Jump to content

User talk:CardinalDan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Headhold (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 18 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

Hi,

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

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

Vandalism

Hello,

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

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

RE: Vandalism to Public Schools Article

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

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

Uncited information on bidding fee auctions article

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

I would ask you to at least read the contents of an edit before making a snap (or perhaps completely automated) judgement on an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.1.125 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Hello,

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

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

I read it, and your edit had a POV slant to it, almost like a personal essay, which is not allowed here. If you can, try rewriting it in such a way that it does not have such a POV. Also, place new comments on the bottom. CardinalDan (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking the truth about fraud is not "vandalism"

I cannot understand how inserting into an article a DESCRIPTIVE account of a CLEARLY fraudulent practice by a company described in Wikipedia is "vandalism." Please explain why you are reverting my revisions when my revisions are designed merely to more clearly spell out what "Tagged.com" has been accused of. As a recent victim of their "business practices" I know exactly what happened to my email accountt and that of a friend of mine who never accepted any agreement to have our privacy or computer's security compromised. This is NOT under any remotely reasonable construction a gray area. Thank you for responding to this query. Prestolocution (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you consider contributions valdalism???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letmroll (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to the article are uncited, and seem a lot like vandalism. Wikipedia requires all information to be cited to reliable sources. Please stop inserting information that does not meet those requirements, or you risk being blocked CardinalDan (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is fact not vadalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letmroll (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but with no valid citation, it is vandalism. CardinalDan (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

Hi Cardinal Dan...

I see that you have put a proposed deletion notice on my newly created entry. I intend over the next couple of days to dramatically improve the quality and content of the page so I request that you wait the full seven days before deciding whether to delete the entry. Will this be a problem?

Kind regards

(James Bates, Communications & Marketing Manager (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not a test

I wasn't testing anything. I was adding information about the mathematical methods of super calculus because it wasn't already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhold (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the information. I told you I was not testing. I was adding information.

Why is adding information about super calculus vandalism? I haven't made any damage to the page I just added some missing information.

Like I said before on your talk page, where is the reference? A google search yielded nothing, so I am inclined to beleive that you are adding fake material to the page. CardinalDan (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was what I added to the page, don't be so silly. If a google search gave you nothing your internet might be broken. It is a variant of calculus. Are you going to delete algebra for being a variant of mathematics. No, i didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhold (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can i undo your removal again or will you take it back. tell me

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CardinalDan&oldid=297106440"