User talk:CardinalDan/Archive 6

SHF catholic school

Hi, I have declined speedy deletion of this page since schools are exempt from WP:CSD A7. This is clearly stated on the template and in the policy. TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if i run into a page similar to that next time, should i see if I could make a redirect first? CardinalDan (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; in general elementary schools are considered nn and are typically merged in to the district (US public schools) or the locality (others). Consequently, boldly merging is a good idea. If you consider that a merge/redirect is not practicable then a Prod is just fine. However, high schools are normally regarded as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads up. CardinalDan (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. I guess I rushed a little bit I should have looked at the editors that he pretended to be.--Abce2 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. I guess I was taken a bit aback by that, but I realized it was just an honest mistake. CardinalDan (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to remove the sockpuppet tag on your user page.--Abce2 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone already got it, so it's no big deal. CardinalDan (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for keeping the vandalism off my talk and user page, appreciated - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. CardinalDan (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for jumping in and stopping the vandalism on Sólrun Løkke Rasmussen. And the subsequent report to AIV. I appreciate it. Well done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did think it funny that the IP user reported me for vandalism, even though I did ask him/her to stop and discuss the edits. CardinalDan (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, a discussion was started about you by an IP at WP:AN3#CardinalDan_reported_by_129.240.0.83_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think by the way the report was written, it is by the same editor who was vandalizing the Sólrun Løkke Rasmussen page earlier. CardinalDan (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, thanks for the warning. CardinalDan (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you reverted x9, but you should try not to get drawn into an edit war like that: it's too easy for it to go wrong. I'm reasonably certain the complainant is the same as the first IP (based on WHOIS), who needs to drop it before he gets sanctioned again. I'm semi-ing the article. Acroterion _(talk) 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, I too readily got caught up and drawn into the reverting process of the article in question, but at that time, I felt that the editor in question was not listening to those in the talk page. In the meantime. I think semi-protecting the article is a good idea. Again, I offer any apologies for the incident. CardinalDan (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I saw - it's easy to get drawn in when someone's yelling VANDAL in edit summaries while removing content. Next time, just let it be and ask for semi-protection via the usual route. Acroterion _(talk) 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice. I'll try to remember that. CardinalDan (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Dan, I logged off last night and returned this morning only to find all this hooplah that you were drawn into. I'm sorry I wasn't there to back-up your position. You were in the right - the IP:85.164.196.159 was being blatantly disruptive in in removing the article's references without discussion and persisting to do so despite repeated pleadings, messages and warnings. And when the blocked IP used a sock to vandalize as well as make the allegations against you, it only clarified the IP's intent to be disruptive and strengthened the defense of your previous actions. I'm happy to see that Acroterion was able to read through the mess and make the correct decision. His advice is good. We have to be mindful about abiding the revert policies if we are to apply them to others. (I'm reminding myself to seek out neutral opinions when these little dramas begin to escalate.) On the other hand, the 3RR policies are not so much about the number of reversions but rather the intentions of the editor. And your intentions were of the best. Thanks again for helping out and taking a bit of pummeling for the good of project. I appreciate your efforts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prod

Re this edit: anybody including an article's creator may remove a prod tag. It is against the rules to put a prod tag back. If your prod is removed, take the article to AfD. Sgroupace (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember that next time. CardinalDan (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Be careful what you tag for A7. This tagging of yours was incorrect, the article has multiple claims of notability (signed to notable label, positive reviews etc.) and was easily improvable. In future, you might want to do a short Google News search and improve such articles yourself instead. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I did a quick google search and didn't hit much. CardinalDan (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stained glass

