User talk:Cadiomals/Archive 1

Copyright problems with File:WTCtransportationhub.png‎
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:WTCtransportationhub.png‎, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wtc.com/media/images/r/8_67_Terminal-Street-Level-2.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:WTCtransportationhub.png‎ appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:WTCtransportationhub.png‎ has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:WTCtransportationhub.png and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:WTCtransportationhub.png with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:WTCtransportationhub.png.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Skyscraper gallery
I am puzzled by your reasoning for your edit to the skyscraper article. What do you mean by "The gallery was off-balance"?

One other thing, many editors take a dim view of comments like "Please dont act like you own this article" on the first interaction. One of Wikipedia's editing guidelines is to assume good faith - and that is why I am here asking you about your reasoning, rather than simply reverting again. Astronaut (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Astronaut (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent change to evolution
Hi...noticed your recent change to the lead sentence in evolution and I reversed it. Please refer to the discussion page where many editors had worked for a great length of time to discuss that lead. If you would like to change the lead sentence, please come and join us in the discussion page. It was an arduous task and required a lot of consensus building to arrive at the lead that was inserted. Hence, there were votes taken on the lead not to include biological evolution and much discussion on that matter. If you would like to make that change - I suggest you enter in the discussion on the talk page first. Thanks.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Italics
Hi Cadiomals. Please remember to italicise all genus and species names by adding a pair of apostrophes to either side of said words, like this. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, thanks so much for reminding me! I actually had this notion that only species were italicized, but I was wrong. I actually went around through all my edits and saw you did most of the work for me. Thank you!Cadiomals (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaur thermoregulation
Show me a single dinosaur for which there is solid indications that it was not an endotherm despite flow-through lung ventilation, avian-style lung (all saurischians), fibro-lamellar bone, fully erect limb posture, high-oval body cross section. HMallison (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any objections please bring them to the Discussion section. Certainly not all dinosaurs were warm-blooded, especially early groups from the Triassic period. You will have to show me some sources before I believe that ALL of them were as you stated in the intro.
 * You were editing a lead section. Your edit contradicts the body of the article. Cut it out.
 * Also, name a specific dinosaur (or are you setting up to shift goalposts?). There is no indication whatsoever any member of Dinosauria was not an endotherm, because higher taxa were endotherms already - why would one reverse? As for better-known Triassic dinosaurs, Plateosaurus, e.g., shows clear evidence for endothermy (sources in that article). HMallison (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, to prevent further disagreement, I'll remove that statement altogether.
 * Oh, by the way: there is a (very slowly moving) re-write going on of the article, at . Wanna join? We can debate this there, it is kinda useless to do it on the talk page of the old article. HMallison (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not the kind of Wikipedia editor that writes entire articles or contributes significantly to them. I mostly take articles that are already well developed and improve their diction and syntax, and also add a few facts that may have been left out. I never realized there was a re-write going on, the current dinosaur article seems near perfect. Cadiomals (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL In fact, it is outdated by, oh, a decade or so? in many respects. And it has a lot of he said - she said reporting, which throws well-supported and outdated or debunked stuff at the reader without distinction. So yeah, a re-write is highly necessary, but the one on dino physiology needs to be altered, too, to accommodate the many new lines of evidence. HMallison (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate templating people, but I wasn't sure if you saw my message there. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge stuff
Well I be... Spent a bit o time reviewing those two articles and putting my thoughts together in eloquent prose basically saying "them two is different" and when I hit save... poof the section was gone ... gripe, gripe :) Anyway, how 'bout re-naming "History of Earth" to "History of life on Earth"? ...as the old goat ambles off grumbling... Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for messaging me and letting me know! Sorry but I guess I decided to change my mind at the wrong moment. In response to your name change suggestion, there is already an entire article dedicated to the evolutionary history of life on Earth. The History of the Earth article is somewhat different in that it also includes geologic history. And the geological history of earth is basically the same thing except structured differently. That's why I decided to change my mind. What I found was the History of the Earth article was structured based on key events in Earth's history, while the Geological history of Earth was structured on the Geologic Time Scale itself, giving descriptions of each eon, era, period, and epoch. They are structured too differently to merge.

