User talk:Daniel.Cardenas/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Chazz88 18:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

PS3 launch date
Sony restated yesterday that they are launching in the spring. That's not "what seraphim wants" it's the latest confirmed official release date, and we have to treat it as fact. Seraphim 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Soduko"
You might want to correct that to the correct spelling "Sudoku". --Pentasyllabic 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

complaint
I don't think comments like this are really suitable for an encyclopaedia article: "It will be interesting to see if Sony compromises their blu-ray player business with a low cost PS3." Surely this should be on some talk or discuss page.(HappyVR)
 * Well looks like you were sort of right considering the new pricing scheme.HappyVR 17:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the same goes for this : "Although this is high unlikely for a game console where the manufacturors subsidize the hardware to sell games. The manufacturor can't afford for the console to be used in such a way that doesn't bring additional revenue to them as in buying games." My view is that the manufacturer could afford to do this but probably won't for the reasons you give. In my view this is short-sightedness on Sonys part and makes me think of dinosaurs more and more every day - eventually they'll suffocate in a stagnant swamp of their own shit. Anyway I appreciate your additions but have a tendency to delete them - good luck.HappyVR 18:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: How come you deleted Henney Kilowatt electric car?
It just seemed too old compared to the rest -- I didn't realize that was intentional for historical perspective. By all means, please replace it. Do you think that the others on the talk page's to-do list should be on there too? LossIsNotMore 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I'm extra busy at work these days, so not sure when I can get to it. Daniel.Cardenas 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Help on Dolby Digital and NICAM
Hi looks like you know what you are talking about - so when one DVD recorder says it records in NICAM and another one says Dolby Digital which is the best?! JulianHensey 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry don't know. Daniel.Cardenas 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Plug-In Hybrids
Hi Daniel. I have been talking with Felix Kramer about the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle Wikipedia entry, as well as reading some of the comments you have written in the discussion area. It seems we all agree that the article could use some updating, both in terms of content and organization. But since everyone is busy, no one has the time to take on such a large project. I would like to get Felix, Ron Gremban and Sherry Boschert involved, as well as yourself and other PHEV experts you might know, to approach the update as a team. I could act as point person, or you could.

I see that you have already devoted a great deal of time and energy to the project. PHEVs are clearly a passion for you. The last thing I want to do is "step on your toes" or get into an editing war over the content of the page. I am confident we can come up with verbiage that makes everyone happy.

Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. I look forward to working on this with you.Fbagatelleblack 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you act as the point person. I don't know who the people you mention are, or their backgrounds, but sounds interesting anyways. Daniel.Cardenas 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! I will work on it as time allows.  FYI, Felix Kramer is founder of the group CalCars, and Ron Gremban is techical lead at CalCars.  Sherry Boschert is author of the book Plug-In Hybrids.  The editor of the New Energy News attended the AltCar Expo in Santa Monica last weekend.  He reports that he saw Boschert's book "everywhere, like a manifesto for a new age dawning."Fbagatelleblack 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow impressive list of people! :-)  Daniel.Cardenas

Body mint
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Body mint, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Body mint. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with vandalism
Thank you for watching Hybrid vehicles so closely and quickly reverting the many vandalisms, Daniel. The last one was by User talk:204.118.113.237 where it is seen that there is repeated vandalism and many warnings, but this IP is still not blocked. Any idea how to do this? According to whois the IP is owned by TOWN OF NORWOOD LIGHT DEPARTMENT, but no contact is given. --Theosch 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
for finding the dead link on Hybrid Vehicles, and routinely dealing with vandalism. --Theosch 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RTS
Please do not remove tags unless you're going to add a source, whilst a point may be obvious to you, wikipedia is supposed to be for the masses, one cannot remove such tags and claim that its obvious if one "studies game releases"- this is absurd. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tiaga"
Hey there, man... redirects are not really used to correct silly typing mistakes and such, so that redirect should be kept as it is, being the former name of the band it redirects to. --Sn0wflake 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When you type Tiaga in google what do you get? You don't get info about some unknown band, you get info about the forest people where trying to find out about.  The redirect should help wikipedians get to there intended destination. Daniel.Cardenas 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Move not Copy/Paste
For future reference, pages should be moved, not copyied and pasted. In the future, if you enounter a similar situation like you did recently with article Ocean (helio), please request the assistance of a wikipedia administrator. Whammy 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Daniel.Cardenas 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you wreck the page history, which is in violation of the GFDL licence used for all Wikipedia contributions. --DeLarge 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Colt
The Colt was built using technology A. Subsequently, technology B was developed and used in another vehicle. This does not mean that an encyclopedia article about the Colt would pretend that it was built with technology B. That would be factually incorrect. It would also be factually incorrect to support your case with an external reference to the other car, when a refernce specifically about the Colt exists. The fact that the Colt reference is older is a consequence of the fact that the car itself is older. Age is, however, not a barrier to greater accuracy. --DeLarge 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

