User talk:CardinalDan/Archive 3

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page... Cheers!  κaτaʟ aveno TC 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! CardinalDan (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.32.195.246
Technically, no rules are being broken if he blanks the warnings. It's sort of allowed now. Half Shadow  03:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but is there some way I can tell the individual who blanks the talk page that their warnings are still valid?? CardinalDan (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's any real need to; the warnings are still 'there', even if they've been blanked. They still count, they're just not showing anymore. By definition, the fact that they've been blanked means the person who blanked them has read them. Half  Shadow  03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, is it possible that I could write something to the effect that since they blanked their warning, they acknowledge that they know and accept their warning??? CardinalDan (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to, sure, I suppose. Of course there's the fact that, as a random IP, your message may not be going to the same person. Half  Shadow  16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Killed By 9V Batteries
The band is notable among the Austrian scene. Besides I have numerous sources to prove its legitimacy.--SilverOrion (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit fault with that, but if possible, can you expand the article a but? From the way it was written, it seemed like a advertisment about a band. CardinalDan (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for reverting the vandalism that was done to my page. I don't see what these people get out of doing that, but I can tell you its a full time job stopping them! Again, thanks for the help! Canyouhearmenow 12:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. CardinalDan (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Venice Family Clinic
I revised this page to remove what I thought was the only unverifiable or unqualified statement. (This clinic has been regarded as the largest in the country for many years but this depends on how you measure it, I'm sure. It has always measured this in terms of patients and volunteers, but since I don't have a third-party on that and I don't have it qualified as such, I removed it.) Can you review please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsmithvfc (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) --Tsmithvfc (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Thanks!
I just looked at the history of my user page and discovered that a few days ago, someone vandalized it, only to have you come to the rescue moments later. Thank you so much! This was, I guess, the first attack made upon my page, and I really appreciate your removing it. Thanks again! Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem!CardinalDan (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here, thanks. Twice in a row even. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, just removing what the idiots vandals put up. CardinalDan (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Folks like you are the only major reason why I never give up hope on working with others in Wikipedia. ~ Troy (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. CardinalDan (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't belong to you
"Vandalism" doesn't mean "edits that I don't like". Threatening to have someone blocked if they make edits you don't like is in flagrant violation of WP policies.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) It's your opinion that it's not dishonest. And I didn't say that the scouts are dishonest, I said that people are calling them dishonest, a fact for which I provided cites. While I HAVE discussed it on the talk page, you refuse to do so. Instead you are simply demanding that I stop and threatening me with a block if I don't. If you make threats against me again, I will report you.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC) And even if it were a violation of NPOV, your assertion of "vandalism" would still be wildly inappropriate. The WP policy towards POV is to revert, not to accuse editors of vandalism and threaten them with blocks.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I missed the WP policy that says that any time any editor posts cites that are not, in CardinalDan's opinion, valid, that editor can be blocked. And if it truly is your opinion that direct quotes of people saying that the BSA is dishonest does not prove the claim that people have accused the BSA of being dishonest, then your opinion isn't deserving of much regard. Finally, I was not blocked for violating 3RR.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I have reported you on ANI.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But your edit was not neutral. Calling the scouts dishonest would not be considered using a non-neutral point of view.  Therefore, the warning was issued. If you have a problem with the article, then discuss it in the talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "cites", from what I have seen, do not seem valid. Also, it seems that you have been temporarily blocked for violation of 3RR.  If you wish to discuss this more, use the talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Lights - Note on my talk page
The content was split to Christmas lighting technology.. I do NOT remove content without reason :)

Your point about an edit summary stands though, thanks for the heads-up :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry about that. I was wondering why there was content being removed.  I did check the article, and there was nothing stated about stuff being moved, and you have been a well-known editor, so I assumed that someone else had used your account. CardinalDan (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, BTW the intention was to try and reformulate the article a bit, because at present it's very focused on

on particuar form of Festive lighting. The aim was to reformulate such that it dealt with Festive lighting more generally.
 * This way why I had split the technology side, and if you read the contributions you revereted had started to reformat the

article. Any assistance and in particular citations you would be able to provide would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanbks, but I don't come on wiki that often, so I don't know what amount of assistance I could offer. CardinalDan (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio
 Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.

We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!

Delivered by: §hepBot  ( Disable )  03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)