User talk:Dcandeto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave a message below.

Hey dan,

Nice stub on EHS.

I'm going to fill it out.

--Hcatlin 17:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RE User talk:140.180.4.234

I apologize, that was a friend of mine using my computer without my knowledge. I only make factual contributions to Wikipedia.

==== You're the one that kept deleting my posts dont talk to me about personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

Let me rationale: Once you properly create a wiki-link to that priest-cunt Pavone's article, his association with "Priests for Life" can be determined by the reader clicking on the link. Of course, if one only has hard-copy, the comment might be helpful, but still, it is an aside. Personally, I dislike annotating wiki-links unless the comment is very specific to the relationship. One could argue the Pavone's member in that organization is relevant to the Terri Schiavo case, but the vows that Pavone-cunt took when he was ordained as lay prostrate before the altar during his ordination, and the basic basic tenets of the Roman Catholic Church should be suffucient to inform the reader of the pro-life? It's is a judgement call, and I am comfortable with it either way. Do as you see fit about including the "Priests for Life" annoations in further editions. I apologize if you strongly feel that my removal of it was information-destroying. -- 68.121.101.234 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might also note that further editions of the article provide further commentary in the "history". -- 68.121.101.234 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dialog is possible. My email is amorrow@earthlink.net -- 68.121.101.234 10:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The terms "Native American" and "American Indian" are "Invented Terminology"

On the United States of America page and the American Indian Movement page, you referred to the correct term of "Indigenous American" as "invented terminology". However, the terminology that you reverted to is in fact the true invented terminology. In reality, ALL terminology is invented, by the way. If you would have noticed the first line in the article that the link attaches to, you would have read that "This article is about the people indigenous to the United States". For more information about this subject, visit/read the Native American name controversy page. Thank you for your attention. -- VinnyCee 09:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify your unilaterally replacing "Native American" and "American Indian" with a generally unknown term. Dcandeto 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod comments

When you're proposing something up for deletion using {{prod}}, please put in a reason for its deletion, like so: {{prod|This article is about an utterly non-notable person.}}. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't know all the useful templates, like {{db-bio}}, which I just discovered. Dcandeto 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

sorry about that, I borrowed it from another user page.

Take care.

TheRingess 05:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Dcandeto, I need to ask you a question - in private - about another user. Can you make yourself available to receive e-mail? Thanks. DS 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonslys Borough

Hey there. I see that you restored the prod notice on Bonslys Borough. Don't do that. Prod is only for uncontoversial deletions, so if someone objects, you should move the discussion to AfD (unless you've changed your mind about it needing deleted). See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for.

Do also please note when you propose an article for deletion in the edit summary. Otherwise people have to look thru the diffs to see if an article has been prodded before.

Anyway, I moved it to AfD, so you might want to make your opinion known there. NickelShoe 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that it was just a page about a non-notable Web site—and in this case, it was a gathering spot for people with similar interests, so it should have qualified for {{db-bio}}, but the person who created the article kept removing it improperly. dcandeto 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] la la

I removed the prod tag from la la (website). I started the article after reading about it in (I think) the Wall Street Journal, and then seeing a story here. TheJabberwock 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Book Extras

Hello.

Comic Book Extras is a relatively new webcomic, but it is a breakthrough in the webcomics scene and specifically the Greek comics scene which is undergoing much pressure right now and there is almost no support for it and its creators.

I don't know what it takes for a webcomic to be "notable", but this one is indeed important for many people around it. It currently has no commercial profits, I know this for a fact as I know its creator personally and have checked the website.


I don't understand why you would contest something like this, in a field where only a handful of comics are "notable" yet a great deal of them (including ones I personally consider "non-notable", and I do follow the medium to some "notable" extent) have already been covered in wikipedia.

I have no idea how to contest your claim (technically) but I was really disappointed by it.

Please let me know what this is about...

Thanks.—This unsigned comment was added by BunnyDee (talk • contribs).

It's my understanding that Wikipedia frowns upon including articles for webcomics (or most things, but especially webcomics...and people, since they are numerous) unless they have done something that is quite noteworthy. dcandeto 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
what do you mean by QUITE noteworthy? in a country of 250 Million even politicians by your claim can be NOT notable, a seemingly pre-posturous claim. In a country of 4 million even a small Musical Ensemble can be notable enough - it's all a matter of set and setting. Your POV about webcomics is just that, a POV, and clearly not shared by some of us out here. How about a little more discussion on the talk pages as per the wiki guidelines prior to messing too deeply with peoples hard work? moza 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It may be a POV, but it happens to be the POV of Wikipedia. The fact is that most of the webcomics don't have a major audience and haven't won awards, and therefore aren't notable except to their creator and a handful of other people. This makes them eligible for deletion. This is starting to get as silly as the anonymous editor who insists on changing Canadian spellings to British spellings just because they think it should be spelled that way and despite the fact that Wikipedia has a policy on accepted spellings.
As for hard work...I could just go in and make articles about my friends, and could spend a lot of effort on it, but that wouldn't mean that my articles were any better. Hard work does not create notability. Enough with the false accusations. Perhaps you should read WP:NPA. dcandeto 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that your accusation of POV is blown out of the water by the fact that Flies Inside The Sun is, as far as I can tell, the first thing I've put on AfD that has been a Keep. Calm down. dcandeto 17:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
'Calm down' is a parent>child transaction, and has no place here. If we just debated the facts instead of the supposed hidden attack messages then we would make some progress.

