User talk:Daniel.Cardenas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Daniel.Cardenas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -Chazz88 18:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 launch date

Sony restated yesterday that they are launching in the spring. That's not "what seraphim wants" it's the latest confirmed official release date, and we have to treat it as fact. Seraphim 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Soduko"

You might want to correct that to the correct spelling "Sudoku". --Pentasyllabic 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] complaint

I don't think comments like this are really suitable for an encyclopaedia article:
"It will be interesting to see if Sony compromises their blu-ray player business with a low cost PS3."
Surely this should be on some talk or discuss page.(HappyVR)

Well looks like you were sort of right considering the new pricing scheme.HappyVR 17:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the same goes for this :
"Although this is high unlikely for a game console where the manufacturors subsidize the hardware to sell games. The manufacturor can't afford for the console to be used in such a way that doesn't bring additional revenue to them as in buying games."
My view is that the manufacturer could afford to do this but probably won't for the reasons you give. In my view this is short-sightedness on Sonys part and makes me think of dinosaurs more and more every day - eventually they'll suffocate in a stagnant swamp of their own shit. Anyway I appreciate your additions but have a tendency to delete them - good luck.HappyVR 18:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: How come you deleted Henney Kilowatt electric car?

It just seemed too old compared to the rest -- I didn't realize that was intentional for historical perspective. By all means, please replace it. Do you think that the others on the talk page's to-do list should be on there too? LossIsNotMore 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm extra busy at work these days, so not sure when I can get to it. Daniel.Cardenas 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Motorcycle on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Dolby Digital and NICAM

Hi looks like you know what you are talking about - so when one DVD recorder says it records in NICAM and another one says Dolby Digital which is the best?! JulianHensey 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry don't know. Daniel.Cardenas 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plug-In Hybrids

Hi Daniel. I have been talking with Felix Kramer about the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle Wikipedia entry, as well as reading some of the comments you have written in the discussion area. It seems we all agree that the article could use some updating, both in terms of content and organization. But since everyone is busy, no one has the time to take on such a large project. I would like to get Felix, Ron Gremban and Sherry Boschert involved, as well as yourself and other PHEV experts you might know, to approach the update as a team. I could act as point person, or you could.

I see that you have already devoted a great deal of time and energy to the project. PHEVs are clearly a passion for you. The last thing I want to do is "step on your toes" or get into an editing war over the content of the page. I am confident we can come up with verbiage that makes everyone happy.

Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. I look forward to working on this with you.Fbagatelleblack 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you act as the point person. I don't know who the people you mention are, or their backgrounds, but sounds interesting anyways. Daniel.Cardenas 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great! I will work on it as time allows. FYI, Felix Kramer is founder of the group CalCars, and Ron Gremban is techical lead at CalCars. Sherry Boschert is author of the book Plug-In Hybrids. The editor of the New Energy News attended the AltCar Expo in Santa Monica last weekend. He reports that he saw Boschert's book "everywhere, like a manifesto for a new age dawning."Fbagatelleblack 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow impressive list of people!  :-) Daniel.Cardenas

[edit] Body mint

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Body mint, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Body mint. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for dealing with vandalism

Thank you for watching Hybrid vehicles so closely and quickly reverting the many vandalisms, Daniel. The last one was by User talk:204.118.113.237 where it is seen that there is repeated vandalism and many warnings, but this IP is still not blocked. Any idea how to do this? According to whois the IP is owned by TOWN OF NORWOOD LIGHT DEPARTMENT, but no contact is given. --Theosch 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

for finding the dead link on Hybrid Vehicles, and routinely dealing with vandalism. --Theosch 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RTS

Please do not remove {{fact}} tags unless you're going to add a source, whilst a point may be obvious to you, wikipedia is supposed to be for the masses, one cannot remove such tags and claim that its obvious if one "studies game releases"- this is absurd. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tiaga"

Hey there, man... redirects are not really used to correct silly typing mistakes and such, so that redirect should be kept as it is, being the former name of the band it redirects to. --Sn0wflake 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When you type Tiaga in google what do you get? You don't get info about some unknown band, you get info about the forest people where trying to find out about. The redirect should help wikipedians get to there intended destination. Daniel.Cardenas 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move not Copy/Paste

For future reference, pages should be moved, not copyied and pasted. In the future, if you enounter a similar situation like you did recently with article Ocean (helio), please request the assistance of a wikipedia administrator. Whammy 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Daniel.Cardenas 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Because you wreck the page history, which is in violation of the GFDL licence used for all Wikipedia contributions. --DeLarge 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsubishi Colt

The Colt was built using technology A. Subsequently, technology B was developed and used in another vehicle. This does not mean that an encyclopedia article about the Colt would pretend that it was built with technology B. That would be factually incorrect. It would also be factually incorrect to support your case with an external reference to the other car, when a refernce specifically about the Colt exists. The fact that the Colt reference is older is a consequence of the fact that the car itself is older. Age is, however, not a barrier to greater accuracy. --DeLarge 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] desiderata

People don't understand what that means, there is no wiki definition for it, and it is not in the dictionary. You are doing a disservice to wikipedians by putting this back in the article.

