User talk:Cadiomals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Recent edit of History of Earth[edit]

Cadiomals, I think it is a pity that you deleted the introductory sentence of the Cenozoic section in this edit. An engaging introductory sentence or two at the beginning of a section makes the article more readable. Most people would be more interested in mammals and birds than in how the Cenozoic is subdivided. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it was because I didn't want to be repetitive. But I will add a new, modified sentence after the one mentioning its subdivisions. Cadiomals (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That looks good. An introduction to a section doesn't really count as repetition. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Montage for birds[edit]

I apologise for adding another bird. I wasn't aware of the talk page thing and all. Anyway, I'd love for you to do the montage thing. Birds are DIVERSE animals, from small, ugly, cute, big, scary...etc. I wanted to do that but I didn't know how and also because of the copyright issues (I would need Google images - wiki would hardly allow that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionhead99 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be creating and adding a montage soon, either today or tomorrow. Cadiomals (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amirite?[edit]

A tag has been placed on Amirite? 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Ducknish (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Brain article and other articles[edit]

Hi, Cadiomals. This edit you made to the Brain article is not correct because there are of course other functions of the brain, such as what the third paragraph of that article mentions. Thinking is what we usually think of when we consider the brain, after all.

Looking at several of your other edits at whichever article, I just want to state that I feel that you should be extra careful on these types of articles -- astronomy, anatomy, other science-related articles, and basically any topic that needs a lot of care and sometimes requires the attention of those with special knowledge of the subjects. You are editing some articles that have attained WP:GA or WP:FA status, meaning that the material was generally carefully scrutinized before attaining that high-level status. As such, some of your desired changes would be better proposed on the talk page of whatever article in question before being implemented. Even in cases where the article is not of GA or FA status. Keep that in mind (no pun intended). 109.123.86.232 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks IP. First of all, just because something is FA or GA status, does not at all mean it doesn't need any more improvements. An FA or GA article can lose its status for a number of reasons. Second of all, most of my edits have not been contested yet, including the one I made to the brain, even though I see your point on that one and might tweak it further. This obviously means no one finds anything wrong with them. I don't understand why someone would criticize my recent edits when almost none of them have been reverted yet. Also, I think carefully before I make an edit and most of them aren't major. They are small improvements I think refine the article even more. I would also like to add that the tone of your message was quite lofty, as if you have so much more experience than me, yet you're an IP. I find your message to be pointless, actually. I've been here over two years and it's not like I don't already know how things work. Thanks anyway. Cadiomals (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Higher dimensions[edit]

You added a sentence here about higher dimensions within the universe. Can you add a wikilink directing us to what that means please? Thanks. Pass a Method talk 16:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Higher dimensions are predicted by string theory among other theories. I'll add a wikilink in that article. Cadiomals (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Pass a Method talk 12:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This may interest you. Pass a Method talk 12:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Per wp:lead we should summarize the article briefly in the lede. I didn't see anything about higher dimensions in the universe body so should it be removed from the lede or should the body be expanded? Pass a Method talk 17:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology side bar addition[edit]

I disagree with your adding the geology side bar to various articles. The side bar is poorly done, and it simply clutters articles with its presence without adding anything encyclopedic. Please discuss at the template talk page or on the plate tectonics talk page, then annotate the other about where you posted. Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I never added the geology side bar to most articles, only the plate tectonics one. If you were to revert that I wouldn't make fuss of it. But for the most part I wasn't responsible for making that side bar and the articles in which it was placed, i only ever changed the color and image. Cadiomals (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Hi! I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --

Orphaned non-free media (File:4wtcrendering.png)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:4wtcrendering.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

need help in uploading a picture[edit]

can you help me, i want to know how to upload a pic from the newspaper. i have scanned a picture from hindustan times newspaper and i want to upload it on wikipedia. how i shoulf upload that pic and under which license.ImmortalSpartans (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your unwarranted post on my Talk Page[edit]

"Can you calm down for once??

I will revert any other reverts you attempt to make on United States, along with others who have already shown they will do the same. You and Ellen cannot keep doing this, it is of no help and incredibly frustrating. I went two weeks with peace of mind and I have already submitted a request for full page protection. Please be civil for ONCE and Stop edit warring for gods sake! Cadiomals (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)"