There is no such thing possible as a 'POV of wikipedia' I was trying to discuss your pov and not what you thought the standard pov might be. maybe some others could help here. Just because SOME wikipedians think that MOST webcomics have a handful of audience doesn't make it TRUTH. Wiki is supposed to be based on verifiability, so that means quantification and objectivity, not equally bland and emotive statements decrying the state of comic readership and appreciation. I dont read or watch comics hardly but i know many who do, and they are equal in their right to objectivity here. Just because your afd's have been mostly successful doesnt make them just, it simply means that there are enough deletionists at the feeding frenzy to overwhelm and to use your terminology, 'cow' down the opposition. My point is that meaningful discussion can take place ahead of slashing, to build a better wikipedia, a common goal.moza 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely my point... How do you determine if someone is "noteworthy" other than seeing if people out there care about them? There are quite a few people, to my knowledge, that care about the creator of this webcomic, albeit in a specific social group and country, and consider the comic itself important. Other webcomics in the lists, with their own articles etc, could be seen as arguably less important than this one... It is a field which I am personally interested in, as I've been following its evolution etc for a while now, as is the greek comics scene...
i agreemoza 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "offended" by your prod, I'm just replying to it since I think it makes lots of sense to include something like this webcomic in its pages. I will actually be adding articles about other important greek comic artists (Ilias Kyriazis, who has been publishing for a few years and is the name most greek fans currently associate with the development of the scene, and Vassilis Lolos who is the first, to my knowledge, to be signed on to Image Comics) in the future, I just want to do some research first. Do you think wikipedia would frown upon something like that? I'm not sure what makes something or someone "noteworthy" in this sense... Most people you ask who are interested in the comics medium in Greece will know these people by name and probably look up to them, but my mother for example who believes "comics are for kids" may not even know their names...
It's really a big question... Sorry to bother you, it's just that I'm new here and it doesn't make much sense to me one way or another... Just trying to share some knowledge and interest.—This unsigned comment was added by BunnyDee (talk • contribs).
I've seen elected politicians get articles about them deleted if they weren't serving in a particularly high office. I mean, it would be nice to be able to include everything, but at some point, there is so much information that it's overwhelming and/or confusing. dcandeto 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean... Still, it's always the old quasi-philosophical question of "where you draw the line". I was attracted to wikipedia, first as a reader and now as an editor (or whatever we're called), because I found this overabundance of information intriguing... It seemed to me like almost everything anyone might care to find out about was here somewhere, to the point that I even experimented for fun, thinking of random things I wanted to find out about and searching for them here. I didn't know there was a "limit" to that until yesterday - obviously, things that nobody would ever wonder about, like the meaning of the word "yes" for example, can be safely excluded, but other than the blatantly obvious I wouldn't know where to begin when debating notability.
Still, I think I'll stick to what I see as fairly "safe" options from now on, such as articles that have already been linked to but haven't been written yet, or editing pre-existing articles with "important" information, corrections etc. I was hoping to add more articles about less notable subjects, like other webcomics or computer games or artists who are "big" in Greece for example (I am 3/4 Greek and quite familiar with the struggling comics scene there) but since such articles don't seem to be acceptable I still believe I can offer things in other areas. It's just that I had a very different impression of wikipedia before I joined, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it just came as a bit of a shock at the beginning.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, I'll look into the subject a bit further when I have the time, to gain a better understanding of how things work and why where notability is concerned. —This unsigned comment was added by BunnyDee (talk • contribs).

