User talk:Dorvaq/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I need your help

Dorvaq tank you very much for your note about "Rodolfo Valentin" article. I would really like to improve it the best I can!.I though it was a nice article... Can you help me? It is not that I am removing "tags" from other WP ( probably I do and I don't know I am doing it), what happens is that I get the feeling that it bothers to other Rodolfo Valentin competitors which are other hairdressers (that they don’t understand that those names are listed as a reference of “who Rodolfo Valentin is”), they are not listed with “advertisement” intentions, most of that people named has an article in wikipedia and they are linked because they are related to Rodolfo in the real life!. Also, in wikipedia it is not possible to write an article about somebody who is nobody (right?)…Rodolfo Valentin is the creator of the first hair prosthesis in the world in 1973. (The explanation about it is showing in the “discussion” page in his other article named “Sofia’s hair for health”), an organization that he created in memory of his mother SOFIA giving free hair prosthesis for people who cannot afford to spend the $ 4,500 us dollars value. As I said above, all those good values of Rodolfo bothers to the others hairdressers, and I am sure that they or their associates created most of the “spasm” in his article, and some of the changes and removals. For example, in his article was also a picture of Rodolfo with the Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, (a picture that I took myself with my camera) when I was at the Princess gala in memory of her mother the famous actress “Rita Hayward”. Somebody came and with the excuse of saying that it was copyrighted and “removed” the picture completely! It is unfair; I still have the picture in my camera!! (Again: I feel that Rodolfo’s competitors removed it because it bothers them his high level reached in his career and the people that is related to him!). Now: they are questioning about the other picture that shows Rodolfo with Mrs.Catsimatidis (a New York socialite) with Ms. Milos, a famous greek actress that also has an article in wikipedia. Myself have also done this picture. I offered to them to send a signed statement by Mrs. Catsimatidis and Ms. Milos if necessary to proof it! Rodolfo Valentin is also the creator of his trademarked “Hair Infusion”, a damage free hair extensions technique that everybody is talking about. The editor of the Sunday Times of the UK, travels from London just to have it every three months! The following link is to her article where she is talking about in her page she mention Rodolfo at the beginning of the page and also scroll done because in the second page she continues talking about Rodolfo in the one named “My new best friend”… Her link is: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:lOA6cMKWcRYJ:helenafrithpowell.com/index.php%3Fs%3Drodolfo%2Bvalentin+helena+frith+powell+rodolfo+valentin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Also: as a proof that “The Hair Infusion” is a Rodolfo invention, please see it in the US trademark website, clearly showing that it has been invented and trademarked by RODOLFO VALENTIN and his partner. Please type in the basic search ‘THE HAIR INFUSION” and see by yourself. The link to the US TRADEMARK is: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=gu8kbj.1.1

Now another Wikipedian added the following to the article that was not there before:

"This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since April 2007".( it sounds malicious!).

It is really annoying, because I feel that Wekepedia is being handled by personal points of view and not by reality, and it should be based in the true, and acceptance of the true.

I know that you are very busy, but PLEASE,I really need your knowledge to end this already upsetting situation that is creating a big frustration on me.If the wikipedians don't want me and my articles I will remove them it there is not other choice. ( I don't go around bothering other people articles, if they are nice, I admire them!). Thank you very much! “Justice all the way”.

My first piece of advice is to take the time to read the Wikipedia Guidelines (← click here to read) that you have been redirected to on numerous occasions. There's plenty of great information found there that can help you in your endeavor to make the article a Good article.

Secondly, discard your belief that Rodolfo's competitors are the culprits behind the edits you are disputing as I doubt very much that's the case. Regardless, even if it were the case, the edits made were legitimate. If you are truly trying to improve the article, listen to what other editors are telling you and allow them to make the edits. Despite being the creator, you unfortunately do not own the article. (← Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more information)

Also on the topic of making the article better, you need to cite your sources; that's why the tag specifying This article or section does not adequately cite its references... was placed. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All good encyclopedias cite their sources. You can't assume that everyone will accept your points as true simply because you know they're true. Remember; integrity goes hand-in-hand with verifiability.

Lastly, regarding the image deletion, I suspect it had something to do with the copyright information, or lack thereof, found. If you indeed created the image yourself, you still must tag the image with copyright information. Please read Image guidelines for more information.

I hope this helps. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I need your help!

