User talk:CardinalDan/Archive 7

Uncited information on bidding fee auctions article
I am quite new to wikipedia, but I am somewhat confused as to your rollback of my edit. While I do understand that the information I posted was uncited, it is a lot more neutral than the heavily biased current content of the article. I merely tried to add some balanced material for consideration. In fact, the article was reverted so quickly, that I have reason to believe you did not even read the contents.

I would ask you to at least read the contents of an edit before making a snap (or perhaps completely automated) judgement on an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.1.125 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding perceived vandalism on article "sponge" from ip address 193.60.95.72
Hello,

What you perceived as vandalism to the article was my unsuccessful attempt at removing already existing vandalism, which apparently reverted to some previous vandalized version of it. Sorry about this. This is a public university ip so I would appreciate if you could remove the warning message (blacklisting?).

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.95.72 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I read it, and your edit had a POV slant to it, almost like a personal essay, which is not allowed here. If you can, try rewriting it in such a way that it does not have such a POV. Also, place new comments on the bottom. CardinalDan (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking the truth about fraud is not "vandalism"
I cannot understand how inserting into an article a DESCRIPTIVE account of a CLEARLY fraudulent practice by a company described in Wikipedia is "vandalism." Please explain why you are reverting my revisions when my revisions are designed merely to more clearly spell out what "Tagged.com" has been accused of. As a recent victim of their "business practices" I know exactly what happened to my email accountt and that of a friend of mine who never accepted any agreement to have our privacy or computer's security compromised. This is NOT under any remotely reasonable construction a gray area. Thank you for responding to this query. Prestolocution (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

how do you consider contributions valdalism???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letmroll (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your additions to the article are uncited, and seem a lot like vandalism. Wikipedia requires all information to be cited to reliable sources. Please stop inserting information that does not meet those requirements, or you risk being blocked CardinalDan (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

this is fact not vadalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letmroll (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but with no valid citation, it is vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Hi Cardinal Dan...

I see that you have put a proposed deletion notice on my newly created entry. I intend over the next couple of days to dramatically improve the quality and content of the page so I request that you wait the full seven days before deciding whether to delete the entry. Will this be a problem?

Kind regards

(James Bates, Communications & Marketing Manager (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Vandalism?
hello Headhold contacted me asking me for help on his reverted edits. I am curious as to why you accused him of vandalism, as he made the edit in good faith. Also, I'm not sure of this since I am a reletively new user myself; but for an edit like that shuold you put or revert it and ask them to retrieve a resourse (which you did In this case)? Because I came across an edit which seemed valid but had no citation so I used, which I would have used in this case Thank you, Marx01 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a test
I wasn't testing anything. I was adding information about the mathematical methods of super calculus because it wasn't already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhold (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the information. I told you I was not testing. I was adding information.

Why is adding information about super calculus vandalism? I haven't made any damage to the page I just added some missing information.
 * Like I said before on your talk page, where is the reference? A google search yielded nothing, so I am inclined to beleive that you are adding fake material to the page. CardinalDan (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference was what I added to the page, don't be so silly. If a google search gave you nothing your internet might be broken. It is a variant of calculus. Are you going to delete algebra for being a variant of mathematics. No, i didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhold (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on you. If you are going to add material to a page here, you have to find an external valid reference to confirm it.  Adding material here does not constitute it as a reference. And your analogy is flawed, since, there is multiple external valid references for algebra and mathematics.  CardinalDan (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

that is probably because algebra and mathematics have been on Wikipedia for a long time. it would be hard to find information on super calculus because nobody has added it to wikipedia yet.


 * Well, in your case, discuss it in the talk page first. I cannot find any information on it.CardinalDan (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

that might be because you are not trying you are just deleting information from Wikipedia

i don't understand this you are confusing me so can i add the information back on? i told marx01 i hope they can explain better than you did

about article developed country
u r editing without discussing with other people. if u want to edit u must first ask other people's opinion in discussion page. that is why wikipedia provides us with discussion page. do u think wikipedia just made that to chat with each other??? come to discussion page and pursuade other people why ur edition is more accurate than previous version. the previous version, we went through many discussions and took long time to reach the consensus. if u want to chage it u should give us proper reasons.Hawkchoi (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IP Talk page blanking
Hi; consensus at WP:ANI/WP:AN is that IP users are allowed to blank their Talk pages, except for removal of maintenance & block notices- it's taken as acknowledgement that the notices have been read. It's also set out at WP:DRC. Cheers. Rodhull andemu  17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does whois tags stay on? I was under the assumption that whois tags must stay on a talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mushraff
The edits I had done were find, I think propaganda has no place in the article. The edits made by Dan something are not right,


 * The tone of your recent edits to the article reflects a non NPOV; that is why it was reverted. CardinalDan (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok than take out the commentary the rest are facts. Maybe you should read up on Pakistan and what has happened. He was a dictator, he fired the judges, and appointed his own, now the real courts are back by the force of the people. So these are facts, dont edit my edits. I have been edititng for years and dont appreciate this.