I must just ask why you are pressuring a brand new editor to merge an article they have just begun. I am a major contibutor to the generic article on stained glass and as such, I am aware that the article is seriously taxed, lengthwise. There is simply no room for any detailed discussion of the vast area of creativity, the major decorative and figurative art of the medieval period- Stained glass windows. But because this editor is not wiki-experienced, naturally she says "Yes, whatever you suggest!" What you are suggesting is a bit like merging Ferrari with car or Beatles with popular music. Amandajm (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice that after i looked at both articles again, I asked if she wanted to have the article become a sub-article for stained glass, and she agreed. I agree that the article she wrote was very lengthy, and while the article in question was lengthy, it may have been possible to merge it with the stained glass one earlier, but with the length she wrote it, i felt it would better served as a sub-article. Besides, I did ask another editor(User talk:TerriersFan) about the article in question, and he responded that I should ask the editor in question whether the article should either be merged or added as a sub-article. So, to answer your question, I did follow correct policy and did not in any way pressure the editor in question to merge the article. If you wish to discuss it further, please do so. Also, if you want, you can talk to TerriersFan about the article in question. CardinalDan (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am sure I am wrong.--Abce2 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did (technically) do the right thing by asking the editor if she wanted to merge it, and being a brand new and totally inexeperienced editor, of course she said yes.

And yes, some of the material is duplicated.

But, believe me, wikipedia needs an article specifically on Medieval stained glass. It is a vast subject. Stained glass was the major pictorial form af art for most of Europe for hundreds of years. Currently, editors are busy expanding the glass articles. I have written an article specifically on British and Irish glass of the 19th century. We now need articles on 19th century German glass, 19th century French Glass, and Medieval glass. This article is a high priority article. It is almost beyond belief to someone who knows about glass that anyone would suggest that it ought to be merged with an article which is a broad overview. Every rock band, every football player, every politician, every breed of dog and every unsolved murder has its own page on wikipedia. Why do editors accept that all these things need individual articles, and yet frequently suggest that the more scholarly articles on art history ought to be merged? What the article requires is to be greatly expanded with more specific history and reference to famous examples.

..Amandajm (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, the article now looks like it is a good subarticle to the stained glass article]]. It probably would not be a good idea for a merge, since to me, it looks like it expands on the subject at hand. Also, one thing, I also did ask the editor in question if she would like it to be a subarticle for stained glass, and I didn't force her to choose that. Sorry if I came across that way. CardinalDan (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, another editor has just added a huge wad of info on commercial colouring of glass to the stained glass page. It needs knocking into shape to fit the article. I might get our new editor to take a look at it since she (I spose it's she) seems to know quite a lot about it. We now have to reconcile old glass, new glass and ten green bottles.

Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake.

I was trying to remove the "replies at help desk" template from my talk page but somehow ended up somewhere else. I thought I had reverted the accidental delete. Sorry --Tomaterols (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I was wondering what was going on. CardinalDan (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it O.K. to take the warning off my talk page?--Tomaterols (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, go ahead. I had completely forgotten about that. Sorry for not removing it sooner. CardinalDan (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Here's some of those socks that are attacking NawlinWiki

Ginger freckles, Boxy roxy, CRIMINAL STATISTICS, Venn diagramatist, Exellent Judgement, Pwned Traffic Cop, Jerk it out, Horrible ginger smell, Doc grower, VERY witty, Punch and Judy Hope this helps--Abce2 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have CU status, but I assume someone with that status is checking on it right now. CardinalDan (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What's about this?

Hello. I find that you made a questionable Twinkle rollback as seen here. I don't see how it is blatant vandalism, but I am asking you to explain it in hopes of confirmation. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 06:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the added text added to the particular article on Google and Yahoo, and all I received were locations of places around New South Wales, Australia. This led me to concluded that the information added was non-notable, and since it was the second time that the information was added by what I assumed was the same user, I felt that it was an attempt at vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci ( Thanks ) for protecting my user page

It was me ( unsigned ) but thanks anyway ;-) --Neuromancien (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Well, next time, if you edit your userpage, please do it under your username. Otherwise, it may be misconstrued as vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Brendan McFarlane (disambiguation)