desiderata
People don't understand what that means, there is no wiki definition for it, and it is not in the dictionary. You are doing a disservice to wikipedians by putting this back in the article.


 * Hi, it is in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desiderata. I am all for simplifying things, but sometimes you need a word to explain something.  I removed a whole paragraph that someone wrote about Shannon discovering information entropy from those desiderata, which I was able to do because having that word makes it clear that that's what happened.  Part of the beauty of mathematics is the way in which it is discovered, and that's what that word does:  it illuminates the process of discovery.  Otherwise, you might as well rename the section properties.  But they aren't properties; they're desiderata!


 * Look at some of my edits-- I'm all for keeping things simple. Absolutely: prefer the simple to the complex.  But, you might also scrutinize your edits: prefer one word to many; prefer the specific to the vague.  :)  It's not as simple as wiping out every word that you don't think people will understand.  Regards,  MisterSheik 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we get into an edit war. I appreciate what you're trying to do.  You might want to take a look at this resource on good writing:  . MisterSheik 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Macroblocks
From the x264 article:

* Both Intra-predicted macroblock types: 16x16 and 4x4 ...   * 8x8 intra-predicted macroblocks

Do these not count as macroblocks? Is the x264 article incorrect, or is the macroblock article incorrect? —Dark•S hik ari [T] 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working as a video codec expert in my profession. The x264 article is incorrect.  Anything that is not 16x16 is called a block, subblock, or partition in the h.264 specification.   A macroblock is defined as 16x16 in the h.264 spec.  There maybe a different definition in a different video compression standard, but I haven't seen it. Daniel.Cardenas 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah good, I'm not surprised at all that the x264 article wasn't entirely correct. Thanks for fixing it.  I just wrote a short article from some references and what I knew about Trellis quantization, but I doubt its entirely accurate as I can't seem to find any technical guides to the exact method in which Trellis works.  Can you check it for accuracy?  Thanks. —Dark•S hik ari [T] 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pes
Hi, Daniel! Regarding this revert of yours, please note that notability criteria do not apply to geographic localities; only verifiability does. Another thing is that red links to Russian localities are useful in the project on Russian geography me and several other Wikipedians are involved with. Even though the link is red, it produces backlinks which are heavily relied upon. I would thus much appreciate if you restored the link as it were. Please let me know if you need more information or have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure
Thank you for your kind words. Please indicate your support of featured article status at Featured article candidates/Plug-in hybrid/archive2. BenB4 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion?
Hello - I see you've removed sections from the Prius article, declaring them "unencyclopedic". Don't you think it might be better to discuss this kind of large change with other page editors on Talk before wholesale removals like this? A lot of work went into those sections, and I don't see the emergency in removing them. Just a thought. Tvoz | talk 20:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which encyclopedic content are you referring to? Daniel.Cardenas 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
I am very sorry but I am suggesting that you withdraw your acceptance in your RFA. I regret to inform you that the RFA will probably not pass and only has a 37% support rate. Thank you. SLSB  talk 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the advantage of withdrawing? Daniel.Cardenas 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful
I'm sorry, but your RfA did not reach consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns addressed in the RfA and feel free to apply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please write comments on user's talk page
I'm not sure what you usually do, but next time your want to comment to someone, use their talk page rather than their user page. And if you don't like my language, don't read what I write. Fresheneesz 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS link in Global Warming