 * Then discuss it in the talk page first. The facts that you added have not been referenced, and as it stands, are not NPOV.  Add references to the information you put in that are valid first. CardinalDan (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I did put them up on discussion, besides you no one even responds. Why dont you just look up Pakitan Supreme Court and check the facts. My facts are correct and I will put the citations


 * Calling an editor "a puppet of the dictator" does not count as productive discussion; you have to find valid sources before adding it to the article. CardinalDan (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Son of God
Why did you revert me edits on Son of God? The text made false statements about the Jews and I provided a link showing such --AlwaysJewish (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an absurd excuse it was not a major change it made claims about the Jews which were false --AlwaysJewish (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which edit are you talking about? CardinalDan (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When you reverted me on Son of God, the article before I fixed implied Jews associate psalm 2 with the messiah I removed that part and provided a link in my edit summary to a Jewish commentary to psalm 2 which does not associate it with the messiah at all --AlwaysJewish (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thirteenth
Since other scholars define a thirteenth chord as a 7th chord with a 13th added to it (without specifying the 9th and/or the 11th), I see no reason for your revert. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Baltimore School of Law
Please read the comments before you restore information and say that there were no comments. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.105.247 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really
Oh, you're not even an sysop. Enough of the vandalism talk. I vandalized a couple articles and now I'm having a civil conversation. Really, just looking at all the messages you have on your page, it seems you don't assume good faith as we're supposed to and quickly jump quickly to the conclusion that others are vandalizing. 70.160.217.28 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your earlier actions do not indicate that you are willing to engage in good faith edits; that is why you received your warnings. For that you were warned.  CardinalDan (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So I am forever tainted with my page blanking? I cannot even have my actions looked upon as good because I've twice vandalized? So far the majority of my edits have been good, constructive edits informing you about one of the best guidelines on Wikipedia. 70.160.217.28 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You got warned, not blocked. A block would be a taint on your actions, if you heeded the warnings, then that's good, forget about it!  Just don't do it again.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Making baseless accusations do not give a good impression to editors. Also, your first few edits that you made made you look like a vandal.  If you can make an effort to make good edits to different articles (not talk pages), then it may be different.  Like Kraftos said, I gave you warnings, heed them. CardinalDan (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Martha, Asfixiante
Howdy, do you know if this article has already been transwikied? I was not able to find it on the Spanish Wikipedia (ie Martha, Asfixiante). Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it looks like it was already deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia. Sorry for the trouble.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Michels syndrome
Hi, I just wanna consult you about the tags you added to the article, can you be more specific about the wikify tag, the lead tag, and the cleanup tag, and especially the clean up tag, what clean up you recommend, thank you M aen K. A.  Talk  17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the wikify tag, there are some red links that I think can be fixed or lead to the proper article. For the lead tag, I think you can better describe the disease, instead of covering the symptoms.  For the cleanup, I believe you can better section the article.  Hope that explains the tags.  If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. CardinalDan (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First as you can see here that the word syndrome refers to the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs, and symptoms. so when mentioning these I am actually describing the symptom, and about the red links, these link to articles that are still missing from the wikipedia, and what sections you would recommend for 3 lines article??, thank you for your time M aen K. A.  Talk  09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning?
I just got a warning from you talking about how I vandalized the Skin wiki page. Not under this name but my IP. I've never edited a single page here on Wikipedia. What's even weirder is that the message dates back to March 2008 but I didn't get it until now.

Cometoguy (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Chad Kroeger
Why did you revert my edit on Chad Kroeger? I have reviewed the term vandalism, and it does not seem to constitute itself as such:

"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 vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism;..."

The following addition was as such:

Chad was rated number six in a list of "The 100 Unsexiest Men in the World" by the Boston Phoenix.

Although it is critical of the subject in question, it is well documented and not a personal attack. It is simply fact.

I look forward to your reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgy.x (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. It's not vandalism.  At the same time, I don't know if it is a notable enough fact to be added into the article. CardinalDan (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Krackenhunter is going to get deleted anyway.
Let him have his hangon, for what little good it will do. Half Shadow  03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