Cadiomals (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of relevant information on the 1990's
Hi, you removed the the brief information I put regarding the death of Freddie Mercury and the impact it had on Queen's musical career. Cionsidering that they are one of the worlds best selling acts and their frontman was one of the biggest faces ever in the music industry it is only fair that his death, which had much relevance to the music industry, should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulu1963 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you have the wrong person, I did no such thing. Regards, Cadiomals (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

US edits
I believe you are acting in complete good faith, but you are simply wrong. You're wrong on the substance of your edits, and you're wrong on where you chose to discuss them. The proper place is the Talk page of the article in question. Defend your edits there and I'll be more than happy to explain your errors. DocKino (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Troy page
Thanks for paring down my contribution on the Janice Daniels gay slur controversy to the Troy, Michigan page. I was thinking that maybe I was adding a little too much, given how many links I had to use, but brevity isn't my strong suit. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

New York City article images
Hello, you recently removed pictures from the New York City article in a well-intentioned effort to improve it. I'd like to discuss this at Talk:New York City. Regards, NYCRuss   ☎  12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Warnings
Hey just a heads up but if you run into vandal IPs its best to use > WP:WARNINGS, these templates inform the editor of their wrongdoing and after 3 or 4 depending on the offense if not listened to usually comes a block. An editor who made a mistake will read the warnings while an editor who is just here to vandalize wikipedia will not, to place a warning just copy/paste a thing like (Im using nowiki so that the warning does not appear here, just ignore those when you copy/paste) to the IP vandal's page the result will be a level 1 warning for vandalism, other warnings exisit for other problems as well. Best of luck with vandals and remember not to get overheated about it =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Central Michigan University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta Phi Epsilon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

One World Trade Center
I'd say, in terms of information, style, clarity of presentation and quality of sources, the One World Trade Center article is already at GA standard, based on other GA's I've seen. I'd have no problem proposing it as such, but I admit I don't know whether we'd have to wait for the tower to be completed. Why not bring it up with GA review? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I mean GA nominations. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll put it up as a GA nominee now, and see what the reviewers think. If it doesn't pass, we can renominate it when it does qualify. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look over the entire article first and fix anything you might have missed and then nominate it. I still think there are things we may have missed, especially in terms of prose, wording, organization and repetition of information. Otherwise, as long as we can renominate it if it fails, that's fine. Cadiomals (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re Sears Tower: "World Trade Center" would be inaccurate, because that was the complex of buildings, and Two World Trade Center was completed after One (and wasn't it slightly shorter?) At best, maybe the year (1973) should be added after it. Because even now, one of the new World Trade Center towers will be more north than the others, so saying "North Tower" doesn't satisfy disambiguation either. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help!

 * Aw, my first barnstar! Thank you so much! Cadiomals (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cadiomals - speaking of the One World Trade Center building - would it be possible for you to find pics of the Lower Manhattan skyline at day and at night with the new building with which to replace the status quo images in the New York City article/section? With every passing day, those two images are becoming increasingly obsolete. (Even at night, the new building is lit up with scaffolding lights, so a night image should be just fine, I would bet.)