Hi!, you have previously helped me, and now I need your help more than ever. I don't understand why so many people is deleting and changing my article about RODOLFO VALENTIN. You have previously helped me about it. Now, they are deleting big chunks of the article for not reason. They have deleted a portion that shows the important people related to Rodolfo. a picture of Rodolfo with Mrs.Catsimatidis and Ms.Milos that was taken by myself! ( probably I don't know how to inform that the picture was taken by myself when I loaded?).. Then, there was a part call: HAIR INFUSION. That is Rodolfo's last invention about a hair extensions technique. It has been trademarked by Rodolfo. If you visit the Us trademark office and search in trademarks, it will clearly show RODOLFO VALENTIN. Also, just typing HAIR INFUSION in any search on the internet, google, yahoo, it is very easy to find that rodolfo is the creator of that technique. IT ALSO HAS BEEN REMOVED by somebody using the name WALKER42. He vandalized the article several times and nobody helps me about it. It is there somebody in WIKIPEDIA that takes final decisions?. I can even call it "malicious". I have added in the discussion page of Rodolfo Valentin file, a external source to verification of each statement. WALKER42 cameback and make notes to it look not credible?..why? Can you please help me to restore the article as it was before? thank you!- justice all the way jorge maria perez 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I genuinely want to help you and, like Cricketgirl, I am displeased to hear of your frustration, but you refuse to help yourself by not listening to what I and others have been telling you. I'm sorry, but Walker42 is making valid points as per Wikipedia guidelines so I suggest you take his advice.

I've pointed you to several sources you can use at your disposal to make your article better, such as finding out more on image tagging and citing your references, but you continually show me you are avoiding the read.

If you have something specific you don't understand with the step-by-step guides, let me know and I will do my best to help you. But, I will not rewrite the step-by-step instructions on your talk page when the information is already readily available elsewhere. You have to do your part as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq: Thank you!

I really appreciate your help. And you right, I don’t know about adding the tags when I load the pictures. But, believe, the last picture removed by others, showing Rodolfo with Ms.Milos and Mrs.Catsimatidis, it was a picture taken by myself (using Mrs.Catsimatidis camera), and I was authorized by her to use the picture for anything I want.( i will try to learn the steps), but anyway, after all the menaces I had from many editors I don't know if I feel to continue. I am not the only one, a lot of people are talking about the abuse they receive in WP, and they are also saying how WP has changed since started as a result of the people that are joining. I hope it does not lose the initial purpose for what it was created and people exchange points of view with respect and not with "rude authority". Dorvaq: because I have the feeling that everything I do will be deleted (even if I do the right thing). I will like if you help me to add the paragraph you mentioned about “the hair infusion”. As you wrote: “don't see a problem keeping the following portion”. Hair infusion Hair infusion is a trademarked procedure of Rodolfo Valentin, created to add length, volume and color to the hair. Synthetic or real human hair is used in the hair infusion process. Perhaps we could add within the paragraph how it relates or is similar to hair prosthesis and/or hair extensions. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please add that paragraph?. Also as you mentined that perhaps we could add within how it relates or is similar to hair extensions(yes,it is similar to hair extensions but damage-free since heat and glue are not used in the application). Thank you very much for your understanding again!,l you very gently. jorge maria perez 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

I plan to, but not right away. Building consensus in Wikipedia is just as important as editing itself, especially on contentious issues. The point in question has been deleted by different editors several times. You can't just go and revert something simply because *one* person agrees with you or doesn't have a problem with what was written in the first place. I opened the point up for discussion and now I'll wait for other editors to respond, which is the wisest means to proceed.

Also, you shouldn't let this experience dissuade you from contributing further. Learn from the situation and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and you'll be editing without feeling persecuted in no time. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

You really are a great person. thank you for encourage me to continue! Also I found an important external link for the "hair infusion". it is from the New York Magazine, Rodolfo Valentin was selected by that prestigious magazine as the best of 2007 specifically for the hair infusion. In that article they noted that "it is Rodolfo Valentin technique" ( something that few editors questioned before)- the link is: http://nymag.com/weddings/listings/hair/index1.html scroll down the page and you will find Rodolfo Valentin listed. thank you again!justice all the way 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way justice all the way 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Justice, the link in question points to a Hair Salons Directory with Rodolfo's offered services summarized. You must also be careful on how you interpret what's written. To me, it does not explicitly state that the "hair-infusion" technique is his. Viewed another way the sentence simply illustrates that Rodolfo has his own technique when performing the "hair-infusion" procedure.