I'm perfectly calm, as always, and had no plans for further reverts since I had already done so twice (same as Stuff). You've already reverted three times today, so physician heal thyself. That said, if Ellen and her cohort can get poorly conceived, POV material shoved into the article while bypassing Talk Page discussion altogether, all bets will be off and I'll resume editing as I see fit, along with any other non-leftists who come along (I'm not the only one here). You unfairly lumping me in with Ellen and continuously throwing me under the bus when I've been supporting your efforts in good faith all along and compromising up a storm got old a long time ago. You only partially reverting Ellen's undiscussed edit and wasting your energy hypocritically admonishing me (possibly due to you miscalculating and assuming you'd be better off bending over backwards to distance yourself from me so you could posture as "neutral"), hasn't helped the article. The only way this was ever going to work was if good faith editors concerned with article quality banded together and formed a united front to channel contentious proposals onto the Talk Page first, so the edit warring would end. Recent Talk Page discussion has shown how quickly numbers can change with all the editors floating around, so there was no reason for you to cave. It's just a matter of standing strong and drawing other editors in, though your RFC route may have been premature in this case, since it invites potential driveby commentary from people who don't know about the bloating, edit warring, or recent efforts to streamline for neutrality. Hopefully it works out. VictorD7 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

Perhaps a good idea to read over Wikipedia:Article size to see why so many people are saying the USA article is too big. Its #80 on the list of articles that are way to big making it in the top 2 percent. -- Moxy (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Document statistics for United States article.....

  • File size: 986 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 200 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 30 kB
  • Wiki text: 270 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 90 kB (14417 words) "readable prose size" WP:TOOBIG
  • References (text only): 2351 B

U.S. geography sidebar[edit]

The Talk discussion rolled over us, and I do not believe there is anything to be done to change the lead for now. But I would like to explore your comment there. Agreed, outlying territories can be elaborated in the Political division, although State Department reports American Samoa is the only "outlying territory" of the 'big five'.

Countries which have outlying territories without representation in their national legislature exclude those territories --- as in U.K. and its U.K. Virgin Islands. Those with outlying territories WITH representation in their national legislature include those territories in republics such as France and the United States.

But the U.S. article in WP does not, the territories are "wiki-ceceded" from the nation by blanking the result of a dispute resolution. There are no sources to exclude U.S. citizen islanders from the lead, islanders who are included by statute, organic law and presidential executive order. These islanders since the 1990s have been mutually U.S. citizens by referendum, with three-branch self-government by local constitutional convention, and territorial representation in Congress voting in caucus, committee and conference---, consistent with national practice for two centuries.

In that way the article lead excluding territorial islanders is twenty years out of date -- more than the religion section, is it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the last exchange at Talk:United States#Geography, it occurs that the principle basis of disagreement revolves around the difference between U.S. republican treatment of territories and British imperial treatment. British influence is felt elsewhere, hence Moxy recommending the Canadian bibliography for a consensus reference basis in writing U.S. history.
Several American editors have found this bewildering when the argument is conducted without sources, counter-asserting racism or Marxism, which I objected to at the time and do now. Amazingly, one editor informed me there was no reason for the American War of Independence, as the rebels got everything they demanded before the outbreak of hostilities --- but he would not reveal his source. I could be safely ignored given the 'consensus'.
Just as now, an American editor observes U.S. law geographically includes its territories -- and objections are made without reference to any source to counter or discredit it. If editors disclose publicly held sources readily available to an American reading audience, there might be less contention on this point, any counter-source to US law in the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Eep... I haven't actually been following this discussion, I just put in my two-cents early on. Hope you guys can settle it amongst yourselves... Cadiomals (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay. I'll wait until another editor again notes the glaring omission. Golbez did say I am going about it the wrong way. Maybe its the way the question is being framed. What is the meaning of U.S. as a place, for use by a general reader? How is it to be described?

  • Presidential Executive Order 13423 of January 24, 2007, includes all five organized inhabited territories: "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."
  • The Census Department in its American Community Survey Reports, May 2012, page 1, note 1, defines "native-born American" as anyone born in the 50 states, DC, "Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area... U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and... the Northern Mariana Islands."
  • As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.”
  • U.S. Code 28 U.S.C. § 3002 – DEFINITIONS “State” throughout U.S. statutory law “means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
  • Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232).

There are no counter sources offered to exclude native-born Americans, --- U.S. citizens within the geographical extent of the U.S. --- from the lede of the U.S. article at WP. There is only some variation of "I can't hear you." How is it, that the sources do not carry the argument in the face of no sources among third parties? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

semi-protection for Infobox?[edit]

Somewhere among the councils of Wikipedia, there should be a way developed for an article page to semi-protect just the Infobox from drive-by changes like that you recently corrected on the 'United States' Infobox - language. I've had similar occasions at an Infobox to repost the flag of the historic Confederacy which ended in 1865 versus a flag used for the modern "Confederacy", used by a present-day neo-secessionist group the C.S.A.,Inc., "since 1865". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You would have to ask an admin about that. I have no idea how, and I also can't imagine how because infoboxes are part of the article itself and are not separate components on their own (like templates are), so I don't see how individual parts of articles could be protected. Cadiomals (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your editions to the Philippines (history section)[edit]

The way you have edited the history subsection in the Philippines article removed it's linearity. As you can observe with the majority of the history sections in most articles about countries: Here, Here, Here and Here, you can glean that their history sections are just one series, yet your editions to the Philippines article had created sub series under some subsections thus, deviating from the accepted norm. I also disgree with the structuring you enforced on the article. You claimed that the Indic period should be relabeled into Classical states period because not all the Philippine societies were Indianized, we'll I could say the same thing for the Islamic period, not all Philippine societies were also islamized, thus, there should be no islamic period but just one uniform classical states period. However, that would once again deviate from the norm. Let's take for example: Portugal, notice how in that article they also have an islamic era in the form of Moorish Iberia? Even though the whole Iberian peninsula was not islamized. They also had a Visigoth era, even before though not the entire country was under visigoth rule.

