User talk:Daniel.Cardenas/Archive 2

LA Smog
I notice that you are an active editor on the "Los Angeles Smog" article. Please reference my comments on the article's talk page. Perhaps you can help. Thanks!Apostle12 (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

World map of popular browser usage share
Please see the discussion on web browser usage share article related to the including the world map of popular browsers by country. The data is based on statcounter.com and is updated regularly. It is on www.browserrank.com. Can you add that map to the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.80.66 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Qpst


The article Qpst has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability and importance not established

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dawnseeker2000  23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Qpst for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Qpst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Qpst until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dawnseeker2000  23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer  Waters  22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
.Geofferybard (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comăneci
Sorry, but adding that image made me realise we had a problem Commonsside. The image has a source, but it's a dead URL, and no proof the license is correct- if the claimed blogspot site ever existed, we have no reason to believe the owner of that blogspot owned the image. (I also strongly suspect the photo is older than 2002- it strikes me as late '70s.) Unless the uploader can get something to OTRS, it has to be deleted seven days from today, so I've reverted your addition. I'll monitor the relevant OTRS queues and see if we get anything, and revert my reversion if we do. Courcelles 07:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

doesn't have Q1?
diff "Doesn't have Q1"? I think you are mistaken. Can I undo your edit? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, you fixed it. Thanks.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers
Per WP:Recentism the recent statistics are not any more notable than the old ones. Marcus  Qwertyus   06:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting the point you are trying to make. Please expand.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Post About Browsers
I found this link that has some different stats then other graphs. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?spider=1&qprid=0 P3771 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I responded to this earlier but forgot to save the page. As discussed on the talk page, this is Net Applications, which is already referenced on the page.  Thanks for your participation in wikipedia, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Web browser usage map problem
you added Argentina in green because of the chrome useage, but u didnt make green all argentina, just a portion, you didnt make green the southest part of Argentina. and i need to tell you in advance im not making a discusion about malvinas/falkland, i mean you just leave 1 entire Argentina's province called "Tierra del fuego" []

thx in advance and sorry my english language skills, i hope you can understand me.

i was talking about this file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_most_used_web_browser_cropped.png --200.127.168.234 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sería bueno si lo arreglas. :) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Guyana
Accordying to Statcounter, in Guyana Internet Explorer has always been the number one browser, so far. So the most used web browser by countries map it´s not correct. Guyana is next to Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.239.237.9 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia browser share pie chart.png
Just wondering: How did you obtain the data from which you created this graph? — Smjg (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Usage_share_of_web_browsers and or http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-09/SquidReportClients.htm . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
As advised by ItsZippy at Dispute resolution noticeboard‎, applied to Mediation Cabal. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Daniel.Cardenas: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mapa de navegadores más usados por país
Asumo que sabes español, así que te dejaré el mensaje así. Primero te sugiero que los cambios al mapa de los navegadores más usado por país se hagan una vez haya acabado el mes, ya que por principio la estadística siempre mide un periodo terminado; además hay países donde las diferencias son tan ajustadas que pueden variar de un día para otro. En segundo lugar la modificación que haz realizado para reflejar los cambios del mes de noviembre, no ha tomado en cuenta por ejemplo el hecho que al parecer en Francia Firefox estaría superando a Internet explorer por escaso margen (razón, como dije arriba, para posponer los cambios hasta que acabe el mes). Un error reiterativo que se conserva hasta ahora es el de Guyana (país limítrofe con Venezuela, no confundir con Guayana Francesa ni Surinam) en el que hasta ahora Internet Explorer es el líder (desde siempre) y sin embargo se ha coloreado asumiendo que lo es Firefox. Gracias por leer mi mensaje, que sólo buscar mejorar la administración del archivo del que estamos discutiendo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.239.243.58 (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, but the lead for Brazil was growing and has continued to expand. Feel free to fix the issue with Guayana.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:GravEngAbs
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:GravEngAbs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindle Fire
Hi, if you revert somebody like you did on the Kindle Fire article, please provide a rationale why. I had the courtesy to do so when I blanked the section, so I would expect the same if somebody disapproves with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.109.231.31 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed "how to" stuff. I wouldn't call it a revert.  More like a clean up. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Daniel.Cardenas,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daemon (computing)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Daemon (computing). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers
I don't see a need to edit-war. I'm personally OK with it either on or off.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for you. If you don't believe in anything you will never have any enemies. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