Also, clicking on "Rodolfo Valentin" brings you to his profile page on nymag.com. I can't find anything stating he's been selected as the "best of 2007". Not a very good supportive source in my opinion for your point in question. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq: Hi again!, the link to nymag.com I provided you is already the link to the ny magazine "special 2007 weedings" and that shows the listing for the salons selected in 2007. That is why that when you clicked on rodolfo's name took you to the profile they have about him. Going back to Rodolfo's article, an editor has changed the phrase "the new york society hairsytlist" for a "promminent hairdresser of new york"., the link to the new york society magazine called: "hamptons sheet" attached below proves that Rodolfo has been named by the press as the new york society hairstylist is:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:7eKYPM5F8AsJ:www.hamptonsheet.com/nov2004/bigtopbeauty.htm+new+york+society+hairstylist+rodolfo+valentin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us As you can see, in the picture with Rodolfo is Margo Catsimatidis, wife of the multimillonaire greek John Catsimatidis (who also has an article here in wikipedia). The reference showing that Margo Catsimatidis was Rodolfo's client and as I told you before the picture of him with her and Sofia Milos are also deleted from his file!. Again, a million thanks for your help to build this article. (when the article is completed,it will be your creation, and I don't mind, I really apreciate your help!) 151.202.70.35 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way justice all the way 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

I'm afraid neither sources are explicit enough. In order for your source to be verifiable to support a claim, your claim has to be unmistakably clear in that source. Otherwise, your source is irrelevant. In other words, I want to see, "Rodolfo Valentin, selected best of 2007." or something along those lines written in your source. It could also be a section in your source titled "Best of 2007" with Rodolfo Valentin's name appearing underneath. Your source doesn't provide that information.

As for your second source, again it's not enough to support a claim that the *Press* has named him a Society Hairstylist. The Press is a very broad term that incorporates many media venues. You've shown me only 1 source, which does not score very well at supporting your claim.

I know finding good sources can be very hard, despite the truth of your claim, but keep in mind your sources don't have to be from the internet. As long as they are verifiable and reliable. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editor and Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio

The anonymous editor you have notified me about has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Please keep me informed if new anonymous users (or any users, for that sake) show up and try to make the same edits. Lexicon (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

justice Rodolfo article

Hi again! I did not know that the sources don't have to be from the internet! (what can be?)- from magazines? ( there are a lot), but how we show them as a proof? the following link is to the article of the New York-Daily News newspaper,there are also refencing to Rodolfo as the society hairdresser: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/03/2007-03-03_keeping_a_promise_society_hairdresser_ma-2.html

in the same article, it shows that Rodolfo was the creator of the first "cancer wig" that the editor WALKER42 has challenged me so much with that.

thank you again! justice all the way 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your references can be from any verifiable and reliable source preferably in English, including, but limited to, magazines, books, newspapers, etc. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid real estate

Thanks for your comments. I did not mean to remove speedy deletion tag, so thanks for letting me know.

-epp

here Justice again

Hi Dorvaq! here is justice again with my comments and seeking your help. I was reading the articles of other hairdressers as Frédéric Fekkai or Oscar Blandi and they have the list of their famous clientele intact,(in Rodolfo article the parragraph about his famous clientele in New York has been completely removed!). Also the link to Rodolfo’s “official site” [1] has been removed from the external links list, while the others mentioned above are having their official site listed,(both delitions in Rodolfo’s have been done by the same two editors WALKER42 and Gwernol), they have shown no mercy with my articles ( Rodolfo Valentin, Sofia's hair 4 health and other two).

Also: Please note that the other article I did about the UK, London’s Sunday Times editor Helena Frith Powell (which is a very well known editor of that prestigious newspaper) has also been challenged by WALKER42, and the external link to her daily report [2] also has removed by WALKER42 (so, adding up all these events, it takes me back to the believe that this editor is against me) or against Rodolfo, because Helena is also Rodolfo’s client and very often she makes articles about Rodolfo in London (see it in the next link : [3]

Sorry to bother! justice all the way 15:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

justice again here

dorvaq: hi again!. I need you notice what I have found. The editor of name WALKER42, which is the one that deleted and critized everything I did, looks like that editor signed into Wikipedia for first time on April 17-2007, took the Rodolfo Valentin article, deleted big chuncks of it and then move to the other article I did, related to Rodolfo which is Sofia's hair 4 health in which also deleted and changed things around, and then the other related to it hair prosthesis and also removed the parragraph that shows that Rodolfo was the designer of the first hair prosthesis back in 1973 and deleted it also. But note: "WALKER42" did not touch any other files, only the ones related to Rodolfo"..is not suspicious?