What Raymond Arritt and Raul are trying to say is that there are noted problems with the data used in The Great Global Warming Swindle (one graph in particular had a distorted timeline with a 20-year offset from the actual data) and the misuse of one contributor's statement to twist his position on the topic. I agree that there are editors on Wikipedia who may wish to keep the voice of skepticism from being heard, but Raymond Arritt does not seem to be one of them. I believe that beyond those problems the documentary makes some valid points, but since TGGWS is generally not considered a reliable source for the outlined reasons, it isn't going to be included in the Global Warming article any time soon. ~ S0CO ( talk 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Inferno
I (reluctantly) undid your last cleanup effort on the dab page Inferno because you applied WP:MOSDAB wrong in several places: There are, of course, some entries that you removed that shouldn't have been on this dab page in the first place. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Infernus" redirects to this page so all "Infernus" entries can't just be removed
 * What about a separate disamb page for it? Daniel.Cardenas 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether "Inferno" and "Infernus" are used synonymous in the English language, but if they're not, they should definately be on different dab pages. – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) piping for style (quotation marks; italics) is perfectly alright and shouldn't be removed
 * 2) entries accompanied by a working link to a page that mentions the term "Inferno" are alright also and shouldn't be removed
 * Not according to wp:mosdab Daniel.Cardenas 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From a literal standpoint, you're right, but synthesizing WP:MOSDAB and WP:MOSDAB as well as what I perceive is current practice say otherwise. (And I think most dabbers would say that as long as an entry helps disambiguating, it can (and should?) be mentioned on the dab page - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/archive6 from early this year.) If you want, we can ask what other dabbers think regarding this matter; maybe I'm too lax and more people will side with your somewhat stricter interpretation than mine, I don't know. :-) – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Help With Motorized Bicycles
User:Rope light has been posting and reposting a link to a commercial site, Bicycle Engines, on the Motorized bicycle page. If he tries again, how do I escalate the issue to prevent him from commercial posting in the future? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would:
 * post a comment on his talk page informing him of appropriate external links. See policy at wp:el.
 * Categorize the external links on Motorized bicycle and remove other links that don't follow policy.
 * Post an HTML comment on the external links informing people they need to follow the wp:el policy.
 * This will only be seen when someone tries to edit the external links.
 * Use "< ! --" to open an html comment and "- - >" to close a comment. See Sony PS3 external links for an example.

Daniel.Cardenas 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help!Fbagatelleblack 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Electric car
Creating a new article with cut and paste is simply creating a mess. Hopefully an admin will be able to clean it up. 199.125.109.18 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel. I don't want to stoke the flames of an edit war, but 199.125.109.18 seems to want total control of the page and I could use any help possible in working with him/her.  I know you've been in the front lines of defense on this article historically, so I am hereby encouraging you to keep it up.  Thanks!  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fbagatelleblack, Are you talking about Electric Car article or BEV article? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry for the lack of link.  I am talking about Electric car.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean a different I.P. address. Did you really mean this? Special:Contributions/199.125.109.89 Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, Special:Contributions/199.125.109.89 is who I meant. Don't know how I managed to screw that one up.  As mentioned, any help would be appreciated.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