Hi, it is in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desiderata. I am all for simplifying things, but sometimes you need a word to explain something. I removed a whole paragraph that someone wrote about Shannon discovering information entropy from those desiderata, which I was able to do because having that word makes it clear that that's what happened. Part of the beauty of mathematics is the way in which it is discovered, and that's what that word does: it illuminates the process of discovery. Otherwise, you might as well rename the section properties. But they aren't properties; they're desiderata!
Look at some of my edits-- I'm all for keeping things simple. Absolutely: prefer the simple to the complex. But, you might also scrutinize your edits: prefer one word to many; prefer the specific to the vague.  :) It's not as simple as wiping out every word that you don't think people will understand. Regards, MisterSheik 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Before we get into an edit war. I appreciate what you're trying to do. You might want to take a look at this resource on good writing: [1]. MisterSheik 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macroblocks

From the x264 article:

   * Both Intra-predicted macroblock types: 16x16 and 4x4

...

   * 8x8 intra-predicted macroblocks

Do these not count as macroblocks? Is the x264 article incorrect, or is the macroblock article incorrect? —Dark•Shikari[T] 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working as a video codec expert in my profession. The x264 article is incorrect. Anything that is not 16x16 is called a block, subblock, or partition in the h.264 specification. A macroblock is defined as 16x16 in the h.264 spec. There maybe a different definition in a different video compression standard, but I haven't seen it. Daniel.Cardenas 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah good, I'm not surprised at all that the x264 article wasn't entirely correct. Thanks for fixing it. I just wrote a short article from some references and what I knew about Trellis quantization, but I doubt its entirely accurate as I can't seem to find any technical guides to the exact method in which Trellis works. Can you check it for accuracy? Thanks. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pes

Hi, Daniel! Regarding this revert of yours, please note that notability criteria do not apply to geographic localities; only verifiability does. Another thing is that red links to Russian localities are useful in the project on Russian geography me and several other Wikipedians are involved with. Even though the link is red, it produces backlinks which are heavily relied upon. I would thus much appreciate if you restored the link as it were. Please let me know if you need more information or have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for adding information about the XM-2000 scooter and a link to BaseStationZero. Appreciated!

-A. Fox

[edit] My pleasure

Thank you for your kind words. Please indicate your support of featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plug-in hybrid. BenB4 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion?

Hello - I see you've removed sections from the Prius article, declaring them "unencyclopedic". Don't you think it might be better to discuss this kind of large change with other page editors on Talk before wholesale removals like this? A lot of work went into those sections, and I don't see the emergency in removing them. Just a thought. Tvoz |talk 20:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Which encyclopedic content are you referring to? Daniel.Cardenas 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

I am very sorry but I am suggesting that you withdraw your acceptance in your RFA. I regret to inform you that the RFA will probably not pass and only has a 37% support rate. Thank you. SLSB talk 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the advantage of withdrawing? Daniel.Cardenas 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA was unsuccessful

I'm sorry, but your RfA did not reach consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns addressed in the RfA and feel free to apply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please write comments on user's talk page

I'm not sure what you usually do, but next time your want to comment to someone, use their talk page rather than their user page. And if you don't like my language, don't read what I write. Fresheneesz 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TGGWS link in Global Warming

What Raymond Arritt and Raul are trying to say is that there are noted problems with the data used in The Great Global Warming Swindle (one graph in particular had a distorted timeline with a 20-year offset from the actual data) and the misuse of one contributor's statement to twist his position on the topic. I agree that there are editors on Wikipedia who may wish to keep the voice of skepticism from being heard, but Raymond Arritt does not seem to be one of them. I believe that beyond those problems the documentary makes some valid points, but since TGGWS is generally not considered a reliable source for the outlined reasons, it isn't going to be included in the Global Warming article any time soon. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi, thanks for adding a reference to the Xbox 360 page — however, it would be most helpful if you formatted the reference as follows:

{{cite web |url=http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/08/01/xbox-360-65nm-cpu-in-production/ |title=Xbox 360 65nm CPU In Production |publisher=DigitalBattle |date=1 August 2007 |accessdate=2007-08-18}}

more info at WP:CITET;

or at least:

[http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/08/01/xbox-360-65nm-cpu-in-production/ Xbox 360 65nm CPU In Production]. Accessed [[2007-08-18]].