Also please not that Walker42 is stating that there is not difference between a wig and a hair prosthesis (when it is a big difference). I've attached the following link from a governament site (cga.state.us) that shows the difference. (When you there, scroll down to find it). [4] to make things easier for you the following is the copy of the text on that government site:

   We're here to talk about
   the continuation of the tax exempt status for
   medical prosthesis for medical condition known as
   alopecia ariata.  All of us here at this table have
   this auto-immune disease and as a result of it, we
   have all lost most of the hair on our bodies.
   We all wear a cranial prosthesis which I think for
   all of us, we have individual stories which can
   illustrate how it has turned our lives around, and
   as a result of her affliction Martha has become a
   distributor of these cranial prosthesis which are
   from Australia.  Martha's statement goes as
   follows:
   People often think as hairpieces as purely
   cosmetic.  First of all there are hairpieces and
   there are cranial prosthesis.  The product being
   discussed here is considered a prosthesis and for
   two reasons.  The first reason is only one person
   can wear it because it is made from a plaster mold
   of the totally bare scalp.  Because the fit is so
   exact, a tight suction is caused keeping the
   prosthesis from falling off or being pulled off.
   it works the way a contact lens does in that it
   adheres to the scalp because of its exact
   duplication of the scalp configuration.
   The second reason is because this prosthesis can
   only suction only to where there is absolutely no
   hair on the scalp, it is not covering any body
   hair, which is a body part, but rather it is
   replacing that body part.  In June of 1990, the
   Department of Revenue Services made a ruling number
   90-53 which gave this cranial prosthesis tax 

   Best regards and thank you again.

justice all the way 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

please see this message

hi my good friend! I've asked to wikipedia editor assistant for help about to add back the link to Rodolfo Valentinofficial site and about all the incidents with WALKER42 and the following is the response: Generally, linking to an "official site" of the subject of an article is indeed appropriate. We certainly do so for Microsoft and Ebay, so I see no reason not to do so here, so long as it's verifiable that the site in question is indeed the subject's own. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict.) The last edit from the user in question – Walker42 – was on 2007-04-18; unless there are new incidents, I am uncertain why this would be an issue. In any event, if you ever start edit warring, you can always go to WP:3RR. As for the external link, I went to check the site in question. I am afraid that it might not qualify under WP:EL. Please review the guidelines for acceptable external links. --Aarktica 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your help

dorvaq: I really apreciate your help and interest in to make of this article a Grade A (as it was propssed time ago). No, I only added one link which is "Health & Grooming". I was reading the wp about this, and I think this link applies?

What should be linked Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. (it is okay or I misunderstood?), let me know!. justice all the way 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

I got it!

So, I will not add any other link. But I will like to keep this one about "health & grooming" if possible. thanks a million! justice all the way 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Re your comments

"A gang of editors seeking to improve Wikipedia, and a gang of editors seeking to disrupt Wikipedia". If you checked my edit history, you'd notice I don't provoke, I react (to harrasment). Also, I think you're mistaken about which "gang" I belong to. I am open to finding amicable solutions to problems, but (often) become agitated by agitators (Wikinazis, if you will). For an example of my constructive nature, please refer to the talk page on Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player, a template I've built from scratch. In doing so, I created a heading looking for any and all feedback from those who are unfamiliar with template syntax, and used it to create an infobox used on every NHL player's page, and beyond

Sorry, just one more thing I felt compelled to say. People "watching other people's backs", and subsequent "gangs" are absolutely NOT good for wikipedia. In fact, it undermines what wikipedia is all about. People are less likely to voice their own opinions if they feel they have to conform to a gang, and so you get polar thought processes forming on what should be a spectrum. That's the basis of political parties. You force people into certain cohorts, and whether they're 100% conservative or 51% conservative, they are only exposed to conservative POV in their political meetings. Those that are 51% eventually agree with the conservative POV (as that's all they're exposed to), and eventually become 100% conservative. Then they do things like fight against abortion, even though they may not really care either way. Just something to think about - see Cohort effect for further reading The strokes 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, by all means. As for my gang analogy, I was being sarcastic to make a point; that point being that this is not about ganging up on you because they watch each other's back, it's about your unwillingness to accept the possibility that these two editors might just happen to see eye-to-eye without influencing each other through their need to conform. It's also about your unwillingness to accept that they might just happen to be correct. Instead, your comments suggest that their backing each other up is all part of an elaborate scheme to push their collective point across while disregarding their individual views.