That is my mistake and I appreciate you pointing it out to me. The other articles do not even exist. I apologize for not having the foresight to check for those articles prior to creating the page. I am still new to this and I am just learning about the way that Wikipedia works. I have placed a db request on the page. Again, thank you and my apologies. CanadianNine 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. I was just wondering where the other articles were. CardinalDan (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mussorgsky's Quotations

Read in discussion, why do we keep the quotations on wikipedia? Isn't wikiquote the right place to put them? Albus severus (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to wait until you get some discussion on the potential move. CardinalDan (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at wikiquote, I see that the same quotes are there. Yet, I advise that you either wait to build consensus or provide a link to the wikiquote section. I'll delete the warning in the meantime. CardinalDan (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've copyed and pasted the quotations from wikipedia to wikiquote. So we'll wait. But in any case there's already a link to wikiquote. Thanks to delete the warning! ^.^

Albus severus (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck to you. CardinalDan (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. CardinalDan (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Abdurrahman ibn yusuf

Hello CardinalDan. Abdurrahman ibn yusuf is a notable person for Wikipedia, I think. The problem is somewhere else - the content of that article is completely copypasted from here. Please check. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. The reason why I posted the CSD was the way the article was posted, and the fact that there wasn't many hits on the individual. Apparently, I didn't go more in depth. Thanks for catching my mistake. CardinalDan (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy G1

Hi. A note about speedy-tagging - just now you tagged Robert Collins (doctor) as WP:CSD#G1 - nonsense. It certainly needed to go, but the definition of G1 is actually quite tightly drawn, and explicitly "does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." A7 would have been appropriate, perhaps G3 because it was facetiously written, or G10 if you thought someone was trying to get at him, but A7 safest and certainly applied. I wouldn't have mentioned this, but I have just been reading an RFA which looks likely to fail, a main objection being that the candidate had been tagging G1 inappropriately, to which he replied that no-one had ever told him not to. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads up. The way the article was written, it did seem like total nonsense. CardinalDan (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean only stuff like ";iq35@t;li%u**evf.#NW". Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I mean in the gibberish sounding kind of way. CardinalDan (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

article speedy deletion

hi,

May I request for the article entitled " Frolife" not to be deleted because I believe that people should know more about this unique organization. Badhitwoman (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In order for your article to not be deleted, you have to provide third-party sources for your article that prove notability. The reason that the article was cited was that from websearches that I conducted, I could not find any notable metions of the organization in question. CardinalDan (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Liam Mooney

Hi there,

Is this where we talk about the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffineditorial (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Re: Liam Mooney

Hi there,

The article you nominated for speedy deletion is of some value. There is lots of information that has been published about him and I think it is important that a page be created. The sources I can show you are from newspapers, websites, videos, and more. (Griffineditorial (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Speedy Deletion Re: Liam Mooney

Hi there,

The article you nominated for speedy deletion is of some value. There is lots of information that has been published about him and I think it is important that a page be created. The sources I can show you are from newspapers, websites, videos, and more. (Griffineditorial (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the links you provided should go to the talk page of the article in question. I'll move them there so you can present your case. CardinalDan (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Comments

Refernce is made to deleted comment son DV Visa discussion page. Please read the comments and you would understand WHY they were deleted. In deed it should be your work to deleate such real slander and other crap. Let's mature a little before we loose control over the real issues.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.148.8 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

UH, what are you talking about? CardinalDan (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Howevever, there are constructive critisms that are well founded and well researched. Simply because there is no one citation that can be used as verification, does not mean something is invalid. It is annoying that my want to express truth is being repressed, but it seems its time for me to concede. I still disagree with you though, and will send a much more detailed and well written article to a 'soapbox' ie. a valid newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthmustbeheard (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is research (outside of original research) then show it.--Unionhawk ^Talk 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Nicolosi