looking forwikipedia article writer
We are looking for someone to author a Wikipedia article about the N2A card. We ca provide you with access to the maker of the card, timeline, etc. Can you help us or make a referral? Bonnie Beebe n2a.mail@gmail.com www.n2a.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.10.132 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick note from a lurker - You appear to be soliciting people to write a promotional article on a product with which you are critically involved. This type of behavior strongly suggests a conflict of interest, or at the very least a non-neutral point of view, and is generally discouraged on Wikipedia.  Ebikeguy (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Update wikimedia pie chart in place
Hello. I don't know how to add a new version of the same file, you should do that if you want and please tell me how. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I384403 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a link towards the bottom of the page: "upload a new version of this file". Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't such a link for me. I saw that link on your old pie charts, but not on mine, I can show you a screenshot if you want. I384403 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the wikimedia page for the chart or the wikipedia page? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link for your special page? I384403 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On that page there is a link to wikimedia which points to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_browser_share_pie_chart_3.png
 * On the page you linked to there is this text with a couple of links:
 * This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
 * Click on the link "description page there".  Thanks so much for creating the pie charts! :) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I found it, there is a link to "Upload a new version of this file". I384403 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the file 3 days ago and it is still not updated on the pages. I have no idea why. I384403 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the update 3 days ago. Try shift f5 on your browser or try a different browser.  The numbers seem to have small errors though.  For example I.E. was 25.36% in April Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So what do I do to make it update correctly? I'm using Firefox, I will not change it. I've tried refreshing the browser, deleting the cookies, everything, in other cases I can update correctly. The numbers are fine, as I.E. is used on tablets and smartphones too, adding them up you get the pie chart number. I384403 (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Air-cushioned landing craft
I'm confused as to why you are deleting the link to Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide from the Air-cushioned landing craft article. You stated "This is an english wiki", but this is an article onEnglish Wiki. Did you even try to read the article before deleting it twice? If you issue is with the title of the article not being in English, that should be addressed on that article's talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad, although I question linking such an article from hovercraft. Thanks for the explanation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. The reason it's linked is that both types are landing craft, with the Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide being a catamaran (L-CAT) developed as a cheaper alternative to LCAC hovercraft. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:2013 Colorado floods, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stern Gerlach experiment
A few years ago, In here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stern–Gerlach_experiment you talked about some recent experiments contradicting the results that Stern and Gerlach got. I am very interested in seeing the papers with proof of these new results. Have you been able to find your sources so I can see them for myself? Thanks! Humanoid (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I read was recent. I don't have a reference to the sources.  But I still maintain an interest in seeing higher resolution experiments being conducted.  The experiments I came across were conducted in Japan and where in Japanese or at least one of them was. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Test-driven development, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring at Test-driven development
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Test-driven development. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AnTuTu


A tag has been placed on AnTuTu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read the article. You should re-evaluate how you are contributing to wikipedia. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unveiling date is trivia?
Personally, I think it's more important to include that in the lead than anything, mainly because that's when the initial publicity and awareness of the device begins, and because actual release dates vary by region.

Plus, your insistence is creating one sentence-long history sections that look awkward. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenMAX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE
Hi Daniel.Cardenas. When you make and edit and someone reverts it, you can look at their edit summary for an explanation of why. Twice you removed content from the lead of 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and twice you were reverted. WP:LEADCITE instructs that citations are not need for material that is a summary of cited material elsewhere in the article. Please let me know if you have any questions and feel free to join the discussions on the article talk page. Cheers - MrX 13:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:LEADCITE does not say that. What text specifically are you looking at? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was paraphrasing and also adding my observations from my experience. Every piece of information in the lead is repeated in the body of the article, with citations. WP:LEADCITE says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." The consensus in this article has been to keep cites out of the lead for readability.  If you can think of a good reason why that should not be the case, you can bring it up on the article talk page. - MrX 13:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are choice picking the text. What the text says if there is controversy then a citation is required.  The requirement not to have a citation is typically for summarization where there is no clear citation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss this on the article talk page, that way other editors can participate?- MrX 14:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the 3D XPoint page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=743234749 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F743234749%7C3D XPoint%5D%5D Ask for help])

