User talk:Cander0000

Broadcast XML Nominated for deletion
Broadcast Markup Language has been nominated for deletion by a user who is involved in trying to delete the BeerXML article and is now trawling Wikipedia for other articles to delete because they are losing that debate and feel that if other XML derived standards are deleted it might help them win the argument they are losing. Please challenge its deletion if you feel this is an unnacceptable. Regards Devils In Skirts! (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DBF
STOP removing the external link to FastDBF, an open source, FREE FOR ALL implementation of the DBF specification for .NET. People find it helpful, so why are you being annoying?? I am not pedaling a product here so STOP removing the LINK DAMN IT. Alacevic (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion at Talk:DBase since the request is more related to the article in general, than my particular edits. Cander0000 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. John Reaves 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownship
But, like the person above implied, once you do categorise an article, like you did with Ownship (TYVM!), please remove the categorise tag as it is no longer needed!


 * Will do, guess I missed that oneCander0000 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bag Bong/Bladder
A template has been added to the article Bag Bong/Bladder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Tikiwont 08:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks I hadn't created the article, just categorized it. No opinion on the deletion at this timeCander0000 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MSX-DOS
In my opinion the category "home computer software" is perfectly valid for MSX-DOS. MSX is a home computer. On the category page you will also find other OS's for home computers, such as the Atari, and you will also find the sub-category "MSX GAMES". It would have been better to create the sub category "MSX software", and put the sub category "MSX games" in there, as well as "MSX-DOS", creating a structure just like the one for the Amiga. Mahjongg 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I was trying to gather up some legacy 'operating systems' and group them, regardless of whether they were primarily targeted at home users, business users, etc. I appreciate your suggestion.

Texter
I noticed you edited the Texter article, if you use it you can add User:Jmfangio/Userbox:Texter to your userpage! :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use the Move tab to "rename" articles
Regarding your creation of Creative Science Systems from the content at Creative science systems, and the same with MDX (Computing) (since moved to the better title MDX (file format)) from .MDX, in the future, please use the Move tab to "rename" articles--the content should not be transfered via cut&paste. Using cut&paste separates the content from its edit history, which is a problem with the GFDL license, among other things, which admins then have to clean up. Also, "Computing" should not have been capitalized--you might want to review Naming conventions before you move any more articles. If you ever have questions about what new name would be best for an article, you might want to post the question on the Talk page of the article, or inquire at WP:RM. If you have performed any other similar cut&paste content moves, please report them to the Cut and paste move repair holding pen for repair. Thanks Hellosandimas 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great information! I had read an article describing a process to cut and paste the content, and then put a redirect on the old article name, the 'Move' link is a great idea that should minimize the chance of missing a step.Cander0000 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunopsis
I'm curious about your edit: - what makes you say it's a company "of the united states"? It's really a French company, with all R&D taking place in France. It's owned by Oracle, but does that make it American? Stevage 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The first line of the article reading "Sunopsis is a global company with headquarters in Boston for the United States" is what lead me to that assessment.Cander0000 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you've been misled. The crucial bit there is "for the United States". If a company has a HQ "for the US" in the US, does that make them a US company? No. Stevage 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, the original wording implied the company had 3 headquarters, without clarifying that one was the "U.S. Headquarters", one was the "European Headquarters", etc. I've researched and reworded, I didn't find any clarification as to where their headquarters was in France..  If you have that it would be a nice addition.Cander0000 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

VA Security Breach
Concerning your comment on the United States Department of Veterans Affairs page about the laptop theft, why do you think that it is disproportionately large? It is a recent occurrence, one that could have jeopardized who knows how many veterans. And what kind of jeopardy are we talking about, just compromising credit card records? No, maybe more than that, maybe causing veterans to lose their jobs and residences. That should be avoided.

