User talk:CardinalDan

My edit to Jack Black was not vandalism.

Take a second to read the article. If you do read it, you will find that the article on Jack Black was actually HIGHLY vandalized. I'm sure that the section on challenging an article or tagging parts of an article said that if there was false information on a biographical person, it must be removed IMMEDIATELY. Or was I supposed to give valid reasons for the edit? If I forgot to, I apologize. Conjo278 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Just read the article and you will understand. Perhaps try editing the article yourself to remove the vandalism? 71.141.141.6 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But more importantly, you should at least discuss it first at the talk page before making such a large edit. Also, like you said give a valid reason for the edit. It doesn't look good if you delete large parts of an article, replacing it with "This part has been vandalized and needs to be fixed." It doesn't send out a good signal. CardinalDan (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for telling me. I'm a little new at this editing thing, so sorry about my mistakes. Sorry for forgetting to sign as well Conjo278 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's a bit tough at first when you edit here, but you get the hang of it. CardinalDan (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting vandalism

Thanks for reversing that vandalism on Whoopi Goldberg. You beat me to it. LA Movie Buff (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. CardinalDan (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh

So, you're saying that it's okay for an article to have multiples sections with the same informaton? (sarcasm) Mamolu (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should have mentioned it first in your edit summary. CardinalDan (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal fighting

Thanks to you and the others for reverting my user pages faster than I could even refresh, and for also updating my "vandalised" stats! Lol. Apparently User:Terrancee is annoyed at me for calling out some copyright violations :) Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could help. CardinalDan (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		CardinalDan is hereby awarded the Barnstar of Userpage Protection for his tireless efforts in reverting vandalism on userpages. Turkish Flame ☎ 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discordia

OK, keep the page as is with a screenshot of a softare that is no longer supported, denying a company that acquired it from the rights to what is now its own software and instead spam the page with conspiracy theories by people associated with a completely unrelated prodcut. It's Wikipedia's new independenet point of view. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.157.252.209 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have delete this article. Please check hi5, facebook, myspace, mychurch, Billy Graham, A Afghan Times Anglicans Online B Bibeltemplet BibleGateway.com C The Christian Post Christian Today ChristianRock.Net Christianity.com Church News Conservapedia C cont. Crosswalk.com D Desperate Preacher's Site E Elijah List Esprit Omnimedia G Gay Christian Network Gentle Christian Mothers H Hearitfirst.com I Independent Catholic News Internet evangelist J Jesus Freak Hideout M MyChurch O Oneplace.com R Rapture Ready Rapzilla S Sacred Space Salem Communications Salem Web Network Ship of Fools (website) T Tangle.com The Text This Week X XXXchurch.com

and more i think then all of these fall under A7  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleywishes (talk • contribs) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 

Ohio meetup location

Where should the Ohio meetup take place? The best option is probably wherever the most people can attend, so you opinion counts. See Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Ohio 1#Location !vote. hmwithτ 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My article deleted

Hi,

I'm so sorry, I can not understand why you can't accept my article... I'm not english native, it's a bit tough... Well I think I have mentioned all reference tho. and all what I wrote is informative about the music and rock world I belong to. My article is not finished yet. I have many things to share and to add as a renown Agent and promoter in the rock world. ( but it already took me so long to type this first step of the article ) I don't need any promotion, I think I deserve an article here. It's all about telling the story of rock of the 21st century. A testimony which is my life and my experience, the life of my company, of my boss. Very rich and intense experiences. I have to tell the story so that the people can understand who I am, and what I, we are doing and want to do in the Music World. Please, tell me how to do. It took me about 2 hours or even more to put all references and links. It's horrible. I thought I was right...

All the best,

Nathalie Nbecquet (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I did not delete the article myself, it was one of the administrators. I marked the article for deletion because it sounded very promotional and it talked about an individual who was not notable. With that being said, if you want to work on your article, you could possibly make a sandbox on your userpage and work on it. Also, check out Wikipedia:Your first article for more advice on creating a page.CardinalDan (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yngwie Article

Hi CardinalDan, The Criticism section which I removed had no real place being there. Blender, which has a reputation for being a generally untrusted source posted an article which defiled huge bands such as Whitesnake and The Doors. The article is generally ignored, in a similar way to Rolling Stones greatest 100 guitarists. The article had no place on the page, and any criticism of his technique and style, should be documented from recognized sources such as Guitarist Magazine, Total Guitar, Classic Rock etc. I think you are wrong in what you did, and by the looks of it, you seem to have annoyed a few more people round here. I think you should maybe take a break from Wikipedia, you seem a little addicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.155.38 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should have left an edit summary in your edit, so it would not misconstrued as vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as an addenum, most of the people who are annoyed at my work are vandals, so put that as you will. CardinalDan (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rose Scott Disagreement

I am a little disappointed that you have removed my contributions too the article regarding highly acclaimed female suffragette Rose Scott, I would be willing to make a compromise rather than arguing over the position. Thankyou for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie Wilson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

 Clerk note: Please note that sockpuppet reports should be filed under the name of the MASTER account rather than the sock, and that evidence should be included. A bald assertion that this is a sock is NOT evidence Mayalld (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Sorry about that, I'll try to remember that next time. CardinalDan (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cernova edit