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those shouldn't be hard to find, I'll get on it. Cadiomals (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Puppeh!
 SMcCandlish has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Per your good idea at User talk:DocKino, I credited you as the originator, in the creation edit of this template. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww thanks! :) Cadiomals (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Only took a few minutes. You can customize the image, too. Commons has a lot of puppy pics. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One WTC
Hey, I've noticed we've been dealing with a lot of IP vandalism and PoV pushing on the One World Trade Center article lately - do you think we should ask an admin to semi-protect it for a month or so? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be good. I was considering that a couple of months ago but decided against it since it slowed down for a little while but now I guess you can go for it. Cadiomals (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time it happens I will - see if it quiets down first (unlikely, i know). Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missoula GAN
I'm not certain that it meets GA standards. I think we have a right to expect more than what are effectively bare links. Do you think you could push the nominator to do this?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources are adequate, but I totally forgot about that aspect. As long as that's the only problem I could just have the nominator fix all the bare links so it won't have to be reassessed. Cadiomals (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. Would the reflinks tool work on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would. I've also informed the nominator. Cadiomals (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw this. It needs cites combined, too; and a lot more really. Alarbus (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I started to clean things up, but see someone edited it; probably your nominator. Discarding my work (which is much, much more than they're doing. I should learn to leave messes be. Alarbus (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Alarbus. But I'd welcome your helping them with this, at least to get them over the hump.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all this. I was only checking to see if the links led to viable sources and that the information matched, and completely forgot about proper citation formats. Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Alarbus will fix the references, and that will take care of any difficulties.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one ever fixed these refs. Personally, I would not have promoted it to GA because the refs were/are in such bad shape. Dsetay, the nominator seems to have ceased editing. Therefore, I'll get the refs up to snuff the best I can. Pumpkin Sky   talk  14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Revertions at Evolution Article
I am sorry, I really don't mean to continuously revert your edits. It is just that some of the changes (e.g., co-operation vs cooperation) are not consistent with previous consensus (use of Brit English for e.g.) and some of the statements really do need to be cited as encouraged/required by WP:cite. Evolution is a featured article and is often an unwitting target for a lot of unsourced nonsense. The best way to combat that of course is to set a good example. danielkueh (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any WP:ENGVAR questions, come to me, Cadiomals. I've written articles in most of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Samesexmarriagepolls.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samesexmarriagepolls.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Although sad to see this file deleted, I can understand the WP:NFCC rationale. Considering that the graph is already nearly a year old, you may want to ask Nate Silver whether he might want to donate it (or an update) to the public domain. The graph is already widely copied elsewhere, and notable in itself. I have searched in vain for a worthy substitute graph, and it would take considerable effort and skill to track down all those individual poll results and plot them.TVC 15 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could get someone to basically copy the graph into a program that makes line graphs? That's what one person suggested but I don't know how to do that. Then it could be listed as an "own work" - Cadiomals (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Centrifugal force
I've replied on my own page. El Ingles (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clade/cladistics
I'd just like to make it clear that I agree that you're right about the problem you had identified with these two articles – their overlap definitely needs to be sorted out a bit – I just didn't agree with your solution. It's generally a good idea to propose something as radical as a complete merger on the talk page(s) first. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism
This is not vandalism, please be more careful in using that word. Read more about what is and isn't vandalism at WP:NOTVAND. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get hung up on semantics. That was a disruptive edit putting an unnecessary external link to promote a website. Vandalism or not it was still disruptive. Cadiomals (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not about semantics its about editor retention. That was clearly a goodfaith edit by a new editor who deserves to be welcomed to wikipedia without being called a vandal. His talkpage is plastered over with warnings - pretty much one for every edit he has made, but no one has actually tried to welcome the guy or tell him what wikipedia is about and why people keep reverting his contributions. That is not the way for wikipedia to recruit new editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was welcome to Wikipedia a number of times. His talk page says (if he bothered reading it) "read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively" and "If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "helpme" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help."
 * All he had to do was stop placing inappropriate external links as he was repeatedly told. I think you're wrong for giving this person the benefit of the doubt when he/she has repeatedly done the same thing and has made no constructive contributions at all. We shouldn't treat individual users special. That was his last warning and he should be blocked now. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to good faith edits as vandalism is also a disruptive and per policy may lead to a block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How exactly are those considered good faith edits when 1) He has warnings plastered all over his talk page which he ignores and 2) yet he keeps doing it and 3) the user has not objected at all to the reversions and claiming he did them in good faith. What exactly is your definition of good faith? He was placing advertisements that are in obvious violation of the guidelines and he knew it. I think the reason he kept posting them was because he wanted to get as many people to see them as possible because its probably his website. Who are you, defending this blatant vandal? Cadiomals (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have labeled that vandalism too. Repeatedly inserting the same thing against consensus is vandalism (the link is in no way appropriate). The bigger issue facing Wikipedia is not retaining new editors interested only in advertising their own websites, but retaining established editors that actually contribute to the encyclopaedia. Threatening to block them is not the way to do that. AIR corn (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed
I see that you have a television show in the queue at WP:GAC. I would like to call your attention to TV-EPISODE?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your move of Unethical human experimentation in the United States
Hello! I appreciate your interest in Human experimentation in the United States, which you just moved. I had some concerns posted about this move which you may not have seen before you did the move, because you did the move without addressing them. Could you respond to that on the talk page of that article? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see the message on the talk page. It seemed common sense to move it at first but after seeing your message you raise some good points, so I'm reverting it. I hope it is settled but I can't really provide any other rationale. Cadiomals (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hope. I am continually thrilled by Wikipedia's delivery of novel cataloging situations. I also see several conflicting sides to this issue and even though I presented objections, I do not like the current title either.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dino image
I absolutely agree in principle, but the drab greyscale coloration does suggest the structure is more built for sound that for visual display. The text states, and most research agrees, that bright coloration was probably very important across all of Panaves. I would support adding back the Parasaurolophus but it would be nice to eventually modify the image to reflect a more likely color scheme. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No self-ref problem with former text at article on Global warming
Hi,