About the notability of IZArc
I undertand the reason why you question the notability of it, since you are a software engineer, and software engineers usually don't know that there are so much shareware and freeware on the Internet. However IZArc is quite noted among many Internet users. IZArc gets so many Google hits means proves my statement. Also it gets five stars on Softpedia (IZArc Review - IZArc Download). Software which get five stars on well-known download sites are notable because this proves that these sites regard them to be outstanding, and outstanding software are notable (you can consult English dictionaries to verify). Hope you can understand what I mean and withdraw your request for AfD.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a definition for notable and outstanding software is not one of them. See wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've taken a glance at WP:N, but IZArc has some extent of notability, for it has been awarded five stars by more than 15 independent download sites (check IZArc - Awards, I've mentioned it on IZArc this early morning). Also, WP:N and other notability guidelines (especially WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE) has been qustioned by many inclusionists. They claim that if many personal websites, blogs, forums and wikis mention one thing, and it is seldom mentioned in mainstream media and academic journals, it is still notable for many persons care about it (see m:Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians). Hope you can understand the reason why I consider IZArc notable (in Wikipedian terms).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu Redirect
Good luck, I think you've kicked over a bee hive. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  I did discuss it on the previous disambiguation page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYUSAGE seems fairly clear on the topic. Simply ignoring this and starting revert wars is not the answer.  Got a fresh perspective on the issue?  I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you ignoring this?  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How to creat a colorful page!??!
Can you (or someone else help me) by giving me tips on how to create a colorful page?? Any help is greatly welcome!!! -bigbeninUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigbeninUS (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tunnel boring machine
Re: Tunnel boring machine - your edit comment for it suggests you were just trying to make a minor change, but it ended up with you reverting my changes. I have reverted back to mine, so if it was just a minor change you wanted to do then you can go ahead. Wongm (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologizes. Your edits were excellent! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed
I noticed your work to the DB page and thought you might be able to lend a hand at Buu. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this thread? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get why you don't want that link to MTV thing. If someone searches for buu isn't that article reasonable? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think the DAB guideline specifies that "unless the dab term is mentioned in the page, it should not be listed." Isn't that why you removed these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see that phrase in wp:mosdab. Should I look elsewhere? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:D? Elsewhere, why did you remove those entries? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why entries removed?
 * Depends on which entry. For example, for Derbisol I was thinking the article could be deleted because it doesn't meet wp:note.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, you removed Dragon Ball (disambiguation). There any particular reason? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was odd for a couple of reasons: disambuity pointing to another disambiguity and it was in a 'see also' section. Anyways it was a poor edit and I've restored it.  Thanks for pointing that out.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

C2
Hallo Daniel, I've noticed that you deleted the entry to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages from the C2 page and commented it as breaking wp:mosdab. I don't really understand which point you think this entry is violating, so please let me know. D.i.l. (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See 'Flibbygibby, a type of noodle', and the text below it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think the point you mention is against red links, not the type of reference I used. (The guideline doesn't say you should delete the noodle.) Furthermore, on the C2 site, the are two other links with the same syntax: the C2 paper size and the C2 vertebra. If you delete my entry, you should also delete those ones. D.i.l. (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the others should be deleted too. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

prods
No problem with the ones you've been tagging. But one thing that would make it easier for the reviewing admins like myself--when you give a reason, say just a little more than "Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" to indicate the type of person or thing, eg "Musician--Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" -- the various people who check these tend to work on only some kinds of articles (for example I dont do the athletes) and it helps sort them out. BTW, the last batch had a typo and read "Does meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" (sometimes it is obvious, as when the title contain the word (album). )

And something else. It is not actually required, but it is considered polite to notify the person who started the article and any other recent signif. contributors. It's very easy--just use the link from the template that appears on the article when you've saved it. Almost everyone does this.DGG (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. I'm concerned that many of these articles are created by someone paid by the music company. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

