User talk:CardinalDan/Archive 2

Blanking user pages
Wikipedia policy explicitly permits users to blank their own talk pages. There is no requirement to archive. Undoing such blanking is, technically, vandalism. Please don't do it again. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Dear Dan my friend recently made fun of the us mint and i was tring to erase it. I am sorry if it made you mad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwg95 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits?
Which do you mean? Naturezak (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The one to Paducah, Kentucky. CardinalDan (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this, CardinalDan. My computer was unattended and an officemate made this edit as a joke. I'll keep a closer eye on my account from now on.Naturezak (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's OK. I just am strict on vandals. CardinalDan (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

starting a new article
i dont know how to start a new article, some help would be nice :P ARK23 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Did u look ? Keyshia Cole edits
Did u look? U kept reverting. How r my changes vandalisation? I did cleanup, & made the info clearer. The info I added has sources. What is the spam that the bot has a problem with ? 70.108.92.126 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Toni Ann Gisondi
Please have the decency to wait until I actually save a new page before sticking a cleanup tag on it! Talk about jumping the gun - that was ridiculous! --Seahamlass (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page, right now, still needs some work in order to become a good wikipedia article. CardinalDan (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And you point is??? I just STARTED it tonight - I'm NOT a miracle worker! You jumped on it seconds after I started it. That is NOT good Wikipedia practice!--Seahamlass (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its alright, I was having a discussion with Nsevs about deleting nasty articles. These articles cause people to do nasty things. Average Citizen (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
he's gonna hit me! haha. -- Naerii  15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Poá article
I just removed content written in bad english, reverting the article to the most recent decently written version. Saulo Paiva (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies. CardinalDan (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page, and good job with RC patrolling. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide Biggies
The company is definitely notable, and the article should not have been deleted until the legitimacy and authenticity of the claims had been reasonably investigated. (Google - it's so easy!) See the article's talk page for Ghits. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What Vandalism?
You sent me a message saying I was vandalizing? May I see what you thought I did to vandalize? -TheSickBehemoth


 * Can you specify the article or the date I sent the caution? CardinalDan (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin
Please take another look. I think you may have reverted to the vandalized version, in diff. Edison (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I have cautioned the editor you reverted about inflammatory edit summaries, but perhaps we could watch the article for a bit to discourage the vandals who set him off. Thanks and keep up the good work. Edison (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized that, and it was my mistake. Sorry. CardinalDan (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. CardinalDan (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling of "Bete Israel"
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. CardinalDan (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ATTN CardinalDan:

This is a declaration of our exclusive authority and rights over the use and spelling of the name of our religious denomination, Bete Israel, which Wikipedia keeps misspelling. A church denomination or any religious organization has the same "tradename"/"trademark" kind of rights as any other kind of organization would have over its name.

Therefore, as the current head-clergy of Bete Israel, the denomination being discussed, I assert that it to be my right to correct any misspelling of our denomination's name!

Now I want and have tried to move the entire article in question from having the misspelled title "Beta Israel" to the correct spelling "Bete Israel". There is no such thing as "Beta Israel". It is an incorrect spelling of the name of our church denomination.

So if I did as intended in an incorrect manner, then give me all the specifics of the correct way to do so. If you do not like such spelling errors being corrected, then I will deny further permission to use the name of our church denomination, misspelled or otherwise. It is the right of our denomination to dictate the correct way to spell or transliterate the name of our denomination, as well as to permit, restrict, regulate or forbid the use of our denominational name, over which name we assert and reserve all rights, and use of said name by our clergy on Wikipedia is entirely without prejudice to said rights. Now will you contimue to obstruct my spelling correction or will you help me to correct it in the proper manner. That is my question to you.

Teru Minilik, The current rasnebiy of Bete Israel

Quebec
The entire article is a copyright violation and must be blanked and oversighted immediately. MoonGlare (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask, just out of curiosisty, just where is this copyvio? To me, you are just blanking stuff.  If you want to discus it, discuss it on the Talk:Quebec page. CardinalDan (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I am doing. You're the one persistently violating the law.  MoonGlare (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But repeatedly blanking the page is considered vandalism here. Discuss the issue at the talk page before radically changing a page. CardinalDan (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for revert vandalism on my user page. --Aleen f 1 04:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I am glad to help. CardinalDan (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You Beat Me
You narrowly beat me to listing 124.182.136.118 on WP:AIV. Looks like the kid spent all day vandalizing. Glad to see I'm not the only who caught it. Thanks! Fogster (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! CardinalDan (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

belated thank you
Hi, CardinalDan. Thank for the vandalism revert to my user page back on 8 April. I appreciate it. -- Gwguffey (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Happy to be of help. CardinalDan (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's terms,...
Perhaps unintentionally, you have vandalized my post re REUNION.COM.

According to the WIKIPEDIA standards... "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism."

I assert that my post, describing the SPAM GENERATION PRACTICES of REUNION.COM, is factual and is intended in good faith to provide more complete information to wikipedia users re REUNION.COM.

I assert that my assertions are true and can be supported from numerous resources.

I resent your accusation. I insist that my post is obviously NOT vandalism. I believe that it's "non vandalism" status will be evident to any person asked to comment on your mistaken edit. I politely ask you to revert your rediculous edit and to state, by way of explanation in the edit description, that your assertion that I am a vandal is a mistake.

After you have undone your edit I will complete my volunteer task of providing the sources needed to support my citation and to improve the REUNION.COM wiki in general.

Thanks very much. Sheepshear (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) sheepshear
 * Perhaps that is so, but if you are going to present this information, first post it on the talk page first. The way that you posted the information made it seem that you were interested in presenting misinformation into the article. Also, the next time that you post on my talk page, post on the bottom. CardinalDan (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that there was a requirement that I post to a talk page before I make a contribution to the knowledgebase.Is that in the WIKIPEDIA guidelines?I am sorry that I posted at the top of your page. It is the first time that I have been labeled a vandal and the first time that I have felt the need to defend myself like this.  Should I move the post that I put on your page?  Feel free to do so yourself if you wish. Thanks for the response.

Sheepshear (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. You can leave the post here.  I may have been too harsh in putting an vandalism tag.  Good luck in editing Wikipedia. CardinalDan (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
If I give an only warning, don't give a level one warning. Richard001 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but the warning I gave was a level 3. CardinalDan (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I gave a single issue warning accidentally that translated into a L1 warning. My fault. CardinalDan (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points about Hermetism
Firstly, it's not a good idea to describe the edits by an admin as having been vandalism. It isn't a good idea to describe any edits as vandalism unless they're obviously bad-faith.

Secondly, Hall really isn't a reliable source. That's why the stuff was removed.

Okay? DS (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I made a mistake on that. I Apologise. CardinalDan (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed your access to Twinkle for the period of one week, due to the misuse as detailed by DS. Please spend time during the next week familiarising yourself with the applicable policies to reverting vandalism, such as WP:VANDAL. Nick (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was my mistake, but I think a week removal of access is a bit harsh. It was just one mistake I made. Otherwise, I haven't abused Twinkle at all. I think maybe 3 days penalty is more than enough. CardinalDan (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reprotected your monobook for 24 hours. After that time you can put twinkle back in. But please be careful. The "identified as vandalism" bit did not feel nice :) Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I deeply apolgize for that. I was being careless about my RC patrolling.  I think a day penalty is what I deserve for being careless. CardinalDan (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)