False warning
You warned me about uploading pictures. Please note that I did not upload any pictures. Also please note that unproper accusations of "vandalism" are not civil and violate wikipedia core policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopoh (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandal at Chronicles of Narnia
Hi CardinalDan: I hope you don't mind that I went straight to a 4im warning. I did so after looking at the talk history for this IP. It has obviously been involved in several vandalism related events before, and is quite obviously a vandalism only ip...I realize its a drastic step, but figured it was reasonable under the circumstances. Frmatt (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; if that is so, then it is a reasonable step-up warning. CardinalDan (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, wha?
Could you please explain this? -- Banj e b oi   06:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I must have clicked on the wrong link. CardinalDan (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was hoping it was just a whoops. Cheers! -- Banj e  b oi   06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:24.16.50.9, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick question then, does the IP header templates include whois tags? CardinalDan (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another note: take care not to welcome-template users with three year old accounts who vandalise  like . His antisemitic edit warring on The Protocols should have been given a more severe warning.  Auntie E.  16:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the welcome template was already there (3 years ago) before I added my warning. CardinalDan (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Porus
Dear friend, you refered to my edit on the page Porus, you might be able to help us there, this one specific person has done pure research to claim that Porus was a Saini, the page claims Rajput status to Sainis who are known to be a very low caste in India. If you go through the article, the Porus claim more specificaly, it is pure research work, he's reached a conclusion from a number of different facts, my only argument is that until unless he provides a reference that says "Porus was a Saini", he must not post his original research work everyhwere. Sir please help us avoid such original research work from the encylopedia. i'd be really greatful to you. Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not really an expert in that field. The reason that I reverted your edit was that you deleted a section without giving a valid explanation in your edit summary.  Inspection of the related talk page also revealed that there was no reason to delete the section.  You have to give a valid reason for deleting a section of an article. CardinalDan (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir, since there is no editor monitoring it, i'd be obliged if you read my latest post here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini#Porus.27s_mention_restored_to_the_article_after_many_months_of_investigation and go through this subheading, it will become clear to you as well. Thanks a ton Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: MV Mill Bay
Hi CardinalDan! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on MV Mill Bay- because: there is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Guitar hero article
Hello, just messing around with the editing stuff i learned. Sorry i made you mad. I understand that you don't find it that important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gir4ever (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gir4ever wants 2 edit
I'm new here (so beware) JK, I won't cause havoc. I just want to edit stuff for the BETTERMENT OF MANKIND! So if you find anything worth editing that you are to busy to work on, just give me a "call". I'd like to hear back from a "veteran" like yourself! Gir4ever (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You beat me
You beat me to making this request. Thanks for the request. When I saw them attacks, I thought that I needed to make the request, but I certainly wasn't the only one to think that protection was needed. One edit was enough for me to think so. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Non Canon Movie sequels
My intentions are good. In an act of all respect, I just started a new non-canon page, and I only want the list of "Non-canon movie sequels", for the new article. I apologize if the deletion was uncivilzed. (LonerXL (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
 * It's OK, but you have to explain the reason for the deletion; otherwise, it may be interpreted as vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome
Thanks, CardinalDan, for your welcome. Sorry about adding matter about Free the Robots too quickly. Still trying to find my way. I added my name to the Philosophy & Aesthetics task forces, and a notice on a page that is within their scope. Don't know exactly how to contact anyone about it. B.K.S.J. (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK. Probably the best way to contact someone is to use their talk page.  CardinalDan (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD of HHI
I know where to go to discuss Afd, but I don't know the process for discussing CSD. The author of the HHI article came to the help desk for help, but I don't think the article can be saved. It is a simple copy and paste of part of page 24 of this book-- SPhilbrick  T  23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

High five
Quick Question: I am seeing re-edits appear around the use of 3 or 4 fingers, for this article about the "high five" -- is there a practice in common usage that would indicate that people are using 4 fingers, and calling it a "high four"? If not, should these statements appear in the article --

Also, since the high five article is primarily an article authored in large part by myself, I'm not sure I understand your message about vandalism -- can you help explaining this please --Nobaddude (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Regards -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobaddude (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for this. I dunno what a syncrogryph is, but it sounds very bad. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, please stop!
I was working on the Edward Carnby page when it got reverted. The article is about a video game character FEW people care about. It was already "too long did not bother to read" so I was shortening it to make it look more like a Wikipedia page should.

It even says near the top that it needed verified citations and a clean up. Now do you see why no one bothers to add to Wikipedia? They know their hard work will just be reverted.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, I started up that page a few years ago. I know that it ain't my property, but still. It is annoying when it keeps getting reverted. 45g (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should have explained your edits in the edit summary, since at first glance, you were removing material without any explanation. CardinalDan (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mv-22's edit at Doctor of Laws
Hi CardinalDan,

Mv-22's edit was not vandalism. This is a content dispute. I expect you were misled because he (or she) apparently accidentally signed the change. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. AS long as he/she doesn't do it again. CardinalDan (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you taking a position in the content dispute, or just talking about the signature? --Trovatore (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The signature? As for the content dispute, I'll stay neutral. CardinalDan (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad reversion
The statement that you reverted as "vandalism" on the Glen Beck page is absolutely true, verifyable, and supported by a citation. Could you please give a justification for your reversion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvdm (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that the information that you posted was libelous in nature, as well as the source you put in was false and unreachable, the warning was justified. CardinalDan (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The information that I posted is in no way libelous. Please do me the courtesy of reading the statment I added carefuly, word for word and then reading up on the definition of Libel before you revert my next edit again. Also, the source that I posted IS reachable.  I would like to resolve this issue amicably and not get into a 3RR here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvdm (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that according to the talk page, the information that you posted was satire instead of actual information and your comments on your talk that attacked other editors, I have a very hard time believing you. CardinalDan (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You're welcome. :) It's a pity I don't fight vandalism much anymore; I honestly wouldn't have caught the vandalism on your talk if not for the UAA report on the vandal. Cheers,  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 12:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Provide Proper References on Datil Pepper Page
You have edited the page on Datil Peppers to suggest that the pepper was introduced to St. Augustine by a jelly maker in the 1880s. However, you have failed to provide any evidence in support of this claim (the reference provided says nothing about this.) It is widely agreed that the peppers were introduced either when the Minorcans arrived or sometime very soon thereafter. Until you can provide reputable references in support of your claim, please do not edit the page. Thanks,

(163.118.158.235 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, pressed the revert button by accident. CardinalDan (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Language
Hi - just wondering - do you normally have success with A1 for foreign language articles? I feel like in the past I've been reprimanded for something like "the context is clear, just in another language". In any case, it's also a copyvio so we'll get it either way - just wondering your thoughts. Thanks. 7 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I just noticed from reading the article (I have a rough understanding of Chinese) that it is also a advertising blurb. I guess I acidentally put in the A1 instead of the G11 button.  CardinalDan (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it - thanks. 7  02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BMW article.
Thanks for the input on the article in question, I don't agree with you, but that is no reason for me not to say thanks. The reason I have reverted the article is that the arguments given are along the lines of "I don't agree" without any clearer reasons given, there have been no replies to the talk page topic in 2 weeks and no one has shown any relevance.