anonymous users
yea, I know it is pointless, but illogical people really annoy me. I think I am done at this point. Now hopefully I can focus on the article itself.Polypmaster (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Prius article
Hi, you'll be glad to see that I am back in business again. However, I'm not sure that deliberately getting others blocked is the best way to promote peace and harmony amongst editors cooperating on an article. Anyway, do you plan to answer the points that I made on the Talk:Toyota Prius page, in the "latest controversy addition" discussion, in response to your arguments for why you think that the Sunday Times report is controversial, and supply some references? -- de Facto (talk). 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that all of the other editors see the controversy except yourself. It is not a scientific test mostly because it is not a repeatable test.  It is easy to get poor gas mileage in a car.  For example the BMW driver maybe more reluctant to use the brake, while the Prius driver may brake if he see an expected shadow or someone pulls into his lane 15 meters in front of him.  It is also controversial because it is not an excepted way to measure gas mileage by any reputable group. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. The assertion that it is "controversial" has to be supported by a reliable source, not by other editor's personal POV.  I didn't claim it was a "scientific test", nor do I intend to, it is a notable opinion supportrd by a reliable source, which is all it needs to be.  Even if it is not repeatable, and that is your own construction, so violates WP:OR.  Please either provide a reliable source stating it to be controversial, or remove it from the "controversies' section. -- de Facto (talk). 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your missing the points that all the other editors have made. Editors constantly and consistently evaluate sources for accuracy, notability, verifiability, and reliability.  These editor tasks are not original research.  You can't apply the rules as you see fit.  It is not notable just because you think it is.  It is closer to wp:cruft and I would support other editors who prefer just to delete because of wp:cruft.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am applying the rules as laid down in the Wikipedia policies. The finding is notable and verifiable, so can be included, whether you, or any other editor, agrees with it or not.  The source is covered by "mainstream newspapers" see WP:VER.  To support the "controversial" claim, you need a reference of similar quality, not merely your own personal opinion.  The deletion of it could probably be considered as wp:disruptive editing. -- de Facto (talk). 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fun, standing alone in your interpretation of how the rules apply. The next time you start a revert war they won't be so kind. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: what does csd g4 mean?
CSD G4 means that the article was speedily deleted due to it being the re-creation of deleted material. Succinct was debated here, where it was decided that it should not be a redirect to Wiktionary. If you feel the article should exist, you should try Deletion review. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption?
I've been having a long term issue with user 199.124.109.xxx and I think you might have had some similar issues. Would you characterize this user's contributions as purposely disruptive or just tedious? Recently I noticed the IP began using named accounts such as Apteva and Oakwillow. Do you suspect any other identities? Mrshaba (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you notice an IP using a named account? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This IP used similar words and made similar arguments within two threads I read through. I asked Fbagatelleblack‎ about this user and he recalls some disruption on the Electric vehicle page but he didn't think the disruption was malicious. Mrshaba (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to MIEV

 * Removed unreferenced statement. This was only "unreferenced" because you deleted the citation fifteen minutes before.
 * The citation didn't back up the text. Were does it say 2009 in the citation?
 * Try re-reading the ninth paragraph.
 * The focus should be on the car. The people behind are an unwanted distraction.
 * I'm glad you changed the flippant and rather offensive answer you originally offered, but the blurred section does more to distract the eye than the original background ever did.


 * I disagree that your "simpler wording" actually improved the sentence, because it wasn't simpler wording at all; it was a removal of wording.
 * My intention there was the remove the word eschews. Few people know what that means.
 * An interwiki link to Wiktionary wouldn't work? This isn't the Simple Wikipedia, after all. And simplifying "eschews" would have meant subsituting another word, not pruning out a good portion of the text entirely.

Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Try re-reading the ninth paragraph.
 * That is weak compared to the text. should be versus indicated that. There are other references that say it is not going to be available for Japan public in 2009, only fleet sales.

An interwiki link to Wiktionary wouldn't work? This isn't the Simple Wikipedia, after all. And simplifying "eschews" would have meant subsituting another word, not pruning out a good portion of the text entirely.
 * Wikipedia guidelines are to make wikipedia easy to understand. Was there something in the deleted text you find interesting?

but the blurred section does more to distract the eye than the original background ever did.
 * O.K. maybe I'll blur it less, or you can change the image.
 * Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Electricity generation
I disagree with your edit summary for your edit to Electricity generation which stated "if there is a reference it should go in the text, not an image caption." However, I agree with the deletion of the statement for other reasons. See the article talk page for details. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Country specific nuclear information
Hi, Daniel. There is a discussion how to organize the country specific nuclear energy information. Your opinion is welcome.Beagel (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB
Care to be a bit more specific? What's your problem here, with the notability of the target, with the existence of the link, or with the wording? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguaty pages are to find articles, not to find all possible definitions of a term. The guideline states that the term should be used in the article title.  From wp:dab:
 * ...Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term...
 * Yes, more should be deleted on gamma disambiguation page. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just two contra-examples from WP:MOSDAB:
 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%


 * Rock(s) may refer to:
 * Rock, the name of Mega Man in the Japanese versions of the games
 * }
 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%
 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%

