User talk:CardinalDan

Son of God

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

See your talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thirteenth

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

University of Baltimore School of Law

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

Yeah, really

Oh, you're not even an sysop. Enough of the vandalism talk. I vandalized a couple articles and now I'm having a civil conversation. Really, just looking at all the messages you have on your page, it seems you don't assume good faith as we're supposed to and quickly jump quickly to the conclusion that others are vandalizing. 70.160.217.28 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your earlier actions do not indicate that you are willing to engage in good faith edits; that is why you received your warnings. For that you were warned. CardinalDan (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So I am forever tainted with my page blanking? I cannot even have my actions looked upon as good because I've twice vandalized? So far the majority of my edits have been good, constructive edits informing you about one of the best guidelines on Wikipedia. 70.160.217.28 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You got warned, not blocked. A block would be a taint on your actions, if you heeded the warnings, then that's good, forget about it! Just don't do it again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Making baseless accusations do not give a good impression to editors. Also, your first few edits that you made made you look like a vandal. If you can make an effort to make good edits to different articles (not talk pages), then it may be different. Like Kraftos said, I gave you warnings, heed them. CardinalDan (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Martha, Asfixiante

Howdy, do you know if this article has already been transwikied? I was not able to find it on the Spanish Wikipedia (ie es:Martha, Asfixiante). Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like it was already deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia. Sorry for the trouble. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Michels syndrome

Hi, I just wanna consult you about the tags you added to the article, can you be more specific about the wikify tag, the lead tag, and the cleanup tag, and especially the clean up tag, what clean up you recommend, thank you MaenK.A._Talk 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For the wikify tag, there are some red links that I think can be fixed or lead to the proper article. For the lead tag, I think you can better describe the disease, instead of covering the symptoms. For the cleanup, I believe you can better section the article. Hope that explains the tags. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. CardinalDan (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First as you can see here that the word syndrome refers to the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs, and symptoms. so when mentioning these I am actually describing the symptom, and about the red links, these link to articles that are still missing from the wikipedia, and what sections you would recommend for 3 lines article??, thank you for your time MaenK.A._Talk 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning?

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

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

Chad Kroeger

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

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism;..."

The following addition was as such:

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

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

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

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

Krackenhunter is going to get deleted anyway.

Let him have his hangon, for what little good it will do. HalfShadow 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

False warning

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

IP Vandal at Chronicles of Narnia

Hi CardinalDan: I hope you don't mind that I went straight to a 4im warning. I did so after looking at the talk history for this IP. It has obviously been involved in several vandalism related events before, and is quite obviously a vandalism only ip...I realize its a drastic step, but figured it was reasonable under the circumstances. Frmatt (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; if that is so, then it is a reasonable step-up warning. CardinalDan (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, wha?

Could you please explain this? -- Banjeboi 06:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I must have clicked on the wrong link. CardinalDan (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was hoping it was just a whoops. Cheers! -- Banjeboi 06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

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

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

Another note: take care not to welcome-template users with three year old accounts who vandalise like X06 (talk · contribs · logs). His antisemitic edit warring on The Protocols should have been given a more severe warning. Auntie E. 16:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

North Korea

It is not a story book thing, it could be true. stop changing it!! The spesh man 1 August 2009 at 16:26. (UTC) I swear i am not!!