Jump to content

User talk:MordeKyle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.127.80.163 (talk) at 03:39, 9 December 2016 (→John Glenn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, MordeKyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Great, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmsfinley (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I appreciate the appreciation

Thank you!! Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com

Hello MordeKyle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, iRacing.com.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Cotton2 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this game itself barely counts as notable. Nothing at all about the car list is in the least bit notable. Your list would be better suited to a fansite, or Gamefaqs or similar. 46.226.49.230 (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on consensus, when editors disagree, talk is needed to develop that consensus. Slow speed wp:editwar is not going to solve the problem. I think the section split is a good compromise. I've added citations to the article. Cars have been written about in published sources. MordeKyle, as creator of the article, clicking on "Contest this speedy deletion" and placing your reasons such as "Properly referenced split from main article..." will inform editors of your side, so it will not be deleted like last time by remaining silent during the nomination. Cotton2 (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen in a few AFD discussions that Wikipedia is not a list but first time I've read WP:LISTV, which is about the value a list can have in the encyclopedia. Ciao, Cotton2 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cotton2: Thanks for your help with this, I'm a newer editor, and I'm trying to find my bearings. People like you being helpful and pointing me in the right direction is exactly what I feel Wikipedia is truly about. Wikipedia seems to be stuffed full on conflicting information. I have seen video game pages with GIGANTIC lists, yet there seems to be so much fuss about this list of vehicles that are being simulated by the simulator. After reading WP:LISTV, it is even more clear to me that the list is beneficial to the reader. Each vehicle gives the user a drastically different experience. This list adds to the readers ability to do research, as they may be looking for a specific car or series that is simulated. Many users only use the simulator to simulate a vehicle or two. Again, thanks for your help Cotton2. MordeKyle (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did a great job MordeKyle! You stepped up and was bold. You've picked up on communicating and it worked out. Check out wp:3 and Request for comments for other ways to get help on an articles. Thanks too, Cotton2 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Deepesh Jain may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Drm310: Mistakenly placing a speedy notice on a user page when it was clearly intended to be placed on a user talk page hardly constitutes an unconstructive edit that may be considered vandalism. Take it down a notch man. MordeKyle (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (September 2016)

For removing the vandalism that I was trying to remove. I don't know how my twinkle edit got messed up, but it did -- and you fixed it. That's what collaboration is all about! Many thanks! YBG (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks :-)

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

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)[reply]

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


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.Template:Z149 KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
No problem :) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Percy

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also notability and length of article are not linked. Have you read WP:STUB and WP:GNG? GiantSnowman 20:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

November 2016

Information icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Friendly advice

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sorry, my bad.

I thought I was in the sandbox mode >.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by No-life1231 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pitchfork deleted reviews section

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)[reply]

Barnstar

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)[reply]

Retriever Communications

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)[reply]

Nevermind. Someone else deleted. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ks0stm: Ya, this is the 2nd time that page has been deleted. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit of Donald Trump

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)[reply]

Further edit: I see this has already come up on the talk page. Please disregard Shiggity (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Excellent SukhenTanChangya (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The A380 is a supersonic transport.

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)[reply]

Ha ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B021:3110:55E1:22E9:BD19:C0DC (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
/64 range blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Correct name for Daesh (ISIL)

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.

Thank you

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

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

John Glenn

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HI

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

@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)[reply]

LDAP injection

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MordeKyle&oldid=753779931"