Andy Dingley (talk)
 * Flibbygibby may refer to:
 * Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices
 * Flibbygibby, a type of noodle
 * }
 * }
 * Oops, my oversight. Should have pointed to wp:dab.  I started a discussion about the conflict here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) .   Thanks for pointing that out.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

de Facto Prius disruption
What should be done about this editor's ongoing efforts to argue about even the most obvious things while ignoring consensus. This is the most argumentative personality I've come across on wiki (and that is saying alot.) I'm generally not one to go crying to the ref, but this is becoming intolerable. I feel like I'm feeding a troll and I don't like it. Red Harvest (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He was banned before for violating wp:3rr on the Prius article. He is close again to being banned for wp:edit warring. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In looking at the various approaches WP:RFCU appears the most appropriate. (I'm not quite sure how to do this--I've never done more than warn IP users of vandalism and the like.) I have no experience in arguing a wiki dispute like this and am hoping that someone who does can coordinate the effort. Red Harvest (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu
I just want to say that you might be interested in a discussion taking place at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.112.230 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Helio Ocean
I have nominated Helio Ocean, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Helio Ocean. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Shell   babelfish 04:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)  Shell   babelfish 04:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of 3rr
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 02:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Swine flu
thanks ! Yug (talk)  14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu vaccine straw genetics poll
I rewrote the vaccine genetics section. You can view it at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak. Since you voiced your opinion in the straw poll, I want to ask for your opinions on the rewrite on the talk page.  hmwith τ   21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. :)  hmwith τ   21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

US-Flu table
Hello Daniel,

im not speaking very well english and so i make only a short info.

Please control your edit, there are some ref`s gone: ^ Cite Error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named NDHHS.

... and so on.

Bye from Germany 93.131.13.133 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First Phoenix meetup today!
--EdwardsBot (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:red
You removed a red link in ford fusion hybrid. That didn't seem unreasonable to me, but since you provided a link to wp:red, I thought I should read it because I wasn't really sure what the guidelines were about that. But I couldn't find support for that action in there. To summarize, it said to remove it if it was not a plausible future article, or it would not be an appropriate link even if the article existed. It seems lika a plausible future article to me, and an appropriate link if it did exist. What am I missing?

Thanks Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like they loosened the criteria since the last time I red it. Has Green Car congress been written up by 3 or more parties?  This is one of the criteria for wp:note.  If you believe yes, then go ahead and put the red link back in if you want.   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Not a big deal either way--I was just checking.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dugard
Before this article escalates to a contentious situation, please check out WP:RS, especially the part that reads ''Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.'' Nancy Garrido could not in any way be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Frank |  talk  13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Evidence needs to be presented and it is up to a jury to decide how reliable it is. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For a U.S. court, that is correct. For Wikipedia, it is not. We are not providing "evidence" - we are providing reliable information that has been vetted elsewhere. This information does not qualify. Frank  |  talk  13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reliable information that Nancy said that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Work (physics)
Hello Daniel. You added the following sentence to Work (physics): This is assuming other energies didn't change such as potential energy.  I have reverted your addition for the following reason.

When we talk about potential energy of an object we disregard the work done by the weight of the object. For example, if a ball weighing 10N is thrown 5m into the air we can says its potential energy has increased by 50 Joules and its kinetic energy has decreased by the same amount (assuming no losses due to air resistance.) There is no need to comment on the negative work done on the ball by its weight.

Alternatively, we can use the work-energy theorem and say that when the 10N ball is thrown 5m into the air the weight of the ball does 50 Joules of negative work on the ball, so the ball’s kinetic energy is reduced by the same amount (assuming no losses due to air resistance.) There is no need to comment on the increase in potential energy of the ball as it rises by 5m.