As you may know, not all self-refs are problematic (and therefore disfavored) self-refs. As I understand it, self-ref is only a problem issue, as opposed to a personal preference issue, when our articles are mirrored on other sites. Thus, if I had written "Global warming refers to this thing that all wikipedia readers can see....", and if that were echoed on some other site, it would make ZERO SENSE on the other site, since the other site's readers don't necessarily see what wikipedia readers can see. If a self-reference does can not hypothetically create such a logic error, then it is an issue of personal preference but is not necessarily disallowed. I plan to restore the self-ref to the article in the future, and if your personal preference is strong enough to object, please join us on the talk page so we can try to get a sense of the group's personal preference. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not hung up on that aspect of the lead sentence, as long as you don't revert it back to the poor prose of the previous lead sentence. You can replace "in contemporary usage" with "in this article" if you wish. Cadiomals (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. No doubt if the text sticks conceptually others will have their own ideas about word-smithing.  FYI, the poor prose you mention was verbatim from the 2nd source in the sentence.  I agree it wasn't the best possible turn of phrase.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Age of the Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia
Please do not undo the work and consensus achieved by hundreds of contributors to the article. Upshot = please let it be and read or please read and let it be. Peace. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Consensus on removing undue weight has been reached _numerous_ times and the onus is on you to find and read archived and other previous discussions.
 * 2) The undue weight on the meaning of "-phobia" has been discussed several times over years of discussions. Again, the onus is on you to find and read.
 * 3) "Semantic" debates on the "-phobia" in "homophobia" have been rehashed here and elsewhere. What's more, it's off-topic here.
 * 4) "Variably include" is comprehensive, i.e. there no need to emphasize or repeat the "-phobia" suffix because "irrational fear", What's more, "-phobia" and its meaning is already explained in the etymology section referring to when the word was coined.
 * I wasn't saying you had to find those discussions for me. I don't feel like sifting through to find them when I don't know where they are. Since you obviously know they exist you would probably know where they are and it would be greatly appreciated if you could link them for me. Otherwise I would just have to take your word for it that this has already been discussed. The definition that you recently took away has been there for months and no one ever objected to it like you just did. Cadiomals (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice on my talk page so that we can keep the discussion in one place. Also, sorry if my being terse came through as anything but informative. As I wrote before, there are _years' worth_ of debates on the topic, so I can't point to anything specific. In fact, it's the most debated topic. I understand the labor involved in reading everything. However, I believe that reading even a fraction of the discussions will give a clear idea. Nonetheless, if you want to develop the past-present change, the etymology section is the best place because that is exactly what etymology is. As to "no one objecting", I'm not a watchdog :-) and Wikipedia has lost slews of contributors who could have caught it. I make periodic, not daily, checks and am glad I read through the lede again, making the correction and thus re-establishing so much time and effort. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Geologic time scale
Hi Cadiomals - in your recent edit to this article you state that periods before the Proterozoic eon are defined by absolute age. Couple of things: i) did you mean '(geologic) time intervals' rather than '(geologic) periods', since there are none, so far as I am aware, defined before the Proterozoic and ii) are not the periods within the Proterozoic defined by absolute time with the exception of the Edicaran. If you agree, might you want to take another look at your wording? thanks Geopersona (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, the word "periods" was already in the lead but I just wanted to clarify it by adding in before the Proterozoic. I realize period can be confusEd so I'll change that to something more general like time spans Cadiomals (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"punctuation rules"
The "rules" you mention are not universal, and more to the point, aren't the ones Wikipedia uses. Please see WP:LQ. 84.203.35.44 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then. What I learned from school, when writing or typing papers, to always put punctuation like periods within the quotation marks. If that's not what Wikipedia does, fine. Cadiomals (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Evolutionary radiation
Your changing of Evolutionary radiation into a redirect to Adaptive radiation should really have been done as a redirect. Not doing it properly has caused me some confusion and wasted time. Next time you want to do something like this, please read Help:Merging first. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused by this sentence: "Your changing of Evolutionary radiation into a redirect to Adaptive radiation should really have been done as a redirect." That sentence doesn't make sense to me. Can you clarify the mistake I made, please? Cadiomals (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as a merge. I have reversed the change: see Talk:Evolutionary_radiation. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I don't really care about this. Cadiomals (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The O.C.
The article The O.C. you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The O.C. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Rawlangs (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:United States
I find some of your recent comments on that page combative and troubling. Maybe you should take a few days off of that page? Given the slow pace of the discussion, decisions won't be made in your absence. You could return to the discussion with a fresh perspective and demeanor. Gamaliel ( talk ) 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Gamaliel, allow me just to take this time to explain my side of the story and my recent behavior to you so I don't look like a complete ass, and I hope you will at least skim it given that it's fairly wordy (Sorry in advance but I'm not good at condensing my thoughts!). I only feel I've held a combative attitude towards Mark Miller while trying my best to be respectful and understanding of the others. First, it started when Mark came in and decided to make sweeping changes to about a half-dozen images, either removing them or replacing them with images of lower quality under the justification that they "lacked relevance". When I asked him to explain exactly how the guidelines supported his own strict rules regarding images, instead of just respectfully explaining he proceeds to tell me I have "no idea" what I'm talking about and that I need to "get my facts straight" when I had just pored over several image guideline pages.