[edit] afd must FOLLOW discussion

elected politicians might be deleted only if the voting was done by people opposed to their political view, and/or by a small and non democratic section of the wiki community, and perhaps from other countries where it didnt matter. this is not a democratic process, and consensus cannot be obtained from a small sample if the bulk of the people affected dont even know about the process while its happening. The process is supposed to be that discussiona nd concensus takes place FIRST, and only if that fails is afd necessary. Otherwise afd is a perversion of the wiki process and subverts the whole meaning of why we are here. I'm very concerned with this apparently random level of notability attitude, depending on who you are, and the 'achilles heel' of wiki. It seems that the 'tail gets to wag the tiger' too often for its own good. I just checked an article about a Band in NZ that you afd'd with zero discussion.. how can that possibly help wiki? is there a shortage of server space that you are guarding? its wierd but the article is clearly ok, and most of the voters see that, but the we are in a very much different society to you, and might have our own views of what is suitable for consensus, and thats why the discussion is suposed to precede the afd. SO YOU DONT WASTE A WHOLE LOT OF HUMAN ENERGY... energy is more precious than server space.. I have several terrabytes and just buy more as a better solution than sitting around fiddling with the old data. Did you ever consider the DAMAGE you do to peoples enthusiasm and spirit when you trample on them with such ignorant style? knowledge and ability is only a small part of this equation, how about following the laid down guidelines and protecting the authentic newcomers with a little patience and respect, you know, its called good faith. It sometimes takes a little while to figure this place out and get an article to maturity. How about ADDING rather than subtracting, oh thats right its harder, it takes more energy, more time, more understanding, positivity, niceness... so what was the real reason you afd'd a remote article about a remote subject? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flies_Inside_The_Sun ? there is not a single delete vote at this point, and almost no discussion, certainly one by you on the talk page. moza 14:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The requisite discussion takes place on the AfD page itself. The "random level of notability attitude" isn't something you're getting from me. dcandeto 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
the point is that afd is often not required, and is a perversion of process, a short cut by people like you, incurring unecessary group effort, that is better utilized for improving articles. The article that you afd'd has 100% KEEP if you discount your un-necessary initiative. In my experience the requisite discussion doesnt take place in a balanced manner, more of a feeding frenzy, under duress of afd. The discussion can take place without the afd. So lets have some truth here, are you admiting to believing that youre correct in using afd to force discussion about an article that you really didnt bother to investigate much? moza 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I've wasted far less effort than the people who've removed {{prod}} and various incarnations of {{db}} from articles that are obvious deletion candidates. I made a mistake on Flies Inside The Sun, but if you look at pretty much every other AfD I've done, you'll find a consistent Delete or Merge result. AfD is far from a shortcut. In fact, it's pretty much a last resort.
I guess I jumped the gun, but it's awfully suspicious when the creator and only other editor of an article removes {{db}} and {{prod}} without even attempting to assert or provide some backup for the subject's notability. People who insist on keeping non-notable articles about themselves, their friends, or their businesses are wasting far more time and energy than I ever could. AfD is not a perversion of process, no matter how much you'd like it to be so. It is process. dcandeto 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please excuse Moza, he gets a little ardent in his defence on occasion. I for one appreciate your dedication to keeping Wiki clean, even if I didn't agree with the target this time! Regards, Ziggurat 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes and gun jumping has been known to be done by many of us as well!! (myself included). The perversion of justice is not done by the justice process independently, its done by someone or thing affecting the process. You're completely correct; afd is process. You're in an 'ardent' effort of mine to protect any pages that appear to be unfairly treated, and at the same time to alert the community to such injustice, and the possibility of other ways. I also learn from these experiences by reading and re-reading the relevant policy; It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on PROD and AFD, and if you havent 'dropped in' to policy further upstream then you would just think that is the only way. So I'm forming a view that many editors are misled into those two processes to eliminate articles they dont like. If you start further back in reviewing the policy's then you can see that discussion is the prefered process, with assistance to research and contribution. That way an article can be allowed to grow and be nurtured into maturity. I'm all for removal of extraneous content, but only after some consensus is derived from a casual and non-threatening debate on the talk page of the article concerned. That slower process would eliminate all the extra work in afd process, something prod was supposed to address. Consistency with delete or merge could simply support what I'm saying, that the articles dont get a chance to mature into an individual before they are struck down by a hoard of marauding wiki cleaners. I will look sometime as I did at your own articles, to guage consistency, but this isnt about you!! I'm sorry if it appears that way or I didnt bother to be impeccably nuetral.. Thats probably the most important thing, its not about you, its about the afd's that are un-necessary. Its also connected to the behaviour of many editors that think that they should remove anything that isnt pure or exact, or agreed to, from articles, but not their own creations, I find that wierd. So I have been forced to adopt other techniques to bring informationa nd images that I believe are relevant to be available, by creating independent pages that cant be edited, and referencing them in the article. Its early days, and its a different style, but to me its pragmatic. I dont want to, and I wont, spend my life arguing over content. (thanks zigrt for your kind and moderating words, thats worth noting for sure)moza 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems to be an ardent effort to go after people who are following policy, which is, if not against the letter, against the spirit of WP:AGF. I'm not particularly interested in debating this further; I wasn't in the wrong, and followed policy, and the article's going to be kept. You'd be right to go after me if I kept trying to get it deleted despite the current Keep consensus, but I haven't, and therefore you shouldn't persist in attempting to cow others into accepting your idea for what policy is. dcandeto 01:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, this is not about you. This is about the real people that get trampled on in the name of following policy, in a way that is interpreted as correct, but doesnt take into account the rest of the policy, that if implemented, could improve these kind of situations before they get into this state. Its not about cowing, thats ridiculous. Its not about me or what I'm trying to do. I say again this is only about discussion prior to prod/afd, is that clear yet? all the other stuff is superflous to that core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozasaur (talk • contribs)

[edit] Margos Dezerian

I noticed you tagged this article for speedy deletion yesterday, so I just wanted to drop you a line to explain since the author just removed your tag without comment. He's new, and he didn't make it clear that the subject is a fictional character. I've copyedited it now, so in case you're wondering why it's not tagged anymore, hopefully another look will clear it up. Happy editing! Kafziel 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaspina University-College student Union Director notability query

