User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2017/March

Reverted edit on Talk:Executive Order 13769

My apologies. I seriously do not know when I made the reversion, but it appears in my edit history. This must have been some kind of glitch. I'm not kidding. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Weird. It seemed odd that you were making that edit after I looked through some of you contributions. No biggie though. Easily fixed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Chicago torture incident

I apologize for not reading the talk page prior to adding the names of the suspects. Thank you for being understanding. --Aleccat 23:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aleccat: It's no problem at all. That's what collaboration is all about!  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your undoing of a seemingly valid edit

I don't think WP:NOTNEWS means what you think it means; in fact, it directly states: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information". NOTNEWS does not mean we don't update our articles, it only means most times we don't have articles about events at all. Please reconsider your reversion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I only had time to add one source... the edit is technically backed up by these, three, sources, as well. And considering the source I put in the article was from the AP, (which was reviewed and redistributed by a myriad of reputable outlets), I don't know why we needed more to state it in the first place. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee:NOTNEWS meaning wait till it's confirmed, as we have no deadline to include information. We should not include information, especially something that may be inflammatory, without it being confirmed and properly source.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the sources I've provided? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And considering I've been here for 10 years, I'd truly appreciate if you lessened your lecture like tone about policies I regularly enforce. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: They are speculative. You tenure here is not relative to this conversation. See discussion on article talk page, as it's more appropriate a place to have said discussion.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

They're all referring to statements made by government officials. What on earth are you saying? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: In a day full of removing information that has been added with haste, I edited on the side of caution. It was a pretty reasonable edit to make. I don't WP:OWN the article and you don't need my permission to get a concensus to re-add the content. Again, this discussion should be had in the appropriate place, not on my talk page.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry.

Sorry about edit warring on that 2017 F1 season page. I'm new here and I'm not completely used to it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyofthePriuses (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly valid edit

May I ask what needs documentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldJones1 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@RonaldJones1: The addition of highly contentious material such as referring to any WP:BLP as a white nationalist. You need very good sourcing for this sort of highly contentious information. This needs to be sourcing that is backed up by credible evidence, not just some reporters opinion.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we bring it to the article's talk page? And deleting it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldJones1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@RonaldJones1: I started the discussion on the talk page as soon as I removed the content. ALWAYS see the talk page before reverting again.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)