Also, I don't deny that you have made some constructive edits in the past. My remark about you being on the disruptive side was meant to reflect your near past edits. This is my sentence from RG's talk page: You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now (emphasis added). So just like I can't deny that you've made constructive edits, you can't deny that you have been disruptive. I mean, you've even admitted to being disruptive in your own edit summaries. One particular instance states: "don't stop agitating me, I'll keep vandalizing your page Addhoc. This is my new username, and it's this for a reason". In addition, most, if not all, of your last 50 edits consists of vandalism on your part and/or feuding with Ccwaters, Addhoc, and RG to push your point across. Now how is that not being disruptive? — It's the very Wiki-definition of disruption.

Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions. — Dorvaq (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"You just proved your own quite accurate point; that many editors watch talk pages and keep an eye out for vandals or other idjits. I've had vandalism on my page reverted by editors with whom I've never had any interactions. Myself, I watch ten other user pages, and it's been more in the past, but when I was approaching 600 pages on my watchlist I figured to trim back a bit - RGTraynor" Doesn't sound like this gang mentality is all in my head. He admits to keeping a lookout for his peeps from "idjits" (I can only assume he meant idiots, but didn't want to be accused of making a personal attack)
"Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions" - you
As I've said, and you've noted, I've only done this recently, out of complete frustration with (and I have yet to find a better term to describe those who use wikipedia to make up for their perceived real-world lack of power) Wikinazis. I'm comfortable with how this reflects on my maturity level on wikipedia, because I (unlike some others) realize that this is a pretend world, where people easily manipulate who they really are; any "brownie points" I may accumulate by acting out of character don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things. For example, in the guise of "following the rules", a douchebag in the real world can regularly get his jollies out of frustrating genuinely constructive editors. But how does he come off in this pretend world? As a constructive member of the pretend society. Of course, no one will ever look for the motive behind his actions - what prompts someone to spend hours and hours combing wikipedia with no apparent benefit to themselves. When you step back and look at it rationally, I think it's easy to find a motive for their actions, and judge their maturity accordingly The strokes 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like this gang mentality is all in my head. He admits to keeping a lookout for his peeps from "idjits" (I can only assume he meant idiots, but didn't want to be accused of making a personal attack)

So let me get this straight; you're denouncing RG and Ccwaters for conforming to a anti-vandalism gang? Again, I'm not sure what your point is or what exactly you are trying to achieve.

I'm comfortable with how this reflects on my maturity level on wikipedia, because I (unlike some others) realize that this is a pretend world, where people easily manipulate who they really are; any "brownie points" I may accumulate by acting out of character don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

So why do you continue? Why are we still having this conversation if you care so little about this? Why have you persisted so much if it "don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things". You are trying to sway me into believing that you're the wiser and more mature by not caring about what others think of you, yet your actions betray your words, my friend. If you care so little about what others think of you in this "prentend world", then why were you so quick to rebut my comments on you being disruptive? Why was it so important for you to legitimize your actions? Again, why do you continue?

You know what however, you don't even need to answer as I could careless. The whole point of my intrusion in your discussion with RG was to give you a friendly warning; being, that divulging RG and Ccwaters's not-so-secret, secret of protecting each other's pages against vandals or sharing many similar points of views in ongoing discussions isn't going to get you very far. One can only speculate that your subtle threat towards RG was meant to inform him you would be taking steps towards having disciplinary measures and/or sanctions imposed on him and possibly Ccwaters as well for their actions... it won't happen. You may be comfortable with how your disruption reflects on your maturity level, but I can tell you that if you continue at your current maturity level, you will not gain the support of those who have the power to impose such actions.

And, if it's not what you are attempting to do, then I'll ask you again; what *are* you trying to achieve? Are you trying to gain the sympathy and support of other disrupters living the same frustration *that they don't really care about* in order to better push your point across — are you actually telling me that you are trying to form a gang? Again, no need to answer.