The edits I have included are NOT POV. they are a published work by a renowned Professor of History at the University of Toronto. Stanislav, Josef Kischbaum. why is this POV if it is published by an academic institution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The way that you have edited the page in question makes it seem that you are pushing a certain POV, that is why I was suspicious about your edits. First, you put in "Hungarian view of events," then after the categories part of the page, added the "Slovak view of events." That points to a possible POV pushing. If possible, you can discuss the edits in the Talk page of the article. I do not pretend to be an expert for the article in question, but you can probably discuss it with other editors to see if you can reach a compromise on this. CardinalDan (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan I have trien for months to reach a compromise. Hobartimus continues to erase EVERYTHING! I could write "hello" and 5min later its gone. I will refrain from editing it if you can help. the Please change the Hungarian events title to. somthing ambiguous say "version one" or some such and the Slovak version to "version two" that way there are no ethnic associations at least. I would be very happy with that and it would in some ways vindicate the fact that there is more than one "experience" of the event.

I feel however, that you will soon see Hobartimus and Nmate will return and restore the article to the single POV version. At least read the edit I am trying to establish, and make your own decision on what is proper.

By the way, good going on the Anthro! cultural or bio? I'm a Junior professor at UofT in Bio-Anthro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a focus on biological anthropology, although I did take my fair share of cultural anthro classes. I'll take a look at the edits and see what I can do. In the meantime, I have added the article toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. The admins there may be able to help reach a compromise on the article. If possible, you may be able to discuss the article there. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. CardinalDan (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Hello. When you patrol new pages, acceptable articles or articles which have been tagged for deletion should be marked as "patrolled" using the link at the bottom right of the article. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not usually NPP, I usually do recent page patrol, but I'll keep it in mind. CardinalDan (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh righto, sorry. You tagged a page with a deletion template; I assumed it was through active patrolling rather than you just happening to chance on it. My apologies. Ironholds (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. But I'll keep it in mind. CardinalDan (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Donte Stallworth

Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.72.147 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Until more facts from the case are revealed, it is premature to say anything about his situation. Also, sign your comments with four tildes. CardinalDan (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Cook

Come on, you add article issues with 2 minutes? What's your deal. Give things a minute. References will be added (and have been) so will other things. But, it is difficult to edit when you are giving me EDIT CONFLICTS. Give it a rest, man. Take a minute, relax. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wanted it to be noted so you could expand on it. CardinalDan (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but maybe in the future you can wait more than 2 minutes. Logic might dictate that someone may be working on it. Trying to put in footnotes and getting a EDIT CONFLICT from someone telling you to put in footnotes is frustrating to say the least, espeically after 2 minutes. I suggest being a bit more sensitive to others' work, then, if needed, make good contructive edits to help the article.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize then, for that. CardinalDan (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Heh, thanks for removing that message from my talk page. Keep up the good work! Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also updated your vandalism counter on your User Page too. CardinalDan (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

n/p, but please remember to not attack vandals. Thanks for updating the counter... Think I'm gonna get rid of it through, to hard to keep up-to-date :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do that from time to time to vent frustration. CardinalDan (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tuvalu

The entry for Climate Change is theorhetical, yet is presented as fact. It needs to be removed. If someone wants to present the facts about the elevation of the land in question, that is entirely appropriate. The sea levels aren't rising in any verifiable way that can be proven, and it's utter nonsense to allow this posting to continue to be attached to the article. Surely someone who is learned as you are (I read your info page) can understand the necessity for presenting fact rather than one-sided assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.202.58 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Presenting what you wrote into an article would be considered NPOV as well as vandalism. The article is not the place to put this in. If you have any problems with this, discuss it under the talk page, not in the article. CardinalDan (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert Question

I was Just looking at one of the reverts you did earlia, How Do you revert back more then one edit? Thanks in advance Jack 04:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have rollback rights for Wikipedia? That is one way to roll back more than one edit. You probably have to show that you are serious about editing in Wikipedia first before being granted that right. Alternatively, you can go to the page history tab and go to the last good page edit, copy and paste to revert, although that takes a long time. CardinalDan (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh right well no i dont, Thanks for clearing that up, Jack 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. If you want more information on it, or how to get it, you can check out [[1]] CardinalDan (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good luck with editing here. CardinalDan (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Hollingshead Article

Hi, just requesting that you give me a chance to get this article up to scratch - every time I go back to the article there seems to be a new tag on it. I put the underconstruction tag on it so that I can go and research. Thanks.--Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that it was uncategorized, so I added that tag. I don't know if I can add anything more to the article, so good luck to construct the article. CardinalDan (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to an article merely asking "according to whom?"; i.e., a note requesting citation. This may not meet style, but it is certainly not "vandalism" under any definition of that term. Indeed, the assertion and/or insertion of incorrect or unattributed material is much more akin to vandalism. That is why I pointed it out to underline necessary skepticism. If you are going to play an editorial role and label things as "vandalism," justify doing so. And if you have time to label me as such, spend it more wisely by actually fixing the article's content.