This is an archive of past discussions with User:Daniel.Cardenas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Daniel.Cardenas. It looks like you moved some content from Self-driving car to Adaptive cruise control. When you copy or move prose from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
When there have been multiple discussions in the weeks preceeding the WP:BOLD action, all coming down against exactly what you did, this isn't being bold. It's being disruptive. This goes smoother if you self-revert and take it to talk. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as "coming down against", that is a bit harsh, actually plenty of supporters, with some of the dissenters suggesting to wait a month back in January and others to wait for SpaceX to confirm the name. Both of which have happened. The resolution was "no consensus" rather than directly against. I understand you think it is disruptive, I think it is helpful to stop using the wrong name. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
From WP:BOLD: Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly.. That exactly describes your actions - you acknowledge there was discussion, it was closed with a result, and you choose to ignore it. That is disruptive because it basically says "I don't care what any discussion said, I'm doing it my way." There are multiple reasons this is a bad idea. Again, undo your move and take it to talk. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As stated previously it was in line with previous discussions for waiting for solidification of the name and waiting for official confirmation. Did not ignore, but paid great attention to previous discussions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
No, the discussions did not say "there is no consensus to move, so wait six weeks, ignore the discussion and do the move anyway", which is what you did. That is disruptive. Re-read WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, in particular on the need for consensus. The BOLD is intended for uncontroversial actions, not for actions which were argued about and settled against your choice. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you were referring to the original rename. If you'd read the discussions on renaming, you'd see WP:COMMONNAME, which appears to still be BFR. And the fact that SPACEX changes names of its rockets more often than some people change their underwear. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lane centering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercedes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Android 10; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Daniel.Cardenas: What does an active discussion have to do with the editing on the page? Per WP:BRDD, If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. – The Grid (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is directly associated with edits on that page. The reverter has not discussed objections in that discussion and should not have reverted excellent improvements to the page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The guideline is called bold, revert, discuss. You decided to make a discussion on a completely separate page while one was made on the talk page. "Excellent improvements" is a bit much and I do suggest putting your feet on solid ground with discussions on this issue. – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is a guideline I chose not to follow, because revert reason cited is incorrect understanding of MOS:USEPROSE. The reason for discussion on related page was because of the reason for the revert, which is very wrong. And I do suggest when discussion policy at talk page you keep it on subject, rather than discussion irrelevant number of times someone made to a different page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
My edit has been reverted, so instead I should explain your mistake as nobody below seems to have noticed it... There is no, "exception to this ... when an official name change has occurred".
The current guide seems to stress the phrase "extra weight", but in fact it is supposed to stress the word "after". Extra weight will be given if the new name is published widely enough, in reliable sources, to prove it is now the most commonly recognisable name. (<--this is the key, most commonly recognisable name)
The extra weight is never given to a new name because it is new.
If a name has been used for 100 years, and it has been changed last year, the number of resources using the 100 year old name will far outweigh the use of the new name, even after the new name has been proven to be accepted well enough, that it can now be assumed to be the most commonly recognisable name for the future.
In the old day, this policy was based largely on the fact it would help search engines. Search engines would have to be configured to cope with names which are official but rarely recognised. Wikipedia is not a money making business, but it is a business in a way, an academic business. We want as much advertising as possible, as many hits as possible from search engines.
It does not affect quality to prefer most commonly recognisable before official. It rejects tradition. Tradition is not reason. Apologies. ~ R.T.G18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I have fixed lost refs in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak now. I am not complaining about the split, so I won't revert. But we do need a bit more text there beyond the lead summary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the refs. That was fast.
I wrote this for summary:
The virus is spreading widely on the planet. The unknown cases maybe 10 times the number of confirmed cases. With children and young adults being less strongly affected than elder's, they maybe carriers of the disease. Countries have invoked measures to screen incoming passengers from China.
Daniel there is nothing gramatically wrong with "a dozen deaths in each of Iran, South Korea, and Italy". It is communicating that each of the three countries had a dozen deaths. "A dozen deaths particularly in Iran, South Korea, and Italy" has a different meaning, it's implying other countries also had a dozen deaths. "A dozen deaths in Iran, South Korea, and Italy" is ambiguous but implies a dozen deaths total for the three countries. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, just read poorly. "in each of Iran". Got a mental block on that one. To be more clear if that was the goal versus succinct, one could have says in each country of .... Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spring (2019 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spring (2019 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Daniel.Cardenas!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 - Edit warring on Tesla Autopilot
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stonkaments (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Warp Speed. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Work constructively with other editors rather than insisting on your own edit, which was carelessly written -- copyedit, check your spelling. Also, observe WP:CRYSTAL - plans for clinical trials are often abandoned when earlier trial results are unsatisfactory.Zefr (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at COVID-19 vaccine, you may be blocked from editing. Rather than edit-warring (you have now reached WP:3RR), work for consensus on the talk page, WP:CON. You have a misunderstanding of what is an interim analysis, and what is a concluded Phase III trial (continues for years). Zefr (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Zefr (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Mitsubishi i-MiEV has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
misleading unassisted driving
You wrote:
In road-transport terminology, lane centering is a mechanism designed to keep a car centered in the lane, relieving the driver from the boredom of steering. Lane departure warning systems are similar to lane centering technology, but tend to have the negative affect of weaving inside the lane. Together with adaptive cruise control these vehicles allow for unassisted driving for some seconds.
Unassisted driving wording might be ambiguous as long as you did not define unassisted driving. By unassisted driving, did you mean:
a mean (such as in reg 130) to manually deactivate the assisted feature?
a kind of autonomous driving system such as Level 3?
a kind of assisted driving such as hand-off?
5.2.3. The LDWS shall be active at least at vehicle speeds above 60 km/h, unless manually deactivated as per paragraph 5.3. below.
5.3. If a vehicle is equipped with a means to deactivate the LDWS function, the following conditions shall apply as appropriate
— Regulation UNECE 130
I do not understand what you call unassisted driving. My understanding is driving is unassisted when there is no driving assistance, that is no lane centering, no LDWS, and no ACC.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Large language model. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