Lastly, I'm sticking with my friendly warning and pulling out of this conversation. I'll allow you to have the last word, because I know you'll want to have it that way anyway seeing as you care so little about this. I wish you good luck with your endeavour, and please continue in your search for amicable solutions. You make the pretend society of Wikipedia proud. — Dorvaq (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"And, if it's not what you are attempting to do, then I'll ask you again; what *are* you trying to achieve? Are you trying to gain the sympathy and support of other disrupters living the same frustration *that they don't really care about* in order to better push your point across — are you actually telling me that you are trying to form a gang? Again, no need to answer." Why would you ask a question they say 'no need to answer'? To answer your question, I'm trying to edit in peace. That's all. Some won't let me do that, this is the necessary reaction from me to be able to edit in peace. The strokes 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rodolfo Valentin and the hair infusion

hi dorvaq! you are doing a great job in Rodolfo's article!. About the hair infusion, it is owned by his partner and also him.( I call them and asked them on the phone). Once you are in the US trademark page, and after search for "THE HAIR INFUSION" page, in that page click on "TARR STATUS" and at the end it will show you both names. Also if you click on the "TAR" tab, and then click on "specimens", it will show you the picture of the box of the hair infusion showing the hair infusion inside and the label showing: THE HAIR INFUSION by RODOLFO VALENTIN, exclusive technique. Also: in the first page of the [5]Hair infusion website, it is showing the same picture than is in the trademark office.

thank you! justice all the way 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Archive blanking

Hi - I've replied on my talk Martinp23 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

External link to Rodolfo Valentin

I am very confused about the constantly deletion of the link to Rodolfo Valentin official site: Official site. Other hairdressers as Frederic Fekkai, are having their "official site" listed in the external links. The "history" shows a note that reads: " primary source for this article, as required by WP:V an official policy of wikipedia, please do not delete".. Rodolfo Valentin article ALSO needs the official site external link!. It is also a "primary source" for that article. Specially having that sign on top of the article stating that the article needs "sources"... (You think that in wikipedia are some kind of favoritism?). Please, let me know, I am very interested to know the answer. Best regards! justice all the way 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

hi dorvaq! you are doing a great job in Rodolfo's article!. About the hair infusion, it is owned by his partner and also him.( I call them and asked them on the phone). Once you are in the US trademark page, and after search for "THE HAIR INFUSION" page, in that page click on "TARR STATUS" and at the end it will show you both names. Also if you click on the "TAR" tab, and then click on "specimens", it will show you the picture of the box of the hair infusion showing the hair infusion inside and the label showing: THE HAIR INFUSION by RODOLFO VALENTIN, exclusive technique. Also: in the first page of the [5]Hair infusion website, it is showing the same picture than is in the trademark office.

Following your directions, Rodolfo's name appears under the "Correspondent" section. That in *no* way shows that he owns the trademark. A correspondent and an owner are not necessarily the same person. All reference to the owner is listed as Jorge Maria. Plus, his name appears to be used as the company name of the correspondent and not as Rodolfo himself. For example, if I worked at McDonald's Restaurants and wanted to be corresponded with as a representative of my work, I would list my address in a similar fashion; or:

My Name

McDonald's Restaurants

1234 This & That Avenue

Toronto, Ontario

X8X 8X8

Does that mean that McDonald's Restaurants owns my trademark? Fortunately for me, no, but unfortunately for you, it doesn't show that Rodolfo also owns the trademark.

Lastly (regarding the trademark), a box created (or at least selected) by Rodolfo himself, I presume, indicating that "the Hair Infusion" is his exclusive technique, is not a reliable source to show ownership. That simply means that Rodolfo (or his salons) are the only ones able to use the "Hair Infusion" technique.

As for the official site link; first off, arguing that X article should have something because Y article has *that something* too, is not a good argument. See: Arguments to avoid. Now I know this article deals with "Articles for deletion", but the same principle applies to sections, and bits of information (and so on) of articles as well.

Moving on, in your request for editor assistance, Aarktica has explained that the link was "questionable", which I can only speculate as to the nature of his/her *questionable* remark. I think the issue with the website is that the website does not look like Rodolfo's (as an individual) official website but looks more like the official website of his salons. This can look like advertisement for some people seeing as the article is (or should be) about Rodolfo himself and not his salons. Anyhow, I will not override Aarktica's decision unless a consensus is reached with others. As a final note, you should perhaps ask this question to Aarktica to have a better understanding of his/her rationale. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your time!

dorvaq: thank you for giving me your time to explain. I am learning from you about WP more than ever. I found a link to add an external source to the phrase: "winner of the haircoloring techniques award and of the Grand design award". the link is: [6], there are two thumbnails, one for each. again please, let me know if it is okay.and a million thanks for working with the article of Rodolfo. justice all the way 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Unfortunately, no. The source is from Rodolfo's website making the claim somewhat biased and therefore, unreliable. A better source would be from the award committee in question. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rodolfo Valentin article

You are editing the RV article. Rodolfo Valentin is also an actor. Last movie was done in 1999 as noted in The New York Times article- link: [1] It should be included. ( see his discussion page). Ralicia 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)ralicia