C0nanPayne 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inferno

I (reluctantly) undid your last cleanup effort on the dab page Inferno because you applied WP:MOSDAB wrong in several places:

  1. "Infernus" redirects to this page so all "Infernus" entries can't just be removed
    What about a separate disamb page for it? Daniel.Cardenas 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know whether "Inferno" and "Infernus" are used synonymous in the English language, but if they're not, they should definately be on different dab pages. – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. piping for style (quotation marks; italics) is perfectly alright and shouldn't be removed
  3. entries accompanied by a working link to a page that mentions the term "Inferno" are alright also and shouldn't be removed
    Not according to wp:mosdab Daniel.Cardenas 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    From a literal standpoint, you're right, but synthesizing WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks and WP:MOSDAB#Synonyms as well as what I perceive is current practice say otherwise. (And I think most dabbers would say that as long as an entry helps disambiguating, it can (and should?) be mentioned on the dab page - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/archive6#Listing songs without articles on disambiguation pages from early this year.) If you want, we can ask what other dabbers think regarding this matter; maybe I'm too lax and more people will side with your somewhat stricter interpretation than mine, I don't know. :-) – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are, of course, some entries that you removed that shouldn't have been on this dab page in the first place. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help With Motorized Bicycles

User:Rope light has been posting and reposting a link to a commercial site, Bicycle Engines, on the Motorized bicycle page. If he tries again, how do I escalate the issue to prevent him from commercial posting in the future? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would:
  1. post a comment on his talk page informing him of appropriate external links. See policy at wp:el.
  2. Categorize the external links on Motorized bicycle and remove other links that don't follow policy.
  3. Post an HTML comment on the external links informing people they need to follow the wp:el policy.
    This will only be seen when someone tries to edit the external links.
    Use "< ! --" to open an html comment and "- - >" to close a comment. See Sony PS3 external links for an example.

Daniel.Cardenas 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Fbagatelleblack 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric car

Creating a new article with cut and paste is simply creating a mess. Hopefully an admin will be able to clean it up. 199.125.109.18 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I don't want to stoke the flames of an edit war, but 199.125.109.18 seems to want total control of the page and I could use any help possible in working with him/her. I know you've been in the front lines of defense on this article historically, so I am hereby encouraging you to keep it up. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fbagatelleblack, Are you talking about Electric Car article or BEV article? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry for the lack of link. I am talking about Electric car. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean a different I.P. address. Did you really mean this? Special:Contributions/199.125.109.89 Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Special:Contributions/199.125.109.89 is who I meant. Don't know how I managed to screw that one up. As mentioned, any help would be appreciated. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the notability of IZArc

I undertand the reason why you question the notability of it, since you are a software engineer, and software engineers usually don't know that there are so much shareware and freeware on the Internet. However IZArc is quite noted among many Internet users. IZArc gets so many Google hits means proves my statement. Also it gets five stars on Softpedia (IZArc Review - IZArc Download). Software which get five stars on well-known download sites are notable because this proves that these sites regard them to be outstanding, and outstanding software are notable (you can consult English dictionaries to verify). Hope you can understand what I mean and withdraw your request for AfD.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a definition for notable and outstanding software is not one of them. See wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've taken a glance at WP:N, but IZArc has some extent of notability, for it has been awarded five stars by more than 15 independent download sites (check IZArc - Awards, I've mentioned it on IZArc this early morning). Also, WP:N and other notability guidelines (especially WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE) has been qustioned by many inclusionists. They claim that if many personal websites, blogs, forums and wikis mention one thing, and it is seldom mentioned in mainstream media and academic journals, it is still notable for many persons care about it (see m:Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians). Hope you can understand the reason why I consider IZArc notable (in Wikipedian terms).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu Redirect

Good luck, I think you've kicked over a bee hive. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!   I did discuss it on the previous disambiguation page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYUSAGE seems fairly clear on the topic. Simply ignoring this and starting revert wars is not the answer. Got a fresh perspective on the issue? I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you ignoring this?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to creat a colorful page!??!

Can you (or someone else help me) by giving me tips on how to create a colorful page?? Any help is greatly welcome!!!