Now that we're in the electronic age, security breaches can get far worse than just stealing records out of filing cabinets. This one is worthy of comment, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.153.128 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting. Yes, I agree worthy of comment.  In the overall scope of the topic, realize, this recent breach (on a word count basis) exceeds or roughly equals the "History", "Function" and "Organization" sections.  It seems to be given undue weight. Cander0000 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amadeus IT Group logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amadeus IT Group logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CfMC logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CfMC logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GFI Company Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GFI Company Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of ESI GROUP
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on ESI GROUP, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ESI GROUP is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ESI GROUP, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Software engineering category
Please see discussion at Category talk:Software engineering. Thanks tooold 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Edge Beyond Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Edge Beyond Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FIDE World Rankings
What's not English in the article? I have removed the tag, because FIDE is the name of the organisation. It is all English. Alex Holowczak (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My thought to have the organization name "Fédération Internationale des Échecs", translated into English, which upon further examination means "World Chess Federation" in French. Cander0000 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

MscGen
has been categorized Category:Software. Could you please take a look at that category; it's the top of the software tree and not generally used for detail articles. Thanks tooold 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * same comment re SoulPad. Thanks again, tooold 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent catch! I've pushed them down into Category:Programming tools and Category:Mobile software, respectively.  Cander0000 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RoS (computing)
has been categorized Category:Computing. Could you please take a look at that category; it's the top of the computing tree and not generally used for detail articles (there are a couple that DO belong there). Probably should have the same categories as computer cluster. Thanks 69.106.255.221 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Module Vanier Elementary School proposed for deletion
An article that you have been involved in editing, Module Vanier Elementary School, has been proposed for deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigHairRef | Talk 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amadeus IT Group logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Amadeus IT Group logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paramahamsa Hariharananda
An article that you have been involved in editing, Paramahamsa Hariharananda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? – Shannon Rose (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name for iVDR
This product is named iVDR, which is supposed to mean "Information Versatile Disk for Removable usage." You linked to WP:NAME, but why should the article remain at "Information Versatile Disk for Removable" ? —Tokek (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I hate to be pedantic but WP:NAME states:
 * ''Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form.

It appears that iVDR is exclusively known by that name and no other name, so it doesn't even enter the realm of whether or not usage is more common than would be other names. "Information Versatile Disk for Removable usage" appears to be the etymology or meaning behind the name. Elongating the title would be akin to renaming the TRON Project. Dropping of the trailing word "usage" aside.—Tokek (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great examples, all... Since there is currently no known need for disambiguation, both are probably valid.  When speaking or writing about technology, I err on the side of using the full name unless it's really moved from jargon to a common cultural lingo.  For example, you could speak with the common man about DVDs, but not about FVD (hence the former is a direct link, and the latter is a redirect).  Most examples I was able to find are disambiguations of TLAs used in multiple subject areas, so I'm not seeing much precedent one way or the other.  If you're able to find sources, outside of specific industry, that make use of the term, that would probably help you build that case.  Cander0000 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment on the content at Manual of Style (abbreviations) vis-a-vis this topic, but I think it already covered more succinctly my thought process (emphasis mine)
 * In order to determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, consider checking how the subject is referred to in popular media such as newspapers, magazines, and other publications.
 * Good fun! Cander0000 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another point: When the article started off as a single sentence summary by a beginner user, it was clearly created by mistake (the word "usage" was dropped in the title when in fact iVDR should stand for for "Information Versatile Disk for Removable usage"). This was quickly half-remedied within a few minutes with the template, indicating that even the creator of the article saw the need to fix it. While you might be opposed to its official name iVDR as the article title in favor of something more obscure, why revert my edits to a mistakenly worded title? The article title was originally missing the word "usage." —Tokek (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake; regardless of whether to use the acronym, or the full name per Manual of Style (abbreviations), the word 'usage' does not appear to be a necessary part of the title. It appears the latest article revision is OK.  Cander0000 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts. Since you had some involvement with the Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Suntag  ☼  09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