  • " In 2001, tuition fees in BC were reduced, resulting in an average cost to university students of $2,592. " reference http://www.msu.ca/
  • "In 2004-05, over 13,500 individual students, or 5,941 full-time equivalent students2,

enrolled in credit programs at Malaspina University-College. Another 7,600 individuals enrolled in Continuing Education courses, and over 1,500 in contract training. In addition to serving Canadian students, Malaspina offers a very successful International Education program that attracted over 1,300 students from around the world in 2004-05. One of the primary employers in our region, Malaspina had 2,042 individual employees at all of our campuses during 2004." reference: http://www.mala.ca/EducationalPlanning/KeyDocuments/StrategicPlanning/2004-05ServicePlanReportFinal.pdf

From where I stand, 'known to more than 5000 people' is easily verified by that info, and the importance of the election clear even in monetary terms, multiply those figures together and thats a notable budget. As its hard to decode the previous debates, why is the director not considered notable enough in wiki circles? I find this highly perplexing.moza 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't imply that at all. Just because someone attends a college or university, it doesn't imply that everyone there knows them, or even a majority. dcandeto 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
agreed, but are we talking about attendance only or election to a political office?moza 08:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
from my google search cody hedman gets 9 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 slots in 73,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cody+Hedman&btnG=Google+Search.moza 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Results 1 - 20 of about 29 for "cody hedman". dcandeto 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
ok so there is a page that confirms he was elected as Director-at-large (whatever that is) and plenty of other references to him, so its reasonable to believe that he was sufficiently well known to get elected, and so why isnt that enough? what objective rule is applied to put him below that. How is it measured? Does he simply need more wiki friends to vote for him to keep? are we all completely satisfied that the wiki voters who did appear and cast their vote all had a vested interest and did due diligence to determine a fair judgement, ie did enough voters act in good faith? sooner or later you will hopefully see that this isnt about you or me, but an attempt to examine the application of belief in process. Its drawn out because we have been led off in all directions. If you scan the comments of voters I think that you will be compelled to see that many votes are cast fairly superficially, and any afd is likely to succeed just on that basis alone. That the process of invoking an afd is fairly certain to have a delete outcome as it invites (thru the network of notices) a hoard of surgeons to a feeding frenzy, and due to the fact that there really is are a vast majority of articles truly needing deletion, a mental set arises whereby thats become the normal process, and these lesser notable articles are attacked and die. Its sometimes premature, without time or sufficient assistance to grow and become something worthwhile. So thats why i suggested you pay attention to your own backyard, upgrade your own article to a sufficient standard, before someone 'mistakenly' puts it up for afd. Its not gonna be me, I havent and wont do it, probably ever. Look i have 20,000+ web pages of my own to look after, by myself, and they all need fixing. (lol but true)moza 08:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reguly

I noticed that you put a template on the Eric Reguly article. I'm not sure what it was for, so, if it is still applicable (I've finished the stub) could you put it back? Thanks alot, and sorry about the deletion, Theonlyedge 21:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It just said "Eric Reguly is a Canadian" when I put the template in. dcandeto 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian Municipalities

Thanks for tagging all of those empty articles – almost 70, I think. They're all gone now. ×Meegs 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. --Casper2k3 00:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

About the " betty chan" page.. Can you please verify the details of the links i have posted?thxSnob 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2

First of all, you know its a bot right, an automated computer program, not a human. I have no idea what happened, mostly because the edit was deleted and I have no way of taking a look, so I'll have to give you blind apologies -- Tawker 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was kind of annoyed. I'm guessing it thought I recreated a deleted article, but all I did was add {{db-repost}} to it once it was reposted. dcandeto 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vilano Beach

Thank you for catching that! I saw the old spelling we had a week ago and I thought it was so weird, because my uncle lives in Vilano Beach and I always thought it was just the one "l." Regards, Mike H. That's hot 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episcopal High School

Hey, Im new to this whole editing thing, sooo I was just wondering, why do you keep deleting my comments on the april fools thing for episcopal? I was at the meeting and I heard everything that Mr. Crandall said.

-DJ 2006-04-26 20:15 (UTC)

Since it's not verifiable in anything that's been published (as far as I know; if you know of somewhere that it has been published, please cite it), it qualifies as original research. dcandeto 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting images

I noticed you recently marked a photo (Jared3.jpg) for speedy delete. Can you point me to the criteria for suggesting personal photos for deletion? I wasn't sure if they were allowed or not. Thanks. --cholmes75 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of them was definitely deletable as a duplicate of the other. I put a speedy tag on it because it was uploaded purely for inclusion in a {{db-bio}} article, and I've seen admins delete such images before. dcandeto 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EHS

