User talk:CardinalDan

Archives

/archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

This is CardinalDan's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Regarding perceived vandalism on article "sponge" from ip address 193.60.95.72

Hello,

What you perceived as vandalism to the article was my unsuccessful attempt at removing already existing vandalism, which apparently reverted to some previous vandalized version of it. Sorry about this. This is a public university ip so I would appreciate if you could remove the warning message (blacklisting?).

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.95.72 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CardinalDan

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Uncited information on bidding fee auctions article

I am quite new to wikipedia, but I am somewhat confused as to your rollback of my edit. While I do understand that the information I posted was uncited, it is a lot more neutral than the heavily biased current content of the article. I merely tried to add some balanced material for consideration. In fact, the article was reverted so quickly, that I have reason to believe you did not even read the contents.

I would ask you to at least read the contents of an edit before making a snap (or perhaps completely automated) judgement on an edit.