A shareholder who died a long time ago used to work with the Nazis, this does not seem that unusual given Germany's past.

I would be more interested in the actions of BMW in WW2, than those of a previous shareholder who has his past documented on his own article.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The reason I felt it had to be reverted was that it had to be discussed first in the talk page.  Also, although you say that the shareholder part and his role in both the company and with the Nazis are relevant to BMW's history, although you do bring up some good points.  Perhaps, as a compromise, if no one does bring up any objections, you perhaps can trim it down, but not delete it entirely, such as making note of it but not putting too much emphasis on it. CardinalDan (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just get worried when I see this type of stuff on a German article, it is too easy to get emotional over any Nazi connection - I am interested in what is said on the talk page and I see no harm in waiting. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting the vandalism to my page.-- SKATER  Speak. 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. CardinalDan (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Content deletion
I didn't delete any content or template I just put my argument in the talk page. why did you delete it? Did you even read what I wrote?


 * You removed the rest of the talk page, that's why you got the warning. And no, yeasts are fungi, not animals. CardinalDan (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion declined - clearly fails criterion
I declined your nomination for speedy deletion of Maryamaweet. The article obviously fails WP:A1: Context is clearly provided by the first sentence. &mdash; Sebastian 07:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Varkeys
Hi there, this is a supermarket with over a dozen outlets in and around Kerala, India, and thus is probably one of the half dozen or so notable such markets in India. A few quick Google searches reveals lots of Ghits, although I have only added one so far as many of those are less than reliable. I'll continue to work on in for a few days. I'll appreciate a few days before listing it for deletion. Obviously, I have no COI. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cookie


Kingpin13 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for helping to deal with the WoW/alternative just then :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, looks like you got all the one's in this incident on that page, although I've seen socks of this user before. Dunno if CU/rangeblock will do any good, but might as well find out :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, it'll work. CardinalDan (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion removal
Hi. I removed your CSD tag from V The Hedgehog since the article's about a fictional character and not a real person. I know it says she's "also a creator of videos on Youtube" which suggests that the name's being used as an alias by an actual person, but I think the main topic of the article is the alias/character itself and so A7 doesn't apply. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, May I know on what grounds is my article up for deletion? The wikipedia help lists a long list, but I'd like to correct what I've done wrong so that my article gets listed. JomSocial - Online Social Networking Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel seaeyez (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What did i do wrong?
well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamvan123 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

your removal of United States Senate testimony on water fluoridation
Hello,

Video of Dr. J. William Hirzy speaking before the United States Senate on water fluoridation is most certainly relevant information for a Wikipedia article on "Water fluoridation".

It is most certainly not "vandalism", as you say.

Please inform me in more detail what issue you have with this link, and why you would be permitted to remove it from public view on Wikipedia:

Intelligent Anti-Fluoride Statement - Dr. J. William Hirzy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.18 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

THe link you provided is not conducive to the article, that is why it was removed. CardinalDan (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

24.233.182.18 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Please explain why a doctor's testimony on water fluoridation before the US Senate is somehow "not conducive" to an article on water fluoridation.24.233.182.18 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you on a pulpit, sir?
Please explain why an EPA Senior Vice President's testimony on water fluoridation before the US Senate is somehow "not conducive" to an article on water fluoridation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.18 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not conducive to the article, since it adds nothing to it. CardinalDan (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please could you outline what's wrong with my new article? Cheers.
In all seriousness, what is the flaw in my article?

Thanks for your time, mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromwell526 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The major problem I see is that what you are talking about is not really notable or relevant in terms of Wikipedia, nor is it very informative. To me, it seems that it is more of a humorous nugget, not really anything that can be made into an article. It probably is better suited for a user subpage, not an actual article. CardinalDan (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

March 14 alleged vandalism
My updates were not vandalism. Please indicate why you feel they were. Shoebucket (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTABILITY. CardinalDan (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a Wiki page need be created before the addition is made to March 14? I still do not see how this in any way constitutes as WP:VANDALISM, as no deliberate attempt was made to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".  My edit included a reference to a pop culture observance of March 14. Shoebucket (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that all you were doing was adding an event that is non-notable, as well as one considered as a joke, I think I am justified in reverting your edits. Making baseless accusations also does not reflect well on you. CardinalDan (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask again to please indicate how it is non-notable. It is a valid reference to a pop culture observance.  Shoebucket (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see, no significant 3rd party coverage, no reliable sources given, no independent sources given, and no verifiable evidence given. One website given (a joke one at that) does not presume notability. CardinalDan (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

bias?
Please explain why an EPA Senior Vice President's testimony on water fluoridation before the US Senate is somehow "not conducive" to an article on water fluoridation.

here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM

You stated above that Environmental Protection Agency Senior Vice President Dr. J. William Hirzy's testimony before the United States Senate on water fluoridation "adds nothing" to a Wikipedia article on the very same subject. This is a appears to be a nonsensical statement.