Kinetic energy and potential energy are often classed as mechanical energy. In the absence of friction, mechanical energy remains constant. The principle of constant mechanical energy, and the work-energy theorem are different ways of tackling similar problems. It is important to decided which way will be used to tackle a particular problem, and not make the mistake of mixing the two. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

km vs miles
Hi! Regarding your recent change to the FT-EV II article where you changed metric measurements to imperial measurements. It is never acceptable to replace metric measurements with imperial measurements. However, it is quite appropriate to add conversions via 80 km 80 km. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a wikipedia guideline that discusses this? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I could go swimming through the hundreds of rules, regulations, recommendations and wishful thinking but common sense is usually the best guide. If you think that imperials units are best then why shouldn't I also have the right to convert every single reference to miles into km. This would lead to endless reversion wars and much aggravation. Much better to use a simple conversion template that shows both and thus keeps most people happy. Please feel free to use the convert template I showed you. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Comparison of Toyota hybrids
I have nominated Comparison of Toyota hybrids, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Comparison of Toyota hybrids. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fast Train
Hello. You have moved "Fast Train" to "Fast Train (song)"... and hijacked the "Fast Train" name-space to create a redirect to High-speed rail. Because "Fast Train" is a proper noun (capital F + capital T), there should never be any link problems involved with the way it was before your move. The move was completely unnecessary, and I would like to see it reverted. -- WikHead (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fast Train now points to the song. Partially reverted.  Thanks for pointing out the letter capitalization issue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response Daniel. I do however, still see a small issue here, as the song-article now has the (song) disambiguater attached to the end of its name. The name-spaces "Fast Train" and "Fast Train (song)" still need to be swapped. This probably means that the current redirect needs to be deleted, then the article moved back into it. I have requested the assistance of an admin for this task, so I assume the matter will soon be addressed if we both just hang tight, and not make any additional changes ourselves. Have yourself a happy new year Daniel! Regards -- WikHead (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back as WikHead requested - should all be back to normal. All the best to both of you. ~ mazca  talk 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid car articles
Hi, from the talk page of Toyota Camry Hybrid, I noticed your input regarding the merge of the article to the standard model one...this has been proposed again--Camry Hybrid (AHV40) to Camry (ACV40), and also is discussed here: WP:Auto. As you have more expertise in this area, I thought you might be interested in commenting. Thanks MTan355 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

iphone vs nexus one poll
Hello, you keep removing the iphone vs nexus one poll and note that a poll doesn't matter. I'm not sure how the reviews matter then? Every time the poll is posted on wiki there are over 500 users that review it. Obviously they are very interested. The text under the poll discusses why some of the participants in the poll voted the way they did. Aren't these user reviews just as important or perhaps more important than one man's review? I put it up one more time. If you take it down again, I will leave it off but I hope you see now that people are very interested. Thanks for the job you guys do. —Preceding edward1313 comment added by 76.98.77.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we will have links to a dozen forums eventually. Yes people are interested in that sort of thing but that is not wikipedia's mission.  I've deleted external links when others have added links.  When there is more than one to clean up. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy)Daniel, you can't tell me it's not relevant. It is the most searched phrase when it comes to the nexus one. Along with the poll are a series on articles and videos comparing the two. Forget that it's a forum, consider it just another information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward13 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See wp:elno external links to be avoided. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2008 US electricity generation by source v2.png
Thank you for uploading File:2008 US electricity generation by source v2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Added: == Licensing == cc-by-3.0
 * Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just tl'd the template, it was adding your talk page to maintenance categories.-- Terrillja talk  03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Micro SIM image
Thanks for editing the Micro SIM image. But the large blue outlines are actually part of the SIM card that the Micro SIM comes in and is used for backwards compatibility with older devices. Also, the placement of the mini/micro SIM on the larger card is important. Beyond that, the cell phone company issues the micro/mini SIMS in the full size holder as pictured. [(See here)] Justin Ormont (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the clarification! :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GSM_Micro_SIM_Card_vs._GSM_Mini_Sim_Card_-_Break_Apart.svg
 * Inspired by your work, I created an anatomically correct version based on this image. It's the breakaway version of the card where one can remove layers of the surrounding plastic to get down to the size needed. As always, feel free to improve upon it as much as you can. And you may want to have File:GSM Micro SIM Card vs. GSM Mini Sim Card v2.svg taken down as to create less confusion.   Justin Ormont (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad prices section
Hey