Wikipedia's policy on minor edits states, "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: type corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." This being so, you recent edit to Joseph Nicolosi was clearly not a minor edit. It made major changes to an article under dispute. These changes do need be discussed and are not "superficial." Please discuss on the talk page. Christian Existentialist (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the edit before removed a large amount of information without consensus, I felt it was a vandal edit and reverted it. When a reversion is done, it is marked as a minor edit. Hopefully, that explains it. CardinalDan (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition and removal of material were both being done without consensus, unfortunately. One may agree or disagree about the changes there, but "vandalism" is not the correct term. Christian Existentialist (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for now, the best thing is to leave the article be and discuss the change on the talk page. It probably is a good idea to ask other editors to look at the article and give their opinions. CardinalDan (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vodennikov

Wow, thanks a lot. He's been born a little bit later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Now, if it is possible, can you expand the article a bit? CardinalDan (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

I would like to thank you for watching out for others. I have been vandalized in the past and really appreciate that someone is looking out for me. Thank You! I congratulate your efforts (although in this case it was I who was using the spare page User talk:74.15.61.50). Have a great weekend!!!! santry.l(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.64.217 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. Next time, if possible, edit your user page under your username; otherwise, it may be misconstrued as vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bikini wax pictures

Dear Cardinal Dan

I am concerned that the pictures on the 'Bikini Wax' page are too graphic, especially when considering that the written explanations are perfectly clear. I realise that Wikipedia is not censored, but do we really need such explicit photographs in addition? At the very least, couldn't the genitalia at least be pixelated - it's about the hair, after all. Alternatively, what about setting up a link that people can click on if they want to see these images - not everyone wants (or needs) a woman's vulva to pop up on the screen when reading an informative article.

Regards, Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.206.182 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. (see WP:NOTCENSORED) If you want to discuss your concerns, ask about it at the talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bikini wax pictures

Dear Cardinal Dan,

Thank you for your response. I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored, I believe I said as much in my original post. I am also aware that plenty of people have already objected to the images on the discussion forum - and yet they remain. Where do we go from here?

Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.206.182 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you are concerned about the pictures in question, discuss it at the Talk:Bikini waxing page. CardinalDan (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for getting that vandalism on my userpage. (they do not seem to like me...)

Oldlaptop321 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookie. CardinalDan (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan

Ian A. Vaughan

if yuou'd gotten past your visceral hatred of Reform BC, you would have found this was posted to prevent YOUR search system from continuing to misdirect viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haneyguy (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the article in question was not notable, the admins probably felt the article was not necessary. If you want to take it up with them, then discuss it with them. I don't delete articles, I only note articles that do not seem notable. CardinalDan (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So how does one reach these censors?

Haneyguy (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and state why your article is notable. And do please try to be civil. Accusing them of purposefully being deceitful or censoring material will not help your cause. CardinalDan (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider deliberately linking my name to a candidate from another party in a different Province not wrong? Haneyguy (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

consider the liberal candidate- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dalton He has never won election, he has no electoral history other than running and losing. He is a librarian in a local school. You consider him notable enough to have a page, yet I have won election and served twice, have a verifiable history in politics of over twenty years, and represent a party that has had representatives in the legislature, and been recognized for over 25 years. Your political bias is showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haneyguy (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, discuss it with the other editors. Personally, I am not involved with Canadian politics, nor do I have much interest in it, so please do not accuse me of political bias. CardinalDan (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for cleaning up my user page. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Delta Iota Nu Omicron

This organization is basically like Skull and Bones and no one has ever heard of it. Its a big deal, they basically run the country, how can we get the page back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna6742 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for help. CardinalDan (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Charles Article