Please explain. It appears you are using your position as an editor to promote personal views.

Is there someone else I should be speaking to?

for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.18 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article in question is about water fluoridation, and the video in question is anti-fluoridation (which is clearly not NPOV), this should be under Criticisms of water fluoridation. CardinalDan (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Innovation
Hi, I have tried to rewrite the portion on reverse innovation w/o copying it from the blog www.vijaygovindarajan.com. I believe this is a critical new concept in strategic management and innovation, and would appreciate help for anyone on how to write this in a better and more informative way. I'm sorry I deleted the section at the top that was a message to me. I hope you can help me create a decent entry base don the articles I reference. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiansarkar (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn!
You beat me rolling back that Alan Grayson vandal!! haha Good job! A8UDI talk  06:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so harsh?
I will ask again. Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith and not to bite the newcomers. By threatening repeatedly to have me banned, I do not feel your actions consistent with these policies. For you to assume that I have not acted in good faith is rather presumptuous, but I suppose in your mind, a lowly contributor with a mere 4 edits can't possibly have anything to contribute here. I see now that Wikipedia is nothing but an elitist club, a playground for people who think like you. There are all these supposed "policies" here but I see many editors are not becoming of these. 174.21.0.5 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering your actions, especially on the Joe Lieberman article, and the attack that you placed on my talk page, I must assume that you are a vandal. Now, if you would start constructive edits, then I may change my opinion. CardinalDan (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you knew Joe Lieberman you would know that my edit was entirely factual and that I acted with good faith. 174.21.0.5 (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A violation of BLP is not factual. CardinalDan (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim: For something to be factual, it must not violate BLP.


 * Quote from BLP page:


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability
 * No original research


 * To disprove your statement, we must only conjure up a true statement that is one of the following:
 * Non-neutral -- the truth has a known bias.
 * Not verifiable -- see also Goedel's theorem.
 * Original research -- so if I research something on my own, it's not factual? I'd better start researching gravity so maybe I can fly.


 * We all know a vast majority of truths fit in to one or more of these categories. Of course, if something does not fit your convenient view of the world, you will threaten to have the user that proposed it be banned. 174.21.0.5 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering your edits, you have violated BLP by making a malicious redirect and adding a blog link as a reference (which is not allowed in most circumstances). CardinalDan (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blog link in question has a video of the subject backing up my claims. Oh, let me guess, you didn't bother to view the citation...  174.21.0.5 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I already looked. Removed since it was from a blog (for the most part, blogs are not allowed as references), and the link was clearly not NPOV, since it clearly is an attack. CardinalDan (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Not needed. I was def vandalizing, I was just having some fun with Durova. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How to use an ipod
I have declined the speedy deletion at How to use an ipod because the article provide sufficient context to identify its subject. However, I have replaced the db tag with a prod tag, because the article clearly violates WP:NOTGUIDE. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. CardinalDan (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Ray
I'm new to Wikipedia. I made an edit on the Cosmic Ray page. I looked at the history today and saw these new entries (including my entry):

(cur) (prev) 06:30, 29 October 2009 CardinalDan (talk | contribs) m (38,650 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 117.204.89.40 identified as vandalism to last revision by JosephMonroe. using TW) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:30, 29 October 2009 117.204.89.40 (talk) (38,665 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible test edits) (cur) (prev) 05:03, 29 October 2009 JosephMonroe (talk | contribs) (38,650 bytes) (undo)

Can you tell me what's going on? Is someone stating that I am vandalizing the page? I'm not following it. The reason I inserted a "citation needed" is explained on my talk page. That statement of about the "cosmic ray being a misnomer" cites a page in an academic press book. When I searched that book there is no such mention defining that cosmic ray is a misnomer. Not anywhere in its 133 pages.

I became alerted to this fact, as well as concerned, because I searched the exact phrase and found the false citation used in over 1000 websites. They are using what they found in Wikipedia, a statement that cites a non-existent definition.

I'd like to know how to contact the individual that entered that citation and ask them to re-verify the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephMonroe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you didn't vandalize the page, it was the individual after you who did and his edit was the one that I reverted. You didn't do anything wrong.  As for your question, do you have a references that would confirm what you are saying? CardinalDan (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

When I searched for the definition of cosmic ray and cosmic particle, I found numerous exact quotes of: “The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.”

The source of that “misnomer” quote, is cited as reference as 1.^ National Research Council (2008). Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration. National Academies Press. p. 21 ISBN 030911380

I located the entire text on the National Academic Press website. I downloaded the entire book, in PDF document of 133 pages, “Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration.”

I looked at page 21 and there is not a phrase about “term cosmic ray is a misnomer.” In fact in the entire document there is no such  mention of that nor the word “misnomer” anywhere. This document even has a glossary and they don’t list a definition for cosmic ray..