--alleyshop 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)The problem with this genre of "encyclopedias is that they are edited and re-edited creating sort of a word war. Such is happening with the continually edited "Episcopal High School of Jacksonville" entry. Sure would like Dcandeto to get his head straight on the facts rather than filtering through his "former student" illusions. Gagnon resigned. If this is the sort of thing that stands out in your mind as defining of this school, you need to reaccess your motives. Gosh, golly, the baseball team is heading to states for the first time in history ( Fla Times Union May 15)... Student population is 900 + "Parochial" is commonly used to describe Catholic schools...EHS is considered a "parish" of the Diocese of Florida...and describes itself as a "college preparatory" school. Quibble about the proper usage of "parochial" all you want, but in the PROPER sense, a parochial school is supported by a church parish and Episcopal High School is not supported by the diocese. ...and the racial incidents. Why not do your homework and find out what the outcome of the incident was? Hmmmm alleyshop 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I added no information whatsoever about Kevin Gagnon. I never said he was fired; I never said that he resigned.
I did not change the student population figure.
EHS does fit the definition in the first sentence of Parochial school. Episcopal is ultimately under the Diocese's control.
If you're going to put something in about the resolution of the newspaper incident, you need to cite a source. I stopped looking a couple weeks after the incident, and I figured that someone would add information if it ever came to light. However, as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.
I'm not sure what your issue is with me, as I haven't made the edits you take issue with, with the exception of one, which is supported by another article. dcandeto 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
so sorry. I misunderstood the sequence of edits and dumbly thought you were supporting the drivel. The aftermath of the incident was not important enough for the local paper to follow through with. typical, huh.alleyshop 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hey Dcandeto

Sorry about the 155 killed police vs. gang article..i changed it to Violence in Brazil and i put alot of changes to it so can you check it and see if everything is all right..Tere naam 00:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yellowcard

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 09:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osama bin Laden

What a patronizing message. I have been editing on wikipedia for quite some time and do not need to "test" anything. Makgraf 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you should know that reverting against long-established consensus is vandalism. dcandeto 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what "personal attacks" I directed towards THAT GUY. And I really would like to start a dialogue as to why we're calling the World's #1 Terrorist a 'militant'. It's ridiculous and, I feel, it discredits the entire article. I know I cannot rely on a impartial information pertaining to this article, or the hippie one. Wikipedia leans so far to the left that I often think the words are going to fall off the page.

Like you said in my talk page -- my 'personal attacks' (which are nonexistent) "deters users". Well this feud over the bin Laden page has deterred this user. I feel like I can contribute greatly to Wikipedia, and I have even written entire articles, but the fact that Wikipedia is so blatantly biased, truly deters me.

For example, on that hippie page, some leftist added something about a song called "San Francisco" being played for returning vets or some nonsense like that. First off, my father, a Vietnam Vet never heard of this song, and guess what, he did return to San Fran. Secondly, I added something about Lloyd Marcus' song "Welcome Home Brother" AND I CITED IT, something that was not done to your hippie song. I am anxiously waiting a response.

BTW - check this out http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78609 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.213.168 (talk • contribs)

Here are your personal attacks:
Your actions are disgraceful and I hope to God that you are living in Iran, or somewhere where you are forced to all but swear your allegiance to bin laden.
I think bin Laden should be referred to as a terrorist, too, but I'm not going to presume to change the article in the face of an opposing consensus. The system's not perfect, but it works better than anyone unilaterally changing articles. dcandeto 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not erase my contribution.

Please do not erase my contribution to the Critisism section of the Israel Lobby. It is legitimate and informational. -akolsrud

The edit in question is here: [1] dcandeto 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on various NYC subway articles

The person who is doing the vandalism uses a different IP address every day. Threatening him/her with blocking won't mean a thing.

Is there a way to lock the articles so that only registered users can edit it? I realize that such an action is not always preferable in Wiki but maybe the message will then get to that person. It can always be unlocked a few months down the road.

--Allan 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's semi-protection. I'm not sure if it's possible to stop persistent vandals. dcandeto 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] esa

you obviously didn't go to etobicoke school of the arts. i did. there's a reason i posted that, but hey, you're the guy who's brought it upon himself to edit articles on an encyclopedia anybody can edit.

Hope that makes you feel special.

The crack about the band teacher wasn't fair, though, I'll agree to that. He really was an asshat, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.160.69 (talk • contribs)

You are correct that I did not go to ESA. That has no bearing at all on my right to edit the article. If you don't know this, I'm sorry. dcandeto 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location Information