category:pages
I am manually bulding up this category of pages using hotcat. my goal is to build up a list that consume all categorized articles on wikipedia. then i want to feed it to hintssbot and SLMSBot in recursive category mode if and when they get approved. that way ill build up a giant list of pages to do find and replace work. maybe ill add categories only -- that will be more efficient. and what do you mean by infrastructure? Hintss  talk 07:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By infrastructure, just that instead of performing the task by hand, you were putting in place all the pieces to have it accomplished automatically - the list of pages to monitor, the account to run it under. I had wanted to clarify that I didn't think that adding that category:page was the goal in and of itself, but that you were doing so to accomplish something down the road. Cander0000 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks
uh... what should i put on it then Hintss  talk 07:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Franchitti Crash.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Franchitti Crash.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Meaningful Content from HP Pavillion TX1000 Series Tablet PC page
Perhaps the page was not yet developed sufficiently to make clear why it is important to post a summary of diagnoses and repair issues with this (or any) particular series of PC. In my experience, people refer to encyclopedias to learn history and facts, with the best intent to avoid repeating historical mistakes, and improve future decisions and actions. By accumulating a log of this series' widespread failures as well as the PC's features, we can enable both users and HP to learn from what has and is continuing to occur, so that recovery/repairs can be made faster and with less expense, some failures (likely due to overheating) avoided, and future manufacturing improved. Your changes to the page have eliminated everything useful and turned the page into a marketing brochure header/link. Please explain why the original direction of the page was 'unencyclopedic' to the extent that you just wiped it out. 22curious (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop
If you will not desist in removing tagging work from people who are patrolling short pages, you will be blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ? 'short pages'...?  like article stubs (WP:Stub), or something else?  Apologies for any offense.  Please, hopefully you can enlighten me so this does not cause you any further difficulty.  Cander0000 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you've done it again. This is your final warning: This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

Unmarking marked patrolled pages is vandalism. Stop! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tx for commenting... The message seems templated.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  If you can explain further what issue you are speaking of, perhaps we can work together towards a solution.  The only contribution I made to that page was to categorize it once upon a time... and then remove some comments in the article unrelated to the topic (potentially someone testing some markup, etc.)  Good fun! Cander0000 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffs for you to recall: and. Wikipedia editors patrol new changes for vandalism. Some vandalism gets by them. Much ends up in Special:Shortpages which is also patrolled. To mark that something is checked, a long comment is added often with the template longcomment. Your removal of these causes people to look at these again and again, wasting their time. It is a form of vandalism to remove content - even hidden comments and categories and markup langauge - from articles. I hope that this clarifies the matter sufficiently for you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Software
-- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer
Based on the documentation page and my experience with this template, I have answered your question on Template_talk:Dated_maintenance_category. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs
Is up for deletion, please comment in the deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Curriculum vitae
I have started a move discussion about CV, Curriculum vitae and Résumé. You have previously participated in this topic, and I would like your input in this discussion if you are still interested. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ZOLVE.com
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is ZOLVE.com. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/ZOLVE.com. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Toplist
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Toplist. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Toplist. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a 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:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Calmer Waters (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer   Waters  19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

EpiSurveyor
Hi. I'm the director of the EpiSurveyor project. I saw you removed the link from EpiSurveyor because we do not release the website source code. The EpiSurveyor mobile phone clients, though, are fully open-source JavaROSA-compliant programs (for Symbian and for Android). These mobile clients can be used with any xform generator, not just EpiSurveyor, so they stand alone. I didn't want to just undo your undo, but I would like to reinsert my text and state exactly these points, because it seems to me that with clarification the information is appropriate.

I should also note that even the Android operating system doesn't release all of its code (for example for the built in gmail client), but it is generally considered open-source.