There are at least 457 websites that use this exact phrase (“The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.”) quoting something regarding the definition of cosmic rays. Many of the websites are academic, science websites and others one would typically hold in high esteem. Many reference back to Wikipedia. So unless I missed something, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of websites, blogs and PDF documents using the unsubstantiated source in Wikipedia.

That statement simply does not exist in the cited text. But, I didn’t feel comfortable enough to remove the statement. I’d prefer to locate the individual who inserted it and question his/her source. Although I looked at the subject source myself and didn’t find it, I am for now giving them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the statement is valid but the source cited was an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephMonroe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such quote or resemblence to that statement in that text on page 21 or anywhere in the document; "Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration" http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12045.html JosephMonroe (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New to Wiki
Hello,

I am writting a page for a nonprofit organization. The title of the page is Wine to Water. I am new to wiki and want to make sure I follow all the rules and dont offend anyone, but I am new so am unfamiliar with all the rules. can you please help me. I noticed the page I am working on was taged with a few things but am not sure how to fix them.

Wine to water has recieved a great deal of attention in the local, national and international media. This is due to its recent large expansion and the president of the organization being a CNN top ten hero. If you can offer any guidance or if you see me doing something wrong please advice me on my mistakes. thank you for any help.

--ubie

--Ubie (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Russ Bray
The Russ Bray article is limited and of little information. Why is it unbeneficial to have a link to an expansive interview with this individual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.165.107 (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was? Sorry about that. CardinalDan (talk)

My talk page
Hi, I saw you reverted some stuff on my talk page. I have no idea why this person is removing everything and why I'm the only page they're even doing it to. Very odd indeed. Thanks though. DX927 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you anger a vandal recently? That's my guess. CardinalDan (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No clue. I'm a moderator at a forum. So that was my first thought (someone from there who got banned) but the IP didn't match anyone. I'll just keep my eyes open. DX927 (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you keep getting harassed by the same vandal, then you can make a report for RPP or request a checkuser if multiple IPs vandalize you talkpage at the same time. Otherwise, just stay on watch, and get the occasional laugh at their attempts. CardinalDan (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've figured out who is doing it. Someone has been constantly removing content from Warped Tour 2009 for no reason more than they dislike one of the bands listed. They got a temp ban for vandalism right before this started. The IP came off the ban, the vandalism continued and my talk page was hit again. I'm convinced this person is either using different computers or just having friends try to screw with me now. DX927 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you feel that you are getting harassed by one IP address, then you should report him/her to AIV. If it is multiple IPs/named users, and they are using similar patterns of vandalism/harassment in the same articles/talk pages, then you might think about opening up a sockpuppet investigation. CardinalDan (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ron Harper
Dude, you have to admit, Ron Harper did not like being a Clipper. He does have a stuttering problem, though he has fought hard to work through it. I have met him before and he couldn't be nicer, really a cool guy. But you have to admit being drafted by the Clippers would make many people sick. Just tell me there is a chance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.53.134 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Clippers for the most part suck. But, unless you can find a certifiable source for your piece of information, it has to be viewed as vandalism. Come on, being a Clipper can't drive someone that bad. CardinalDan (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha Ha, ok fair enough. I suppose it may not be medically documented. But if Blake Griffin starts to have issues, you heard it here first. I will work on that source, keep up the good work Mr. Dan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.53.134 (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll see. Let's just say, at least they get paid to play a game, probably a lot more than us. The money is probably worth it...CardinalDan (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Ok what about this. What if I Posted something like this.....just throwin it out there, if it doesn't work throw it back...

"Ron Harper has a medically documented stuttering problem. Ron Harper was drafted 7th overall by the Clippers.  These two issues may or may not be related."

That is a good comprimise, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.53.134 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How about, "In addition, Ron Harper, the 7th pick of the draft by the Clippers, had a medically documented stuttering problem which he had throughout his career."? CardinalDan (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what cardinaldan? You have got yourself a deal, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.53.134 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think you need to look at the differences in clarity between the two articles. The term is very poorly represented in the version you seem to be advocating. Pls explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.46.122 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

marton
Hi There My edit was not vandalism, merely a mistake Any chance you could issue an apology or correction to your edit comment as labelling me a vandal looks bad on my early efforts

thanx tony Amhunt84 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Amhunt84 - I just happened to be stopping by here and thought I would offer my unbiased and unsolicited thoughts: You don't need to worry about the comment on your talk page and no apologies need to be issued.  The comment in the article's talk page edit history won't get noticed (and is difficult to have erased), and the comment on your talk page is harmless (it's the gentlest first warning that is ever issued) and it clearly says "it might not have been your intention".   I think everyone understands that accidents happen.  Thanks, and happy editing.   7  23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand: just getting used to the terminology I suppose. 'Apology' was the wrong word, I meant retraction or correction I think, but your comments leave the situation resolved, thanks Amhunt84 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Any remedy?
User:Forbidden (palhost) has now decided I am am of some interest. Any remedy beyond ignoring?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And now doing much tha same at User talk:JAF1970.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like he got indef-blocked. Sorry to have bothered you. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Van holiday
Hi, I hope you don't mind, I've changed your speedy tag for Van holiday to a notability tag as it has enough context for me to understand that its a holiday; However it doesn't have any neutral third party sources, hence my notability tag. IMHO it isn't far short of an A7, but definitely not an A1.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging


