User talk:Dorvaq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Prod
Re Mumunyu language: for your future ref, the rule book says that if a prod is removed, it should not be replaced - if you think it should still be deleted, then you must use the tedious three-stage AfD process. (But I am not such a pedant as to take off the re-instated prod.) -- RHaworth 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- My bad! I should've been more careful while reading the guidelines, but thanks for the heads-up. It's ironic how I thought I was actually doing you a favour. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Good heavens, yes. You were doing Wikipedia a big favour - please keep up new page patrolling and other quality control. (But if you don't follow the rules, others more fussy than me will start harassing you.) -- RHaworth 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth did you remove the prod tag? Did I tell you to remove it? If you had left it there, we could probably have got rid of the article with it. It was well past the first critical hours where new page patrollers are most active. -- RHaworth 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hah! You're obviously aware that you didn't ask me, but I figured it was the right thing to do seeing as I am not knowledgeable in the world languages area and I would therefore not be able to give an educated opinion on the matter. Plus, I broke the rules plain and simple, yet I don't mind replacing it again if you wish, but would that not be asking for trouble? I apologize for all the confusion I'm creating. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What has knowledge of world languages got to do with anything? You don't need to know anything about languages to spot an hoax - just the ability to copy and paste a word from here to Google! No I am talking about the procedural game of keeping Wikipedia clean and keeping on the right side of the more legally minded editors at the same time. It is fun - join in! (You should have checked - I have put the article to AfD.) -- RHaworth 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion of Max
Hi why did you discombabulate my page about my friend Max, you've ruined it
- The article you edited was a redirection page not meant for an article. In addition, the content you added was entirely your point of view, unsourced except with links that I suspect were of pornographic nature, and ultimately not suited for an encyclopedia.
- I would invite you to read Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines before making further contributions in order to avoid a similar situation in the future. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFC/discussion of article World War II
Hello, Dorvaq. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Krellis. I've posted my comment on the discussion page of World War II. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletions
Alright, thanks a lot! I wasn't sure what to do but I didn't want to just leave them up. Amber 20:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Oakwood, OH
Yes, it was my intention to remove a great deal of the content from the Oakwood listing. I do not know if you live in the area, but the information contained therin was incorrect and inflammatory. I am a legal representative of the city, and will remove content on the listing deemed to be offensive and/or inaccurate. In the event that the content is reverted to that of inaccurate or offensive, I will begin the legal process with Wikipedia to lock the page. Perhaps you should KNOW about a listing before taking it upon your self to be some guardain of misinformation.
- I doubt very much that a legal representative would use such means to remove offensive and/or inaccurate statements made of a city that he/she alleges to represent.
- I fail to understand how a chart depicting the breakup of Oakwood demographics is offensive and/or inaccurate yet the section illustrating the very same isn't. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to contact me at city hall. Feel free to contact the Director of Public Safety.
- How conveniently lacking information. Regardless, you still haven't answered my question regarding the chart. — Dorvaq (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand your "lack of information" comment. I believed that you would have been able to find the contact information for the city, however, my invitation to speak still stands. The city telephone is 937.298.2122, simply call and ask for the Director and you will be connected. You have also failed to answer a question, and that is how you seem to find yourself as a representative, speaker, and/or guardian? If you are not a resident, not affiliated with the city, or otherwise have no first-hand knowledge, I fail to see (1) your interest in the matter (why do you care?); and (2) how you feel that you can understand exactly how residents and employees feel about the way the community was protrayed (in a negative light). Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter.
- First off, if you gave me your phone number, then you *did* understand my "lack of information" comment. Also, it's not because you know the phone number of Oakwood's Director of Public Safety that you're necessarily that person. The director holds a public office, and therefore, I would assume his/her office contact information is available to that public.
- Secondly, who you really are and who you claim to be is irrelevant. That doesn't give you the right to embark on a mass removal of content mission without explanation regardless of that content's accuracy. Plus, instead of outright removing the content I'm sure you could have simply edited the material to make it non-inflammatory and accurate. See what I'm gettting at? You're right. I have no vested interest in the accuracy — or inaccuracy for that matter — of the information found in the article. I'm not a "guardain [sic] of misinformation" as you put it. I simply try to respect the policies and guidelines set forth by the Wikipedia community and ask that others do so as well.
- Lastly, you have successfully avoided answering my question about the chart a second time, but I'll ask it again using different words to humour myself. Why did you not remove the content on the Oakwood demographics, but felt compelled to remove the chart that illustrated the very same thing? I once again fail to understand how the chart on Oakwood's demographics was inflammatory and/or inaccurate, but not the section. — Dorvaq (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Socks
Sadly, the vandal isn't breaking policy per se - they haven't used the accounts concurrently; in fact there was a fair few days between uses. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads-up on it - I will stalk these accounts for a couple of days just to make sure and will wield the cluebat where it is required! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For reverting my user page. I appear to have offended that editor somewhat. J Milburn 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to. Just keep doing your great work. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There we go, returned the favour, that editor is on the verge of getting blocked. J Milburn 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canada's Independence
Yeah, but it's still hard not to respond to this kind of crap. Lexicon (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Xenos Mason
Since it appears the individual behind this is going to keep creating new accounts to recreate this article, I salted it this time.--Isotope23 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