Your thoughts?
 * I proposed some guidelines on the talk page for the List of Open Source Healthcare software, and they were expanded upon at the top of the article. It hasn't received extreme amounts of discussion, but consensus seems to be towards limiting that list to software that is clearly open source.  Can you identify a well known open source license under which the EpiSurveyor code is released?  If so, perhaps add it back in.  Better would be to find a third party reference that can vouch for the license being used, or just link to the code itself (i.e. on sourceforge).  If you can influence the EpiSurveyor project, if they would prominently list on their web site what licenses was being used, that make it even more clear where wikipedia or any other reference work should list and categorize the product.  You could also just add an EpiSurveyor article to Category:Health_software if it can't be established that it's open source...  not that it isn't, but just that satisfactory proof can't be located yet.
 * So the Android article is a good analogy- it's categorized under Category:Mobile phone operating systems but not under Category:Free_software_operating_systems. (Interestingly, Category:Mobile open source is present, but categories aren't a true 'type' system, so all that tells me is that Android is topic one would ready about when studying the Mobile open source subject area)  It appears the consensus isn't ready to declare Android 'open source', the comment "released most of the Android code" (emphasis mine) is even present in the intro.Cander0000 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song)
That huge original research plot summary needs sourcing to reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling User:Orangemike, a User who's been here for six years, a vandal, is not on, either. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Regulate (song). Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Must've been a mixup if I gave any offense, or labeled inaccurately. That article has been shifting between extreme ends of discussion of the right mix of synopsis and critical analysis and parties coming in and ripping out mass amounts of content.  Not sure that either perspective is a joke or vandalism.  Will check on the talk page to see how consensus is developing.Cander0000 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * its totally not a joke, its not vandalism, and i support your movement. informative synopsis of hip hop music. sounds like fair play to me.
 * God among wiki men.
 * -E 20:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talk • contribs)

Are you even reading what you're restoring? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the situation described above in this same section, yes.Cander0000 (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't consider that big glob of ridiculousness nonsense? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the synopsis and other analysis in Regulate (song) that has developed over the past few months, I consider it an intentioned approach at expanded coverage of the song beyond what one could discover by simply looking at the cd cover, and some charting information. It probably needs to improve in terms of sourcing, and i think it was tagged for 'original research' - there are probably some portions where authors took a bit of liberty that isn't supported in the song or reliable sources.  My question, does your interest lie in improving the article in question, or in practicing certain argumentative techniques (e.g. Overwhelming exception, Misleading vividness) ?  I predict that any answer you give will bear out your intent. Cander0000 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your restoration of that nonsense, or I'll have to start dispute resolution. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding silly synopsis sections to song articles
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know.  I'm not 100% clear how to verify that this 'block' is legitimate, because your message doesn't give me anything to trace to, or provide any specifics on how to respond.  Either way, I do agree with the policies you reference.  The only thing that clues me in is the subjective "silly..song" in the section title, which almost makes me suspicious this is related to another editor that was blanking content in an song article with similar claims.  If it is legitimate, and/or you need any response from, please let me know. Cander0000 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd block for same thing
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know "Ohnoitsjamie". I have to admit I'm very suspicious of your interest and credibility in your actions.  You were one of the people advocating for removing content from the article you appear to be offended about... AND... are rendering administrative decisions.  I would recommend you leave that to a neutral, objective third party if you have an active interest in the topic.  Whether or not you have that level of authority, you would appear more credible to others if you recused yourself from topics you had argued passionately about on one side or the other.  I regret the article couldn't come to consensus as a result of some level-headed discussion.  Can't say i'm seeing a way to rationally converse with the deletionists there jumping in and out, basically saying "i find it funny - delete it".Cander0000 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so we are 100% clear on this; add the material again, and the next block will be for a month. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't reviewed it recently, check out the essay MASTADONS. Take a deep breath.  Your responses are what I am referring to when i pointed out that level-headed discussion is lacking.  I understand the tactic of being immediately grandiose to make the point, but I presume, like me, you really don't have anything significant to 'win or lose' by the article being presented one way of the other.  See below, an third party, objective editor with administrator privleges weighed in who hadn't been actively discussing the topic in question.  Good luck to you in the future.Cander0000 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