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! :D  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DC Fast Charge
Hello Daniel.Cardenas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged DC Fast Charge for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fbergo (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

3D XPoint - dead ref
Hi, what was the real reference added for "Intel claims 10x lower latency, 3x write endurance, 4x writes per second performance improvement, 3x reads per second, and 30% power usage" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3D_XPoint&diff=743236007&oldid=743235412? The hubb.blob.core.windows.net/5a741d00-0c8a-45e4-9112-cfe073fe4ed1-published/3fde87a3-3307-485e-8528-2c1f6436d737/MASTC01%20-%20MASTC01_-_SF16_MASTC01_102?sv=2014-02-14&sr=c&sig=QY6WHaQ267MeMFMaYT%2BfUJuBzMTkEwjrsv7%2BCzSr6pY%3D&se=2016-10-09T17%3A50%3A09Z&sp=r does not work now and looks like some kind of news proxy. Do you have any hints about real article behind this proxy (date, publisher, author, where it was claimed)? `a5b (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Lightning. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Pacifica
Per WP:AUTOCONV, (RU) is the disambiguation used. There was a discussion on the talk page. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Grease witherspoon listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grease witherspoon. Since you had some involvement with the Grease witherspoon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"only Microsoft" - only redundant?
About my change that you reverted, it seems your addition was problematic. Google claims over 2 billion; I'm not aware anyone else does. What do you propose for a) that part and b) tfor Microsoft? Maybe no extra words? comp.arch (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, no extra words unless there is a reference. Thanks for asking. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read before acting
Please read Non-admin closure. User:Deepdeepocean is disqualified from non-admin closure in this case, and so are you. You don't get to edit an article, !vote in a discussion, and then proceed to invoke the snowball clause for a non-admin closure. See WP:BADNAC. Involved editors have to let others decide the outcome. You should probably re-read WP:SNOW as well. There's a great deal of misunderstanding going on here. You should trust that there are admins around who are aware of policy and are capable of applying it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disappointing you want to continue to waste people's time. Disappointing 18 keeps versus two deletes isn't sufficient for you to get the message. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. If you really don't understand that, you should spend more time reading before taking action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Its disappointing you don't really don't understand consensus. You should really try to understand what so many people are telling you. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:Consensus? It says "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." and "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Consensus is determined this way: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." The math you're using is counting !votes that don't actually count.I'm not sure why you keep telling me that you are disappointed. Is there a reason I should care whether you are disappointed or not? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disappointment, perhaps can tell you that your actions are not stellar. Yes, the quality of the arguments have been stellar, but you don't see that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy in Wikipedia
Hi Daniel.Cardenas

Along with my editing here, I work on conflict of interest and advocacy issues in Wikipedia.

I'd like to make sure you are aware of what we are all about here. First and foremost, there are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not. Due to its open nature as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", a lot of people come to Wikipedia with a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't. One of our most important policies, is What Wikipedia is not (abbreviated as "NOT")

One of the things it isn't, is a platform for advocacy or advertising (these are the same thing, from the community's perspective - content written to promote or denigrate something, that violates key content policies and guidelines as well).

This is discussed in the WP:SOAPBOX section of NOT.

We do understand that sometimes people are passionate about something in the real world, and want to come to Wikipedia to contribute to articles about that. This passion is a double-edged sword -- it drives contributions, but it can also lead people to be in too much of a hurry, and too intense, to learn how Wikipedia works and how to edit and behave according to the policies and guidelines that the community has built to govern itself. People who are passionate also have a hard time listening, and working through differences calmly, based on the policies and guidelines.

This is discussed somewhat in the policy section, WP:YESPOV. We also have two very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY and the other is WP:SPA (the latter stands for "single purpose account"). Please do read them both.

It takes time to really be what we call WP:HERE (as in "here to build an encyclopedia"). Only you can decide if you will be here, or not here. But please do be aware that you agree to learn and follow the policies and guidelines every time you edit here - that agreement is in Terms of Use that is linked-to, at the bottom of every page, and a link to the Terms of Use is also directly over the "save" button in the editing window. That is the basis on which we restrict the privileges of people who are NOTHERE.

