possible some WP:N issues, but nothing major. A minor suggestion: you will be much better suited to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Also, the section above does not indicate that at all, maybe you should re-read it, as I very clearly was correct in my assessment of that article. Have a good day. MordeKyle (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I ask again - what grammar issues? No WP:N issues, he clearly meets WP:GNG. Your assessment was poor. GiantSnowman 20:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Certainly, I'd love to explain these issues with you, rather than just have you revert the cleanup templates and get extremely defensive about it. Firstly, the article is only 5 sentences long. It needs some more information added to indicate the notability of the subject. This doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, but the brief nature of the article indicates that he is not notable, and that an entire article may not be necessary for him. As to the grammar issues, you can see in the second sentence:

He found not guilty of the murder of Yvonne Tuohy due to insanity, and he was suspected in the double murder of Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock and the triple murder of the Beaumong siblings, as well as the individual murders of Allen Redston, Linda Stilwell, and Simon Brook.

should read more like:

He was found not guilty, by reason of insanity, of the murder of Yvonne Tuohy. He was also suspected in the double murder of Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock, the triple murder of the Beaumong siblings, as well as the individual murders of Allen Redston, Linda Stilwell, and Simon Brook.

I am no grammar expert, which is why I marked it for cleanup and didn't do it myself. Either way, the article is in need of some cleanup, thanks. MordeKyle (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
For fucks sake - if it's such a minor point, why didn't you a) clean it yourself and/or b) explain that before we got involved in such a lame edit war? GiantSnowman 20:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Also notability and length of article are not linked. Have you read WP:STUB and WP:GNG? GiantSnowman 20:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: As I stated before, I am no expert on grammar, and I also know nothing about the subject matter at hand, so it is clearly better for someone else to deal with those issues, that's what the cleanup templates are for. Also, I indicated what was wrong with the article in the cleanup templates. In the future, rather than reverting and getting upset, you would be much better suited to find out why templates were added, if you don't understand why they were added. I can't speak for everyone, but I am more than happy to give a better explanation if one is necessary.
And yes, I am aware of WP:STUB and WP:GNG. I am also aware of other murderers who's individual articles have been deleted and the killer only being mentioned in the articles of the crime itself, which is why I indicated that, though the killer may be notable, this article does not indicate that he is notable enough to have his own article, and not just be a mention in the articles about the crimes. MordeKyle (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
No, per WP:BRD, once you have been bold and added something (like a notability tag) and then been reverted, you discuss. You do not wait for the remover to question - the burden is on you. You do not need to be an expert on crime articles (I've created nearly 5,000 articles and this is the first one I've created about a murderer, as far as I can remember) to recognise significant coverage required by GNG, and clearly satisfied here. Thank you and good night. GiantSnowman 20:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Per the very first line of WP:BRD, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus." My emphasis. I patrol new article and recent changes and indicate things that need to be fixed, changed, deleted, etc. I have already listed my reasons for not making the changes myself, so I won't repeat myself. There is no burden on me, the burden is on you to improve the article to the point where cleanup is no longer necessary, if you want the cleanup templates removed. MordeKyle (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tip

Hi, I noticed you tagged the page Justle with {{Db-nonsense}}. That is normally reserved for use when there are just random letters that make absolutely no sense. In this case, the author was quite obviously trying to promote "justle" as a new word, a combination of "juggle" and "hustle", as in leading a very busy life. So I changed the deletion criterion to {{db-madeup}}, since it is a recently invented term. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: thank you for fixing that. I'll try to remember that tag next time.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Apeal

Hi, I'm not too sure how to ask a question on a user's talk, so please forgive me if I have done this wrong! You recently deleted a page I was editing and I believe it shouldn't have been - I'd like to be able to continue editing please. I started to edit my biography and was saving periodically to avoid losing changes. In doing so I believe it was swiftly reported because I was still editing. Please advise how I can continue to edit this. Many thanks Leekemp (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure why my page on The Roxy Suicide is being considered for deletion. I am a un-connected party to the band and the refrences I am providing, I feel, are clearly credible to in providing a noteworthy article on this band. ---Thank You. Penny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny Rocklane (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, Thanks for reverting there, I was supposed to have removed the uniform part not half of the bloody article so thanks for reverting - I had clicked undo however you beat me to it :), Could I ask how you came to know I removed it ?, Anyway thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I take part in patrolling the recent changes. You're welcome for the correction, it was no big deal however, mistakes are easily made.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh right, Well thank god you were watching :), True none of us are robots unfortunately :), Anyway thanks again, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2016/October&oldid=1091663144"