User talk:CardinalDan/Archive 5

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)

Penparcau

Just noticed that you removed the note in Welsh (Penparcau is in Wales and is also in welsh) for people that want to translate it to do it in the appropriate place. Maybe people just aren't aware outside the UK that it's more than just the union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.90.78 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 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)

anon comment

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.197.84 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And you contact me a YEAR after the warning was issued?? Your edits on the article in question was undeniably vandalism; it removed a major amount of text without explanation and broke the flow of the article. Futhermore, you threatened me on your talkpage, so I am assuming that your edit in question wasn't in good faith. CardinalDan (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Qadiani Problem

Rephrased. Hopefully its bit better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.16.71 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the edits you added seem to be NPOV. While I think it is a bit better, it still seems NPOV to me. Perhaps you should discuss it in the article talk page or maybe place it into a separate section of the article in question. CardinalDan (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.23.106.229

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.23.106.229. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay economy

Sir, I read the Paraguay economy article a few month back and again now, and was shocked by the offending text. I am Paraguayan.

Now, most figures stated are 5 to ten years old, there where some 2008 GDP growth figures, with source, you omitted them !!

You have continiously stated that the ranching sector is declining while indeed it is booming, being the main foreign currency earner. Your error had been corrected by other users, but you re-implanted it. What is driving you ? Do you hate Paraguay ? Are you vinculated with some competing neighboring country`s agricultural sector trying to weaken Paraguay ? I sincerely ask you to be responsible and honorable with what you do. Regards Juan Sternberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.204.35 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Considiering that the format of what was written was wrong, as well as placed in the wrong area of the article, I felt that it needed to be reverted. CardinalDan (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it vandalism?

In almost every episode of Family Guy, Peter's fat does block view of his Penis. It's a very common repeating gag in Family Guy. I already talked with another editor who said that edit was okay anyway. Loosechang (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, then tell me which editor, first of all. Second, if this edit is supposed to be legit, then why wasn't it discussed in the respective talk page? CardinalDan (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the edit summary, it would link you to the discussion I had with the editor. Secondly, I don't feel it needs to be discussed, and if it DOES, then instead of removing it and telling me nothing, how about you create a discussion about it on the Talk Page about the issue and refer it to me, instead of forcing me to figure out all this stuff for myself? It's perfectly fine if you disagree with if that statement should be in the article or not, but by just removing it and automatically dubbing it "Vandalism" just because the sentence has a naughty word in it when I'm trying to contribute to an article is not constructive at all. If you're gonna do that, explain it to the user and start something on the talk page. Loosechang (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CardinalDan...I didn't exactly say "it was ok". Here: [[2]] Just didn't want you to be misinformed. Thanks. Tiderolls 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just misunderstood Tide, sorry. Thats what I thought you meant. Either way, if I'm doing something wrong, don't just label it as "vandalism" just because it has the word "penis" in it. Instead, explain to me exactly what I did wrong. Loosechang (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my main concern is the notability of the comment in question. I feel that it isn't notable, that's why I think he should bring it up in the respective talk page first. Granted, I don't know much about the character, but I feel that it isn't notable enough to be a fact and therefore noted on the page. If another editor feels that it is so, however, then I'll leave it be. CardinalDan (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'll delete the warning, but I think the fact should be discussed on the talk page first. CardinalDan (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I also suggested Loosechang interact with the editors on the talk page for the same reason: [3]. Seems h/she's getting the same advice from multiple sources. Hope that's important to them. Thanks. Tiderolls 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope that he becomes a good editor. CardinalDan (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)