I feel that your removal of "Other Information" on the St. Charles Preparatory School article was inappropriate and biased on your part. Vandalism, it certainly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios0017 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Urbandictionary is NOT a reliable source; therefore, it was removed. CardinalDan (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Many people find Wikipedia to be an unreliable source for information as well. Which rules specifically states that Urbandictionay.com is an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios0017 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. CardinalDan (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well obviously both urbandictionary entries have been entered by former or even current students at St. Charles, therefore being first hand accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios0017 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That still makes urbandictionary unreliable, since it relies on hearsay and rumors. That does not make a reliable source. CardinalDan (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. I still question bias playing a part in this decision. I guess Wikipedia is the police of what is and what is not credible these days. Ironic, because Wikipedia in and of itself could all be unreliable. Just because a reliable source exists for something, that doesn't instantly make it true. I could create a reliable source to back up both entries on urbandictionary.com if I really wanted to. This would then make it acceptable to be entered on their article. --Helios0017 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just to say, the edit you reverted by NANANANANANANANABATMAN was actually my sockpuppet. I was testing it out. It tells you why I made it on NANANANANANABATMAN's userpage. However, I just forgot it's password, so it won't be making any edits anytime soon. Sorry if I sound rude.--Username (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. CardinalDan (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK cool--Username (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize for the mix-up. CardinalDan (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a degree in biology too! except I have a minor in history--Username (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What school did you go to? Also, if it is worth anything, i removed the warning from the other account. CardinalDan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is sort of worth something. Because the admins might think it was intentional vandalism, then realise it was a sockpuppet, then think I was using the sockpuppet to vandalise without getting caught, then they might block both my accounts. I went to Edinburgh University in Scotland, by the way.--Username (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD#G3

Please be more careful when you tag with G3, like what you did here. I admit, it does look like gibberish, but if you click on the link present in the article to get to this website (after picking a language), you can check its claim of being a forbidden card by hitting the relevant section to get to a list here. A quick search, confirms that the claim in the Magician of faith article was true, and would not be applicable for G3. Thus, its present state as a redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had it under CSD:G1. CardinalDan (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't patent nonsense either. :p --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

D'OH! Oh well, at least it is fixed now.CardinalDan (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. :-) --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Publications or vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Dalton_Hooker&diff=prev&oldid=286978635

Huh? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One of your edits removed a large part of the article. I assumed you made a mistake when you edited the article and reverted it to the part before you made your recent edit. CardinalDan (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a browser crash and then a software upgrade and a recovery due to a saved ".js" file and a few days in between. Given all the "variables" it was kind of impressive, at least to me.

I have reverted vandal edits before that were in a list of contributions where not all edits could be considered vandalism. It made for interesting reading....

Sorry for the misunderstandings. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, although that is one hell of a way for a browser to crash. CardinalDan (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My plan is to go back to the version of the browser I was using when it crashed to see if I can recover the new articles. For me, it really is "how much impossible can this new browser be expected to do?" Firefox users should want this new version, in my opinion. These improvements are not simple bells and whistles -- I have been deeply impressed with the new things and capabilites (though, it says I mis-spelled capabilities). -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TBBT Weekly Ratings

I moved them into the list of episodes, as they were unnecessary in the main article. 86.156.118.204 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but next time, leave an edit summary, so it doesn't seem like page blanking vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging of Psyko south

Please try to watch what criteria you tag articles with. Psyko south has context, it was just hidden because the article's creator, Big Rela, made a mistake with the wiki-formatting, which is understandable for a beginner. The article does, of course, deserve to be speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, but that's completely different from A1. Regards, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 20:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. CardinalDan (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

atonality... does not have any sources, didnt know how to point that out but i thought i should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.19.106 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does. Just look at the references section. CardinalDan (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Coke and natural gas produce Ethanol

    Hello,

   On May 4, you have omitted an addition with this title to the heading 'Coal' of wikipedia, any explanation...

   Country43
   Country43 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO. CardinalDan (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Coke and natural gas produce ethanol

                                          May 5, 2009.

    Hello,

    Thank you for clarifying that the addition 'Coke and natural gas produce ethanol' to the heading 'coal' of Wikipedia is infringing copyright.