Hello; thank you for helping out patrolling new page creations but I have had to decline the speedy deletion of this article as software is not covered by WP:CSD and it did not meet any of the other speedy deletion criteria. Please consider PROD or AfD if you wish to pursue deletion. CIreland (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Squalene
Hi Cardinal Dan, I tried to include a portion on orally taken squalene on the squalene article after going through a bunch of literature and finding very little on it. Most were on the injectable kind found in vaccines which many many people say are dangerous. I'm new to wikipedia so not familiar with how to edit or post articles. You seem to be active here. Could you contribute something more on orally taken squalene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukiomishima (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed your warning
I removed your final warning on User talk:86.145.180.92 because it referenced an edit that the user had already been warned about earlier in the day. Since then the editor has not engaged in disruptive activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. CardinalDan (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Purple Drank
Why do you keep removing my comment about Jamarcus Russell's addiction to purple drank???
 * It's an attack, and there are no notable references to this dubious "fact" CardinalDan (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How about these sources: http://forums.kffl.com/showthread.php?t=261642 http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/oakland-raiders-forum-message-board/159471-im-done-defending-jamarcus-3.html It's a rumor being circulated by reporters on a large Raider fan site (raiderfans.net). Would that qualify as references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.243.142 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since forums are not considered a reliable resource. CardinalDan (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Roland
Regarding [ this revert], allow me to recommend a bit more caution in such matters, as you in effect restored a copyright violation that had been removed in good faith. Removing a CorenSearchBot notice is perfectly acceptable when the issue has been addressed (or, for that matter, no violation exists). The page would be checked by the copyright cleanup crew anyway, regardless of whether the tag is still in place or not. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maize
I'm not quite sure if this is the place to do it, but I'd like to ask you a question about the deletion one of my recent edits. I edited something in maize, and you deleted it because the was too much own opinion in it. Below is my edit, could you please edit the opinions and put it back on the page? If you could, that would be fantastic, and if you can't, then at least we can discuss it here. Thank you, Lucas The Scot. Impact on health and environment

In the last few years humans have started eating more and more corn. This is having a devastating effect on the environment and on our health. Not only eating corn, but also consuming corn-fed cows, is bad for your health. Corn-fed beef has got higher levels of saturated fat than cattle that has been fed grass, has been concluded out of a study. And corn makes many animals sick so antibiotics have to be used to cure them. New corn hybrids need to be fed much more fertilizers than other corn, which is causing a rise in nitrogen on fields. These chemicals find their way into rivers and groundwater, and in the estuary of the Mississipi this has already resulted to the death of marine life in 12.000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. Not only these chemicals our dangerous, but also the amount of energy needed to produce them is enormous. Half a gallon of fossil fuel is used to be able to produce one single bushel of corn. An area more than twice the size of New York has got corn growing on it. Corn sweeteners are nowadays being used instead of sugar, which is probably related to the rise of patients suffering under diabetes type 2.

Lucas the scot (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been three years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for this, and I hope your holidays have been otherwise happy, Awickert (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry that the offending user wasn't open to constructive criticism. CardinalDan (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't expect that they would be the conversational type given their treatment of Boris. I tried the constructive route because I don't get into a ton of conflicts and didn't know what to do; next time I think I will report for vandalism immediately after they do something like I saw at Boris' page and not waste time trying to resolve peaceably. Awickert (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely Random
Hello, just out of pure curiosity, would you have any idea why this shows the ip edit that reverted my db, as reverting an edit by lemonftw? Beach drifter (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, I have no idea. CardinalDan (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My userpage
Please refer to Don't restore removed comments. My IP is not shared, therefore your whois is irrelevant. 80.195.252.128 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whois tags, if I recall correctly, have to stay on a userpage. CardinalDan (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can back that up, I won't revert it. 80.195.252.128 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can prove you are not a shared IP user (since IPs can be changed and your ISP can change IPs), m assumption is that your IP address can be changed and/or shared. I have to go with that assumption.  CardinalDan (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. This is why I hate Wikipedia. 80.195.252.128 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all I have to go on. For now, its your talk page, as long as you follow rules, go ahead and do whatever you want. CardinalDan (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The "vandalism"
Excuse me brother, if I delete the user page of this man is because he delete the James Bond images. It's revenge. User_talk:Harleytarantina 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Revenge or not, it is still vandalism and you got warned because of it. If you do it again, you will be reported. CardinalDan (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