So really - it is your choice! Please slow down and learn, and please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX to talk about how exciting Tesla's products are. If you continue as you have been, you will end up very frustrated and frustrating a lot of people in the process.

So... good luck! I will be happy to answer any questions you have. You can reply here if you like - I am watching your page now. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been here much longer than you as implied by our edit histories. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have been here that long, then you know that we topic ban people who cannot edit neutrally. Your account is near-SPA for Tesla and almost all of it is adding promotional content and removing negative content.  This is a very clear, demonstrable pattern. It is wonderful to be a fan, but not OK in WP.  Not at all OK.  Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your blinded by your negatively. I've indicated on the talk page how edits are not hype.  Read it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the already-reduced critical content is a form of hype. Your pattern of hyping Tesla is extremely clear. It would be better for everyone if you restrained yourself and aimed for the mission of Wikipedia, which is to provide neutral content, which means describing the promises and the criticisms. This is not a place to hype things. Please restrain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing helpful content, is not helpful to wikipedia. It would be better for everyone if you restrained yourself and gathered consensus on talk page first.  This is not the place to be negative. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am done trying. You will soon find yourself at ANI facing a request for a topic ban, supported by many, many diffs.  It is not OK to abuse WP to promote anything.  Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your days work. Almost all were very good. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing already-reduced, well-sourced, negative content is unacceptable. The Bloomberg artile is an exceptionally high quality ref and your removing that is inexcusable.Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Tesla Semi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good text. Seems more applicable to you than me.  I did write on the talk page.  You should have responded before revert. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You did not take our discussion above seriously. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a more direct link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Musk_fancruft . Suggest reading from bottom. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Archive link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Musk_fancruft  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tesla Semi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Persistent reintroduction of unverified material Drmies (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * There are plenty of references existing in the article for the content but if you want an explicit reference then that can be arranged. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So once again, you make an aggressive and promotional edit, made one comment on talk (in a section someone else opened), and then restored your edit. This is not how consensus works in WP. This is again, aggressive advocacy editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And would you describe your editing as peaceful and soothing? How many edit wars do you need to lose before you realize were the problem lies? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't about "winning". When there is a dispute, it gets talked out. You don't just force your content in.  You are editing as a promotional advocate, consistently. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't about "losing". When there is a dispute, it gets talked out, you don't just revert.  You are reverting important content that in previous disagreement everyone agreed except you was good content.  Your bad reverts are consistent. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Electric cars
Fuel cell car is electric car type -- >Typ932 T·C 09:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Refs in intros
The intro is just a summary of an article, and does not hold any u nique info. It is usually advised that they should be removed from intros during FAC review, so don't add them for no good reason. Also, do not move single sections to their own paragraph, it looks ugly (as the MOS tells us). FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See wp:cite: Quote: anywhere in article space. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. It is not required for uncontroversial information. And see WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout, single sentence paragraph are discouraged. This is a waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, you should discuss changes to already featured articles before making them. A lot of experienced eyes have looked on them, and it is very unlikely that you suddenly discovered something that hasn't been considered already. That this one sentence of the intro should suddenly need a citation and be split off from the rest is beyond ridiculous. We can deal with it here, or I will start a wider discussion on the article's talk page. And if you somehow haven't noticed, you are at your third revert too. The difference is that your edit directly contradicts at least one MOS recommendation. FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion is more appropriate for the article talk page. So I'll copy it over there. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already started a section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elaine Herzberg
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elaine Herzberg. —  IVORK  Discuss 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Forc listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Forc. Since you had some involvement with the Forc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wheel hub motor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hub ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Wheel_hub_motor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Wheel_hub_motor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Backprop history
The credit for popularizing backprop for neural nets is typically given to ''Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 1. Foundations'', 1986, by Rumelhart and McClellan. Don't leave that out. Some style tips: use straight apostrophes and quote marks, not the curly ones, per MOS:CURLY; but no apostrophe is needed on 1960s, I think (unless maybe 1960s' for the possessive; use 1960s instead of 60's). Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will investigate. Thanks for the tips! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. I would rate my overall history effort as poor, but I figured something is better than nothing. :) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Way better. Thanks for taking it on. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't get Trolled
I think there are people on Wikipedia that live for upsetting people. Then they apply the rules. Get help with them. I got the feeling they are a known problem but they do more good than harm. Granite07 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)