Hello, Are you planning to revert all the location information I have put into articles? It is convention that we indicate which country we are talking about when writing an article. We cannot assume that all readers of this encyclopaedia know where a place is and we do not need to force them to click on a link to find out where it is. Maustrauser 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we add Earth while we're at it? Most U.S. and Canadian articles do not include the country if they include the state or province, because can be determined with one click that Alberta is in Canada, so I'd hardly agree that it is conventional to do so for all articles. The first paragraph of Metropolitan Police does not indicate that it is in England, and neither does London Underground. The article on London does indicate that it is in both England and the United Kingdom, and that should be sufficient. If someone doesn't know that Florida is in the United States, they can click and find out. dcandeto 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the first para of an article doesn't indicate where it is does not prove the point. Why ask people to make extra clicks. Fine if you on broadband but the vast majority of the world isn't. It is common sense to indicate what geographic place the article is about. It is arrogance to assume that everyone in the world knows all US or Canadian States or Provinces. Wikipedia is an international collaboration, not a North American one. Maustrauser 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If they don't, they can click on the article to see that it is a U.S. state or Canadian province. There are a ton of articles that mention states or provinces without mentioning the country. American and Canadian states and provinces are better known than, say, Swiss cantons. dcandeto 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
But that is my point - why ask for an additional click, As I said the vast majority of the world's population uses dial up services and not broadband. You are disenfranchising people by deleting a very tiny bit of information. What is your objection to adding the country the article is about? Is it too much extra typing? Maustrauser 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd refer to Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no reason to include extraneous information where it's not necessary. Generally, there's not a reason to include "USA," as there's not another New Jersey that people could be confused by. dcandeto 02:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you are going through my entire edit history and reverting my articles. I think this is hardly polite or a useful use of your or my time. Before I revert all your changes which I believe are unreasonable and verging on North American arrogance I will be seeking some mediation. Maustrauser 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Arrogance? Take the plank out of your own eye. dcandeto 07:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you object to seeking a third opinion on our editing. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion If not, I shall seek it today. Maustrauser 02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:NC:CITY, "The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]]" and "The canonical form for cities in Canada is [[City, Province/Territory]]." Unless and until this changes, it is entirely proper to revert all references to cities to this canonical form. dcandeto 08:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:NC:CITY, no countries are name, even for Assam or Bangladesh. Thus the guideline you cite does not deal with adding country names. You haven't responded to my suggestion that we seek a third opinion. Can I therefore assume you are not interested in a third opinion? I haven't heard the phrase "take the plank out of your own eye." What does it mean? Maustrauser 09:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
YOU WIN. I have thought about this issue for sometime and as of now I am not going to bother reverting your changes to my edits back again (unless they are unrelated to location - as you did for a submarine article where you appear to think that submarines have a gender.]. If you wish to spend your time reducing the amount of detail in articles then feel free. I've got a encyclopaedia to improve and articles to write. Maustrauser 11:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've also got an encyclopedia to improve, and it doesn't help when people make changes that are blatantly incompatible with the guidelines.
As for the submarines, boats are traditionally (at least by native speakers of English) referred to as "she." dcandeto 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Having looked into this further, it is clear that the consensus is to use the standard English "she" and "her" to refer to ships. The overwhelming majority of U.S. Navy cruisers (and all of the longer articles to which more attention has been paid), as well as the articles for the Titanic, the Lusitania, Terra Nova, and the Edmund Fitzgerald. The consensus is pretty clear, and you should not be reverting away from it—it's standard English. dcandeto 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MonkeyFilter

There used to be a Wikipedia article on MonkeyFilter. google cache. It was deleted by a jury of our peers in an AfD. Maybe you know about it (I wasn't involved). Do you believe a red-link is appropriate, even after it has just been deleted a week or so ago? -- Stbalbach 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A red link is definitely appropriate, since it's for articles "about important, verifiable subject[s]." MetaFilter is still there, and since MonkeyFilter is notable (less notable than MetaFilter, maybe, but notable nonetheless), an article for it needs to be recreated, or MetaFilter's article needs to be deleted, as it is not notable if held to the standard used to delete MonkeyFilter. dcandeto 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
MetaFilter is one of the worlds top blogs, constantly winning awards and stuff, it would be easy to defend on notability grounds. I didn't see the MonkeyFilter AfD (someone should have posted about it on the Metafilter talk page). But it is not nearly well known or important in the history of blogging. Not to say it shouldn't have its own article. I won't fight over the red link sounds like an ongoing issue. -- Stbalbach 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for removing vandalism from my userpage! -- Where 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacksonville Skyway

Please see Wikipedia:Lead section#Establish context and stop, since not everyone knows that Florida is in the United States. Thank you. --NE2 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The norm, and the consensus, for municipality names in the United States and Canada is to add the state but not the country. Reverting it again would violate WP:3RR, but is otherwise perfectly justifiable. dcandeto 08:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not misleading; you should read WP:POINT. --NE2 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was misleading; I have yet to disrupt Wikipedia, for the purpose of making a point, or for any other purpose. I'm in the process of making sure that state/province and country are listed in any articles I can find. dcandeto 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't have an opinion on whether or not "in the United States" should be included on the Jacksonville Skyway article.
However, none of NE2's edit summaries were abusive, and adding "on Earth" is the perfect example of what WP:POINT is about. Making an edit that you know will be reverted is disruptive, even if only a tiny amount. -- NORTH talk 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong and wrong. Both "Reverted bad edit." and "Reverted WP:POINT." are inaccurate and rather insulting edit summaries; so my warning to NE2 was entirely appropriate. dcandeto 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefixes

SI (in addition to IEC) specifically states not to use decimal prefixes where the values are binary, and to use the binary prefixes instead. Their statement may be found here. A standard of reference developed by one standards body and endorsed by another is not a "neologism". Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A standard of reference recently developed by a group of people is by definition a neologism, and it is utterly wrong to insist that an invented term is objectively correct. Prescriptivism is generally considered not to have any authority. dcandeto 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The binary prefixes are...what, coming up a decade old now? The term "byte" itself is relatively new by linguistic standards, the term "video card" is probably no older at all, certainly "dual-core processor" hasn't been around that long. But where appropriate, we use that terminology. The question is not the newness of the term, it is its appropriateness to the situation. In this case, two well-respected standards bodies agree. Binary prefixes are appropriate for representing binary numbers, decimal prefixes are not. We would not call a "yard" a "meter", just because more people in the world use the metric system, and say that it's "close enough and more widely recognized." We would use the appropriate and precise unit of measurement, if it's a yard, we say it's a yard. The same applies here. But certainly, the binary prefixes have standardized, clearly defined, precise meanings, not the slippery and often quickly-changing meaning of a neologism. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "byte" is nearly fifty years old. The terms "video card" and "dual-core processor" can be parsed easily into their component terms. It is not possible to parse the -bi- in -bibyte. Ergo, it, unlike the other computer terms you listed, is invented.
The question as to whether or not something is a neologism is fundamentally based on the newness of the term and how widespread its acceptance is. The term is new (a decade old is still new to everyone who was born before 1995) and not widely accepted. Smoot is well-defined and has a precise meaning, too, but it's not something we'd use seriously to measure things, because few people would use it, much less know what it is. Megabyte already almost always means 220 bytes in references to computers, and is a widely used word that can be easily parsed. Well-respected (or otherwise regarded) standards bodies do not rule on what is and what is not a word. We don't need language police—they're ineffective at best. dcandeto 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"Mega" is ambiguous in these cases-and as a prefix, it is centuries old, if not millennia. It has a very well-defined meaning, that being 106. Of course, people only came up with it when they started to measure quantities in the millions, and needed a standardized reference. Of course, before the advent of computing, there was rarely a need to use 220, and when there was it could be expressed that way. However, now there is, so someone's come up with a standard term. But in many contexts, mega is wrong. In some, it's right. If one refers to a 250 GB hard drive, one is indeed referring to the ability to store 250E6 bytes of data. But if one refers to 512 MB of RAM, the term is incorrect, for "mega", as a prefix, means 106. Yet, that RAM card can store (512*220) bytes of data. Why use "mega" ambiguously to refer to both, when precision is easily available? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Precision is not available without using invented non-words. dcandeto 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ST John's vs Port Royal.

St John's is the oldest English city, but was settled in 1605. Port Royal was settled by the French in 1604. I am reverting your edit on that basis. Cheers! WayeMason 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

St. John's was first settled in the 1500s. dcandeto 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

My understanding for the last 3 or so years of participating in Wikipedia is that you use the appropriate spelling for the country you are writing about. You Americans can use whatever spelling you wish, but in Canada, we us the UK spelling for that word. Thanks. WayeMason 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian spelling is neither British nor American. For example, colour and neighbour are preferred, but organize and realize are preferred. See WP:SPELLING. dcandeto 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
After blasting you I checked some sites and it does appear I was wrong, however, if you hadn't left a n00b note on my talk page I probably would have been a little more reserved in my approach... nobody likes a smart-arse, as we say out east. WayeMason 16:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWVH

The ticks on WWVH are only omitted at seconds 29 and 59 past the minute. If you don't believe me, just call WWVH and listen. +1 (808) 335-4363. --  Denelson83  19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The ticks between 51 and 58, inclusive, are far quieter than the other ticks. dcandeto 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to my ears, they're not. --  Denelson83  20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Intl Airport

Sorry, I was using Twinkle and I hit rollback before realising your previous edit summaries. Jordanhatch 09:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion on former routes

Hey, thanks for cleaning up a lot of articles with former routes. I also invite you to put your comments in on the discussion so it can reflect the community's opinion more fully. Cheers, and thanks - I couldn't find a lot of the articles you fixed up before you fixed them. --Matt 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. dcandeto 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inetpup is Unsuspended and is Back !!

I'm back and I'll try to be good.--Inetpup 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. dcandeto 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your response seems so unexcited and dull! I wish you would show more enthusiasm at my return. After all, you caused me to be censored for a whole week, so I wish you would say 'welcome back, Inetpup!' Thanks.--Inetpup 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. You brought it on yourself, and you were blocked for three days, not a week. dcandeto 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FLAGCRUFT

Just thought you'd like to know...--Boffob 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy, so it doesn't carry much weight, if any. dcandeto 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As an argument it carries much more weight than simply putting flag icons for the heck of it. It's worth a read for sure.--Boffob 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No one's putting flag icons in for the heck of it. dcandeto 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment: "Removed flag icons as per WP:FLAGCRUFT; please do not revert, adding flagcruft is considered vandalism" probably should have been succinctly written as "may be considered vandalism". Moreover, since this is not the first time that you have been informed of flagcruft and your insistence on providing decoration in an infobox where discussion by other users and editors have concluded that it is inappropriate, you are acting in contravention of the group's wishes. As you have already concluded, Wikipedia does not have "hard-and-fast" rules but it does have a standard of conduct. If you noted that flagcruft was an issue already from other edits, why add it again? IMHO Bzuk 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Why add it again? Probably because people are removing it based on a nonexistent policy. Removing flags because you think they're cruft is akin to moving article names to the British or American spelling because you like it better. dcandeto 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote from WP:Flagcruft:"Not intended for birth/date places"
"It may be tempting to use flag icons in the birth/death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, but this is strongly deprecated." "Not intended" is pretty clear as policy. Bzuk 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
That's a quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is not a quote from Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumsdollar

This band is notible! i had explained in the talk page i intend to find sources soon, i am busy right now. i dont know why you so hastely delete the article... Slowbro 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you could find sources to back up every claim in the article, it still wouldn't be claiming to be notable. dcandeto 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The band has many videos which have been aired on national television. They have been interviewed and have made appearances on national television shows. Dont worry ill confim their notibility. I know the current information doesnt confirm notibility but im annoyed you deleted the article so quickly! luckily i saved it to notepad first... Slowbro 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not delete the article. dcandeto 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha how embarrasing, did you just mark it for deletion? sorry. I will work to find confirmation of this bands notibility. Truely sorry for my accusations. Slowbro 07:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just marked it. I'm not an administrator. dcandeto 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delete and hangon tags

Misapplied "delete" tags can be removed by anyone, including article authors. Please be more careful when tagging for speedy deletion. Things you (or another editor) consider to be 'unencyclopedic', 'cruft', or running afoul of WP:NOT, are not speedy candidates and bear discussion before they are removed. -- +sj + 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Users are not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags (including mine, which was correctly applied) from articles they have created. Administrators may. I hope it's clear to you now. dcandeto 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry nonsense

You might want to check out the tag on your userpage and comment on the case page. I'm also requesting a checkuser so that this can be taken care of expediently.--Strothra 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My good friend, after all those nights at Intime, after all those days doing discrete math in Dodd, I am devastated to learn that you are merely a sockpuppet, the figment of another's imagination. Sockedshocked, I tell you! sirmob 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oy. dcandeto 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hah, that was my reaction. --Strothra 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JTA Skyway station articles

A {{prod}} template has been added to the various JTA Skyway station articles, suggesting that they be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but these articles may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletions by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletions in your edit summary or on the talk pages. Also, please consider improving the articles to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notices will prevent deletions through the proposed deletion process, the articles may still be deleted if they match any of the speedy deletion criteria or they can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where they may be deleted if a consensus to delete is reached. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove {{prod}} templates without following prod guidelines. If you are going to remove them, you must improve the article and state why it should not be deleted on the talk page or in the edit summary. Please make these changes, otherwise the {{prod}} templates will be restored. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not permitted to re-prod articles. You can submit them to AfD if you want. Stating that I (or anyone) "must improve" an article if removing {{prod}} is untrue and misrepresents Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway)

An article that you have been involved in editing, FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway). Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princeton

Are you a current student at Princeton? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilever

Hi, you've twice removed the description of the link to the Unilever logo, added on Jan 7th, on the basis, as I understand it, that its link to the company website constitutes WP:spam. But from a graphic design point of view the logo is a notable design, you could even argue for it to have its own article. While for many years corporate logos have been reduced to a single crude swirly circle or star with a single aspiration or messsage, this particular logo has made a stir in the design world because it goes against that trend by attempting to represent many things within its design. This design has spawned several imitators. If you Google for "Miles Newlyn" & "Unilever" you should see quite a few references to it, e.g. see here

Have you been to the link & "hovered" over the constituent images? You'll see that each image within the logo is described there. Now, you personally may not like the individual designs or the corporate marketing speak that accompanies the text, but I am unaware of anywhere else on the web where you can get those graphic components described. As those individual graphic components are also littered across many of their corporate publications it forms a helpful "index", plus it may even give you some idle entertainment when you look at any of their products in your bathroom or kitchen - well, they are a brand marketing company 8-) When you do that also take a look at the quality of printing - for this design its quite challenging.

For these reasons I've restored the link - though I've tweaked the wording on the link to warn that it is "corporate". Regards, Ephebi (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the infobox. I'm moving it to the links section. dcandeto (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the "?linkid=wikipedia" portion of the URL clearly indicates that they're tracking hits to that page. dcandeto (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
After further review, the URL was added by an anonymous user at Unilever. Out it goes. dcandeto (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see your concern about the provenance re WP:COI and WP:SPAM. But I personally don't think its crossed the line, as the actual "promotional" content of the link referenced is fairly tame, its aspirational or value-based, rather than pushing products, and its in a fairly obvious context that's not masquerading as anything else.
But by removing the link I can see no other source for a detailed description of the graphics, unless you fancy doing some editing yourself and write a new subsection on the logo? I'm not aware of any editorial policy that says that being closely connected with the subject of the article automatically excludes one from editing - in fact, I'd rather hope the opposite, in that we would get well-referenced input from people that intimately know the topic in question, as long as they are cognisant of potential WP:COI issues. Ephebi (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A URL, added by the subject of the article (which is a corporation large enough that it presumably has its own PR department) that's obviously tracking hits from Wikipedia needs to overcome the presumption that it's spam before it can be allowed to stay. dcandeto (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)