With this precedent in mind, I would like to revert the Philippines article under the original format. Due to the following reasons: (1) It is the standard format common to most articles about countries (2) The necessity of asking for consensus first before creating major changes in an entire article structure [unless it is a minor edit] and (3) The original format was easier on the eyes and corresponds to textbook delimitations on eras [As in the series "Philippine History" by Gregorio Zaide; the Japanese period and the Islamic period were really separate divisions not subsumed under other eras.

I hope you understand the rationale behind my reverts. Thank You Very Much. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "linearity"... if you mean "subseries" me creating a subsection of "Islamic expansion" under "Classical states", I can return that back to its separate section. I noticed in the articles you link that the History sections are often subdivided based on broad periods (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, etc. etc.).... we could just as easily cleanly divide the Philippine history section into "Pre-Colonial", "Spanish colonial" and "modern period" sections. However this would make the Modern period section very long relative to the others, so this does not seem practical. You should also know that the current subsections (which I simply renamed a couple) have existed for years like that.
I understand the necessity for gathering consensus, but I did not feel my edits were very major so I went ahead and just made them. I propose we take this to Talk:Philippines if you wish for further discussion and so that its possible for others to give input if they wish. I have a proposal to merge the "Islamic" and "Indic" sections into one "Pre-colonial societies" as Philippine society was too disparate and fragmented prior to colonialism to apply anything more specific, which was also my reason for renaming it to the broader "Classical states". Cadiomals (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Lets talk here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#Addition. Also, actually, I was the one who originally made the neat delimitations into Classical, Colonial and Contemporary eras. It was other people (who debated with me and forced me to concede mind you) who serialized my original stable versions. We can continue talking about this in the Philippine Talk Page. Have a nice day
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Questioning an edit to the Philippines article.[edit]

This edit removed a few words, saying "forced to remove one minor detail due to overflow past the image". Unless I badly misunderstand something, that judgement depends on the text wrapping done in a particular display window of a particular width on your individual screen using some particular display resolution. That judgement would not apply across the wide spectrum of wikipedians reading the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that screen resolutions differ amongst users, but in this situation it was a small detail that detracts very little from the meaning of the sentence, changing from "such as the embezzlement of billions of dollars in public funds to foreign accounts" to "such as the embezzlement of billions of dollars in public funds". It's embezzlement nonetheless. Sorry, I have the tendency to act OCD when it comes to the aesthetics of an article (how text and images are arranged to make the article look as neat and professional as possible). Even if it might look somewhat different on someone else's computer, I have peace of mind if it simply looks good on mine... how did it look on yours? Did the paragraph overflow past the image with the few extra words or not? Cadiomals (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
To me, it looked OK either way. It changed, of course, if I adjusted the width of the window or the size of the text (with ctrl-plus and ctrl-minus on the mswin7 system on a netbook with a 1024x600 pixel display I happen to be using just now). It'd look different on my Android smartphone (DTC GT-10 with a 6" display), of course, and also different on other tablet or phablet devices with various display sizes (and would depend on vertical or horizontal display orientation on some of those). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize all that, and I also know that it would change if you zoomed in or out. That was just a minor change to give me peace of mind as I made an effort to make the entire section look neat and compact with nothing out of place, at least from my typical resolution. Not a huge deal either way really :-/ Cadiomals (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cadiomals. You have new messages at Materialscientist's talk page.
Message added 21:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

United States CCTLD[edit]

Hello Cadiomals,

I would like to discuss with you regarding your reverting of my edit about the Country Code Top-Level Domain for the United States. I would like to point out that the Country Code for the United States is US and therefore .gov, .mil, and .edu are not Country Code Top-Level Domains for the United States but merely generic top-level domains used sometimes in the U.S.

Thanks, Sparkyb10123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before on the US Talk page, I don't feel like going over it again. Basically, .gov .mil .edu are used exclusively by the US. Take it up with someone else pls. Cadiomals (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Reporting vandals[edit]

User:65.51.181.126 looks like a shared school IP and the last warning was nearly a month ago, on an unrelated article, so it's probably a different human. For future reference, any Wikipedia editor can report a vandal who's gone past a final warning (or is in the midst of a blatant vandalism spree) - just go to WP:AIV and follow the instructions. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! That is certainly a useful resource I was unaware of and I will use in the future. Cadiomals (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)