    I would like to clarify that I am not infringing any copyright as these facts are presented to the internet by two different websites and they www.coalplantsengineering.com and www.coal-and-the-environment.org. 

    Please verify for yourself and I will be waiting for your response.

    country43
    Country43 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

thanks for all your help. I am continuously amazed, surprized, and at time repulsed by the some in the wikipedia community but for a newbie I sure think its great to have folks like you trying to fight the good fight each day.--Grockl (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

64.142.9.8 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) re: bleach episodes and unconstructive. I feel like if there is nothing currently for a section of an article like an episode guide, addition of material is a positive. In my case, there was nothing there when I began, and afterwards, there was. This is valuable, even if that material is not up to standard. It reflected an individual opinion, and as such, I'm fine with it being deleted. I'm not that fine with claims of 'unconstructive edits' and saying that what's been there has been reverted.

I've heard friends talk about the 'wikipedia nazis', which take it upon themselves to zealously police the website. I'm not accusing you of it, I'm just saying that it's a valuable idea to keep in mind.64.142.9.8 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, you could have given a better episode summary. The reason yours was deleted was that was not written well, almost to the point of incomprehension. CardinalDan (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey I need some help. EdJohnston is blocking my IPs for no reason. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.36.20 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship Nomination

Hi, I'm Tarheel95 and I'd like to nominate you for adminship. I actually thought you were one already. I have created a page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CardinalDan T-95 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I'm ready for adminship right now. But thanks for the offer. CardinalDan (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CardinalDan

has been created, transcluded and untranscluded. What's your pleasure/ Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the individual. I do admit, it is an honor to get nominated, but I don't think that i am ready yet, as I feel that I need to get some more substantial edits done here before thinking about being an admin here. I hope that he doesn't take it the wrong way. CardinalDan (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Human chorionic gonadotropin

My deletion of the Manny Ramirez section was not vandalism. It did not belong in this section. It was not introduced nor is it relevant to an encyclopedia article about Human chorionic gonadotropin. Your warning was very haphazard 66.127.155.2 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you got warned because you blanked the "see also" section for the article. As for the Many Ramirez section, I do believe that it doesn't belong there. CardinalDan (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:69.140.203.207

FYI, I've just reblocked him, disabling his ability to use his talk page. Next time, just ask the block admin to do so. No need for page protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was getting tired of his libel against me. I'll try to remember that next time, but I guess I wanted to follow proper protocol. CardinalDan (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you may want to consider having those WP:OVERSIGHTed. If not, at the least, I can delete that nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind. CardinalDan (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I removed that from the abuse filter, because it was my post, and I decided I did not want it up anymore. I created the post with my username and now when you search it is showing up in google. As this is not my site, and I don't want to get sued, I took it down. They advised me to take it down so I did. Please revert the revert and take it down. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.207.210 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but next time, explain the edit and do it under your user name, in order to avoid confusion. CardinalDan (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I will be removing a couple other things as well. I will login under my username to do it. How do I explain it in my edit? Just remove the content, and add the text in there on why it is being removed? I appreciate your help in helping me not get SUED :). I am removing the word that starts with the F from my above message, so it also doesn't show up. Just incase.

There should be an edit summary box below the edit box, and above the save page button. Explain why you are removing the material there. As long as the removal does not verge on vandalism, it should be OK. CardinalDan (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi,

I only removed text in my last edit, which I was planning to insert into another section. How were the other two edits vandalism?64.231.99.114 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies for that. CardinalDan (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

I only removed text in my last edit, which I was planning to insert into another section. I should have edited the page and not just deleted the section. I should also sign in but i was being lazy.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but next time, please explain your edits so they are not construed as vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism to Public Schools Article

Please ignore my comment viewable in the previous version of this page. I misunderstood the version page. I am very new to Wikipedia and didn't read closely enough. Thanks for all of your contributions!

Rawlangs (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)