School of applied social studies not eligible for speedy deletion
To let you know, I've removed the speedy deletion tag from School of applied social studies. Criterion A7 specifically excludes schools, and this article doesn't appear to be blatant advertising. It's still eligible for deletion for PROD or AfD, just not speedy. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GEMS flag
Question about VAND. I'm not real sure but it looks like you flagged an addition I made as vandalism. I read the VAND section and am not sure how you made the determination. It is/was a good faith edit. Any help you can provide would be appreciated, I'd like to ramp up my participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrordyne (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was the Gems edit, it wasn't your edit, it was a IP edit after yours that I reverted, since it was vandalizing the page. AFAIK, you didn't do anything wrong. CardinalDan (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hello there, the problem: I read the 'Turks of Western Thrace' article.I was born and live in the region.The article is no doubt a work of fanaticals in the best case.More propably is a work of the Turkish Intelligence or the Foreign Affairs Ministry.So,as I could not believe my eyes of the terrible lies I was reading I decided to edit it as a form of protest to such a ridicilous form of propaganda.And there came your message about 'vandalising articles etc. etc.'. Well,Mr 'CardinalDan' vandalisation to me is allowing such an article in wikipedia without checking the trueth of its 'facts'.I see you are a biologist and anhtropologist.Being responsible for articles that have to do with HISTORIC ACCURASY means you should check the reliability of the resources of this article.Otherwise you become an 'innocent' tool in the hands of every propaganda mechanism.I dont accept this,simply because false articles like this affect the lives of thousands of people.I live there and work with these people.They have plenty of money and all the freedom u could dream off.They also have the backing of a huge militarised country such as Turkey,80.000.000 people.The true minority is the Christian society who pretend as nothing is going on in order not to provoke the Junda that runs modern Turkey.As a Greek Citizen I demand you do your 'job' in a more responsible way.Sorry for my aggresive style but imagine an article about your hometown speaking of a Martian Minority.

The best of my regards Terzopoulos Kostas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terzokost (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Message
Dear Cardina, how am I vandalizing Billa (2009 film). I'm just adding more details. For example, definition of UCB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Proposed deletion of Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists
I have removed the prod tag from Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! CardinalDan - I have removed the PROD on this article because I think it has potential as a very interesting and well sourced list. Certainly it needs cleanup and it may well be as you suggest, have its contents merged into articles for the individual naturalists. That said, this was the 1st article by Kdksobiech and not a bad one at that--well sourced, just not in perfect WP style. I have left him a message here suggesting ways he might improve the list. You should have left a welcome and notice on his page when you placed the prod.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

13 hollywood curses
hey i´m luli_1234. I think you made a little mistake with my edition. I would like to ask you what i did wrong to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luli 1234 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Donzaleigh Abernathy
Hi there.

Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;

added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.

Their friend,, then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.

Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.

Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your revert here. Hope the effort wasn't too taxing :)  Tide  rolls  00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. 00:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Haverford School, THE League section
Could you please explain to me why you removed the section from The Haverford School page on THE League? Thanks and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Care to respond to me???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.196.173.20 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not delete the particular section you are referring to, it was another editor. But from what I have seen from that section, it doesn't seem notable to add into the article. CardinalDan (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Who deleted it then? And how is it not notable? Did you attend The Haverford School? I assume no. And you wouldn't understand the criticality of The League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.196.173.20 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Check the history of the article, since I don't know who did it. As for your assertion of the notability of the part in question, bring it up on the article's talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Since when is insertion of a request considered vandalism? Do you think the word "version" is clear in "Brain stem death has been the United Kingdom version of brain death"? If so, what is it supposed to mean? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Space Habitat page
The edits I made to the space habitat page were not vandalism. I made beneficial updates to the a key section of the site that was not accurate and did not convey proper wording to emphasize the importance of the section. The edit I made was superior to the prior version and I believe that it should be placed back into the article for the benefit of all readers.

Sincerely Daniel Jessee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.205.32 (talk) 22:01, 18 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:MiszaBot III (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer   Waters  06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

meetup?
Hi there,

I got your name from the Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disney Channel
Most of the sections that have been removed from the Disney Channel page was information that was already in other sections on that particular page.

User:DJHerbie53 (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (ETC)

Rolla High School
Hey, Just curious why you removed my entry on the Rolla High School page listing Lexxxi LaRue as someone of significance from that school. Is a famous pornographic actress not important enough to list under notable graduates? My edit defiantly wasn't vandalism like it was listed as. Anyway, I don't have much experience making edits so I understand that you were probably correct removing my edit, I'm just curious why? 64.251.149.238 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that confirms her notability? Just because you say that she is a porn star does not make her notable.  You need to supply a citation that asserts her notability. CardinalDan (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what you mean by sources. Theirs plenty of... information (porn) online about her. Or were you looking for something that links her with Rolla High School? Basically, what type of source do I need to have to satisfy Wikipedia's standards? 64.251.149.238 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Has she ever been featured on any magazines such as Playboy or Hustler? Has she won a porn award at the association's awards show?  Was she ever featured on a television show on a major cable network?  Those type of things.  CardinalDan (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Invincible (MGK song)
Hello CardinalDan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Invincible (MGK song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 does not apply if the artist has an article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the heads up. CardinalDan (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Dan Nainan age
I recently re did my article on dan nainan and someone added this line

Dan graduated from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Bethesda, Maryland in 1979.

and then cited a vidio with dan nainan that has text which is word for word copy of the wikiedia page. This is not a valid citation and also does not have relitive infomation and does not make sense because he was born in 1981 and according to the line graduated high school in 1979 thats three before he was born. I created the orignal dan nainan wikipedia page and had similiar trouble with this guy posting this line. I dont want to delete because he will just repost it. Can you please tell me how i should handle this because it false infomation and a bad citation

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Sydney protest photo
Oh come on it was just a black-comedy joke. Have a sense of humor! :-D Warren Peace14 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kanako Hoshino concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kanako Hoshino, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016


Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)