                  -bigbeninUS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigbeninUS (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnel boring machine

Re: Tunnel boring machine - your edit comment for it suggests you were just trying to make a minor change, but it ended up with you reverting my changes. I have reverted back to mine, so if it was just a minor change you wanted to do then you can go ahead. Wongm (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologizes. Your edits were excellent! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed

I noticed your work to the DB page and thought you might be able to lend a hand at Buu. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this thread? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get why you don't want that link to MTV thing. If someone searches for buu isn't that article reasonable? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Think the DAB guideline specifies that "unless the dab term is mentioned in the page, it should not be listed." Isn't that why you removed these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see that phrase in wp:mosdab. Should I look elsewhere? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:D? Elsewhere, why did you remove those entries? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why entries removed?

Depends on which entry. For example, for Derbisol I was thinking the article could be deleted because it doesn't meet wp:note.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For starters, you removed Dragon Ball (disambiguation). There any particular reason? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It was odd for a couple of reasons: disambuity pointing to another disambiguity and it was in a 'see also' section. Anyways it was a poor edit and I've restored it. Thanks for pointing that out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C2

Hallo Daniel, I've noticed that you deleted the entry to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages from the C2 page and commented it as breaking wp:mosdab. I don't really understand which point you think this entry is violating, so please let me know. D.i.l. (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See 'Flibbygibby, a type of noodle', and the text below it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but I think the point you mention is against red links, not the type of reference I used. (The guideline doesn't say you should delete the noodle.) Furthermore, on the C2 site, the are two other links with the same syntax: the C2 paper size and the C2 vertebra. If you delete my entry, you should also delete those ones. D.i.l. (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the others should be deleted too. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prods

No problem with the ones you've been tagging. But one thing that would make it easier for the reviewing admins like myself--when you give a reason, say just a little more than "Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" to indicate the type of person or thing, eg "Musician--Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" -- the various people who check these tend to work on only some kinds of articles (for example I dont do the athletes) and it helps sort them out. BTW, the last batch had a typo and read "Does meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability" (sometimes it is obvious, as when the title contain the word (album). )

And something else. It is not actually required, but it is considered polite to notify the person who started the article and any other recent signif. contributors. It's very easy--just use the link from the template that appears on the article when you've saved it. Almost everyone does this.DGG (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'm concerned that many of these articles are created by someone paid by the music company. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anonymous users

yea, I know it is pointless, but illogical people really annoy me. I think I am done at this point. Now hopefully I can focus on the article itself.Polypmaster (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota Prius article

Hi, you'll be glad to see that I am back in business again. However, I'm not sure that deliberately getting others blocked is the best way to promote peace and harmony amongst editors cooperating on an article. Anyway, do you plan to answer the points that I made on the Talk:Toyota Prius page, in the "latest controversy addition" discussion, in response to your arguments for why you think that the Sunday Times report is controversial, and supply some references? -- de Facto (talk). 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all of the other editors see the controversy except yourself. It is not a scientific test mostly because it is not a repeatable test. It is easy to get poor gas mileage in a car. For example the BMW driver maybe more reluctant to use the brake, while the Prius driver may brake if he see an expected shadow or someone pulls into his lane 15 meters in front of him. It is also controversial because it is not an excepted way to measure gas mileage by any reputable group. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point. The assertion that it is "controversial" has to be supported by a reliable source, not by other editor's personal POV. I didn't claim it was a "scientific test", nor do I intend to, it is a notable opinion supportrd by a reliable source, which is all it needs to be. Even if it is not repeatable, and that is your own construction, so violates WP:OR. Please either provide a reliable source stating it to be controversial, or remove it from the "controversies' section. -- de Facto (talk). 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your missing the points that all the other editors have made. Editors constantly and consistently evaluate sources for accuracy, notability, verifiability, and reliability. These editor tasks are not original research. You can't apply the rules as you see fit. It is not notable just because you think it is. It is closer to wp:cruft and I would support other editors who prefer just to delete because of wp:cruft.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am applying the rules as laid down in the Wikipedia policies. The finding is notable and verifiable, so can be included, whether you, or any other editor, agrees with it or not. The source is covered by "mainstream newspapers" see WP:VER. To support the "controversial" claim, you need a reference of similar quality, not merely your own personal opinion. The deletion of it could probably be considered as wp:disruptive editing. -- de Facto (talk). 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Have fun, standing alone in your interpretation of how the rules apply. The next time you start a revert war they won't be so kind. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: what does csd g4 mean?

CSD G4 means that the article was speedily deleted due to it being the re-creation of deleted material. Succinct was debated here, where it was decided that it should not be a redirect to Wiktionary. If you feel the article should exist, you should try Deletion review. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)