) I'm disappointed that you wasted my time reviewing this request; you must have known before you requested the review that you were acting inappropriately. Please be aware that, when users waste admin time on unnecessary unblock requests, their talk pages are sometimes disabled. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the process is that assigns out unblock requests, but my presumption is that you are voluntarily performing the task. Please don't see it as a waste of time, but as part of the process of reconciling different views on what wikipedia should be.  I'm not offended by the block above, but I will continue to call out that it should not be given a high level of credibility because it was initiated by an edited that had argued pasionately for one point of view on a single article, then apparently used 'administrative' privileges to self-adjudicate the issue, placing a "block" on at least me - if not others, I don't know - who had proposed a different point of view or at least proposed the area of disagreement be discussed using Wikipedia's talk page to reach some level of consensus.  The consensus was not clear that a wikipedia policy supported editors of any access level, subjectively finding things 'funny' or 'humoruous' as a basis for exclusion from the encyclopedia.  I appreciate your time as an objective party reviewing the block and making a determination.  I fully accept the determination you've made and do want to be constructive and avoid any conflicts with nonconstructive editors in the future.  Would you say that request to unblock from a block placed by an editor with 'administrator' priveleges that had a conflict of interest in the issue would considered in the future as evidence of a systemic "waste [of] admin time on unnecessary unblock request"? Cander0000 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Line of succession to the British throne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not clear of which you speak, my only recent edits to that were and .  Both had comments in the edit summary and some related discussion on the the talk page.  ??  Cander0000 (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regulator Synopsis
You synopsis made it into a reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/g4yrz/rip_nate_dogg/c1kxxd6

I thought it was hilarious. Rayne117 (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear, i thought it was true to the song and probably would have been informational to many as there is a probably a bump in attention due to Nate Dogg's recent passing. Unfortunately, various "admins" on wikipedia will play prosecutor, judge, juror, baliff and executioner/deletioner of that kind of content without your view being considered.  Glad it added something for you upon the aforementioned difficult news.Cander0000 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Conner biographical page
Cander0000 I am fairly new to wiki but have been trying hard to play by the generally accepted rules. Can you clarify for me why you feel the resume tag is appropriate for Mr Conner's page. I have some ideas of modifications that may help but want to know your reasoning before i go making changes blindly and possibly doing more harm than good. thanks for the help DallasSecurity (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)DallasSecurity
 * Great question. It looks like most of your contributions have been around Bill Conner or a related company, so i might suggest branching out to contributing to other biographies, you might get a feel for the ebb and flow of preferred style.  For better or worse, it looks like another editor has already taken a fairly blunt knife to the article, eliminating a lot of the 'list o' accomplishments' type stuff.  I just know a lot of those lists - co-chaired *, member of *, helped *, etc. that stuff you can find on the individuals facebook profile, or on their corporate web site.  I look more for 'what' was the impact of those events, 'how' was the individual involved and critical to the organization.  Good luck!Cander0000 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cander. i will try to make it more of a "story" lke a real bio less listy. I will branch out also. DallasSecurity (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Kluger Agency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Kluger Agency 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 Articles for deletion/The Kluger Agency 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 template from the top of the article. Monty 845  18:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback for Help:Cite errors/Cite error references missing group
You left feedback at Help:Cite errors/Cite error references missing group. Can I help you? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * you know, i kind of figured out the root cause... the reference has to be used in the article, to be valid in a list-defined reference.  I guess I get it, but ideally the error message would make it clearer.  For example, something like "This reference will not be valid until it is used in at least one "ref" within the article text" Good luckCander0000 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Accero


The article Accero has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article does not demonstrate that this company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 04:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582784012 your edit] to The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is 10600 acre acres in size. The facility hosted the  2013 National Scout Jamboree.

Category:Financial journals
Category:Financial journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Flashlink
Template:Flashlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sealock Security Systems


The article Sealock Security Systems has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:CORP

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vrac (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance collaboration of the week
Hello! I'm interested in reviving the Maintenance collaboration of the week and noticed that you're a member of the Uncategorized Task Force, which does similar tasks. Would you be interested in helping to restart the Maintenance collaboration of the week up again? Chickadee46 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Seal-Lock


The article Seal-Lock has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced for a decade and no assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wish
Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. 123.31.43.63 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I'll be of much help here, badminton is not in my area of expertise.  At a glance, the article would benefit from summarizing and limiting the 'year-by-year' tournament activity listings.  Good luck. Cander0000 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Software companies of North Korea


A tag has been placed on Category:Software companies of North Korea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Operation Kids


The article Operation Kids has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:NORG and unable to find sources with independent in-depth coverage about the organization, only a standard description."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Cander0000! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sealock


The article Sealock has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability about the name or family, fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, sourced only to Ancestry.com and family history books, i.e. unreliable sources and stuff that doesn't show notability, no outside sources found that indicate notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)