 * As I tried to remain logical he started using immature language and swearing and it spiraled down into increasingly hostile relations between us. I tried my best to be respectful at the start but his increasingly arrogant comments definitely did not help that. I personally believe I am not the only one with attitude issues here, but Mark Miller will try to hide his by sucking up to you and being sycophantic to make the other person look bad. Your timing is good since yesterday I decided I would stop replying to him (and even others) unless I felt it completely necessary and that I would begin to disengage from the discussion and just let the others gather a consensus.


 * In hindsight I know I could have handled many things differently; it is well known that frustration impairs your rationality. I know I have used personal attacks and unlike Mark I don't deny them and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, trying to lecture people about NPA and other guidelines while violating those rules in the same thread (like calling me the most "horrid" editor he has ever met and violating 3RR with another editor). It's the first time I've encountered someone that hypocritical here.


 * Even with my efforts in recent months the article continues to have problems with content in the body. There are a lot of unsourced claims, poorly structured sentences, and unnecessary details. I think the images are the least of our worries considering every single one is relevant and does not violate anything, and that re-assessing them should be the last thing on the to-do list. I was about to set out on cleaning up and finding sources for every single section with the help of others, one section per week which is a large time frame, in my goal of eventually having it submitted for GA review. I am frustrated that Mark has disrupted this by distracting all the editors with so many unnecessary image change proposals at once. People have already expressed their disagreement with removing some images while others are being changed just for the heck of it.


 * I may not take a break from Wikipedia itself but I will definitely take your advice and disengage from that discussion for at least a few days. Maybe I'll disengage from the article altogether, because at this point I am already quite proud of my achievements in greatly improving it over the past months and there are enough good-faith editors there to make sure it doesn't return to its former state. Thank you very much for your concern. Cadiomals (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for a long weekend. Thank you for giving me the background in this matter.  I think what you've chosen to do is a good idea.  The image discussion is ongoing and that's not going to change, but if you feel that Mark Miller has done anything new that you feel is inappropriate, feel free to let me know and I can talk to him if you want to avoid any potentially unpleasant or uncivil interaction.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I would rather just let this blow over as I have ceased virtually all interaction with him. If in the unlikely case trouble arises again I will let you or someone else point him to a different or more common interpretation of the guidelines and remind him not to behave like a holier-than-thou hypocrite. I will return to the US article once it has stabilized again. Thanks again, and BTW I will probably be archiving this in a few days. Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)