Jump to content

User talk:CardinalDan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by Apl2007 to last revision by CardinalDan (HG)
Apl2007 (talk | contribs)
Phuck you.: new section
Line 144: Line 144:
: Well, you should have left an edit summary in your edit, so it would not misconstrued as vandalism. [[User:CardinalDan|CardinalDan]] ([[User talk:CardinalDan#top|talk]]) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: Well, you should have left an edit summary in your edit, so it would not misconstrued as vandalism. [[User:CardinalDan|CardinalDan]] ([[User talk:CardinalDan#top|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. [[User:CardinalDan|CardinalDan]] ([[User talk:CardinalDan#top|talk]]) 18:02, 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. [[User:CardinalDan|CardinalDan]] ([[User talk:CardinalDan#top|talk]]) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Phuck you. ==

Phuck You.

Revision as of 03:23, 17 March 2009

Why did you mark my article as vandalism?

All I was doing is redirecting the page to another user since it had all the details on there, can you please direct it to User:Uttamo

Because it was non-notable. Also, redirects from an article to a userpage is not allowed. Finally, if you want to make a comment, place it on the bottom of the page. CardinalDan (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my prescription treatment edit marked as vandalism? I thought it was helpful. (Wylee75 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

G10

When tagging material for speedy deletion, please use {{db-g10}} or {{db-attack}} for articles that appear to disparage a person. It brings them more rapid attention, as well it should. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Will surly keep that in mind. Thanks.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just wanted to tell you that. CardinalDan (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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


21:31, 3 March 2009 Discospinster (talk | contribs) deleted "Coolchrist" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

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)[reply]


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 (talkcontribs) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Phuck you.

Phuck You.