If you're interested this is being discussed on the iPad talk page as it seems to have been added and removed several times? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Electric bicycles into separate article
Hi Daniel. I just wanted to make sure that you had seen my discussion re: my plans to split Motorized bicycle into two articles, one of which will deal exclusively with ebikes. Please let me know if you have any input. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

electric car lede silly claims
please see talk for that article. Greglocock (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

i MiEV
Hi, I would like to hear your opinion here--Mariordo (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fibonacci number‎
Please can you add a note on the talk page to explain your last edit to the article. A more thorough rationale can go a long way. Thanks. --Ibn (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone
Hello Daniel, I'm Airplaneman. I'm here to inform you of a discussion I initiated at Talk:IPhone about your removal of the prototype mentions in iPhone. If you could further explain why you believe these events no longer warrant inclusion in the article due to low notability, that would be great. Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to JavaScript and Java
Hi - I respect the change you made to the lead paragraph of the JavaScript article, but in the process we lost a key point, that the syntax of JavaScript is deliberately modelled after that of Java (this is stated by Brendan Eich in interviews, and is also directly in the introduction to the ECMAScript language standard). Some of these references were also lost when you made the change. Historically Brendan Eich copied Java syntax for JavaScript, and James Gosling copied C syntax for Java. Also in the process the entire paragraph from History was just copied word for word into the lead, and I think there are similar problems in that paragraph. This is also under discussion in the talk page. I do think you brought up a good point, that the relationship between JavaScript and Java needs to be accurately phrased. In fact, there are several places in the article where the relationship was mentionned, also inaccurately, and these could be improved as well. I would like therefore to suggest further changes to restore the fact that Java syntax was copied deliberately when JavaScript was created. What do you think of this? DonToto (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Toyota Camry Hybrid
Hi. I though you might be interested in participation in this discussion Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. There is a user that wants to merge all hybrid model specific articles with the main article of the main model.-Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again Daniel. I know you already expressed your opinion, but a voting is going on and it closes today. As the creator of the article I think it is important that you cast your vote here.Mariordo (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Android
Hi, now that Android points to a disambiguation page, could you help clean up the links that now point to a dab per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --Ja Ga talk 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting a bot do this. See comments in the Android (robot) discussion page. Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Android (board game)
Hello, I removed the prod tag you placed on Android (board game). The article had been prodded on 20 February 2009 and contested the following day, thereby making it permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. Please take to AfD. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Guice
An article is not considered to be properly categorized just because it has a stub template on it, if it doesn't also have at least one real, permanent content category on it as well. The stub template is a temporary maintenance tag, which gets removed once the article has been expanded beyond stub length — so the stub category does not count as a real category. The uncategorized template has to stay on the article until it's actually been added to at least one real, permanent content category that isn't being artificially applied by a stub template. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest
I notice that you have been suggesting that the Android OS be the primary topic for the "Android" topic.

Are you the same Daniel Cardenas who is the Software Engineer?

If so, you appear to have a major conflict of interest.

Please do not use Wikipedia as a way to promote (directly or indirectly) your employer or their products.

Regards, -- Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. My employment change has been very recent, and I have no special interest in Android.  My employment is not related to Android.  My interest stems from ownership of two Samsung Moments and installing custom software from sdx forums.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. I thought I'd ask, as I'm sure you'll understand that it looks like you had a conflict of interest! For your privacy, I have removed the personal details above from the history of this page. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Business sense


A tag has been placed on Business sense requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PhGustaf (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel. There's a message for you at the CSD talk page about this.— S Marshall  T/C 23:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers lead section
It still seems to me that the stats about Germany Firefox usage in the lead paragraph of this article are out of place. But perhaps you are doing it to make a point that any regional bias is bad (i.e. whether it is US or Germany or anything else) ? Either way, I will wait and see what other editors think about it. Thanks. Wikiolap (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its there because it is interesting. I plan on adding to the intro, once the dust settles, such as a discussion about trends.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Honda Insight
Looking for comments on the use of a newer picture. Ng.j (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment about: Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image. Do you understand that from the simple WP:CARPIX? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have consensus on using a picture of a second generation Insight, the primary issue is finding one that meets subjective criteria. If you have a preference for a particular picture please state it on the talk page.Ng.j (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level
Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As a follow up to the above message this is a note to let you know that there is merger discussion taking place here regrading the Civic and Accord Hybrid, just in case you want to participate.-Mariordo (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)