User talk:Dorvaq/Archive3

Website

Checking other haidressers article like Frederic Fekkai or Vidal Sassoon are showing their website listed. ( Vidal Sassoon website is listed right on the box). I would like to exactly know why Rodolfo Valentin cannot have it?. awainting your response,thankRalicia 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)ralicia

First off, arguing that X article should have something because Y article has *that something* too, is a poor argument. See: Arguments to avoid. As for the reasoning behind the removal, read: Request for editor assistance on the same issue. You can even scroll up a little (or click here) to see my reasoning for the same inquiry. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Point no longer valid here. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Justice here

Hi Dorvaq. I think you will be proud of me. After contact Rodolfo Valentin, i got the sources for verification from important sources like the New York Post, the Herald and New York Magazine. I added them and I also I added a few names of relevant people with their sources for verification. ( I worked on it for several hours, exhausted!). Also, soon it is possible to add the source for verification for the "winner of National Grand Design Award". the commite of Takara-Belmont will be showing in their web Rodolfo award. Dorvaq: it is possible to add about the movie Rodolfo did starring as an actor in the role of "hairdresser" ?. The link for verification is at the New York Times and is: [1] Please let me know your comments. ( I hope I did right). justice all the way 17:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you may add it, Justice, and the link is fine. We may be adding Rodolfo's official website within a bit as well... and good work on your sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq, thank you for your response. (you know you're my WP teacher!). Can you give me an idea of the phrase to add about Rodolfo's starring in the movie and the funny point that it was in the role as a hairdresser? (if you like, pls do it!).

Also I got to my personal email (justicealltheway@gmail.com)email from Rodolfo about the "grand design award winner".It seems that TAKARA-BELMONT (the company that every year awards different salons), deleted by mistake the award winner for 2001 (Rodolfo Valentin) from their database. The Director apologized for the omission and the listing will be soon showing in their site.It will be the source for verification of that. I think after that every statement will have its source for verification, the only left without verification will be the "hair coloring techniques award". That company does not publish the winners in their website and the only documents available are the "Diploma" hanging on Rodolfos Salon and the "certificate" that the company faxed and is showing in Rodolfos website in the page "awards and accolades"..(so I don't know how we will do it), but it is a very important award that a very few hairdressers get. best regards, and million!justice all the way 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frédéric Fekkai

Now that we've settled the issue, if you and I butt heads again in the future, I would greatly appreciate if you would assume good faith on my part (as I did you) and refrain from inundating my talk page with warning templates. Cheers! — Dorvaq (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for verification

Dorvaq, I have added a source for verification for the "Hair infusion" at Rodolfo Valentin. That is first on the list on the NOTES. But, something is wrong, the website address is correct. it is: "MODA&id=1582091&Day=3&Month=3&Year=2007 Can you please check what is wrong? A million!justice all the way 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Dorvaq: don't bother, I fixed the link to the source already (exhausted!) regards justice all the way 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Important about Hair Prosthesis article

Dorvaq, I am very involved in helping with cancer ( that is why I know Rodolfo Valentin.) As you already know, besides being a great hairdresser, he is also a extraordinary good person that helps people with cancer not only giving them free $ 4,800 us dollars free hair prosthesis (cancer wigs) to the patients that cannot afford to buy one, but also giving them emotional support. At his salon has priority a person suffering from cancer than a regular "hair" client.

I am telling you about this, is because probably you remember that I was complaining about that editor of name WALKER42. he/she signed up on Wikipedia past April 15, made a mess with Rodolfo article and the other two related to him ( Sofia's Hair 4 Healthand Hair prosthesis.

WALKER42 after re-editing all of them ( reason why you and I went through so many headaches fixing Rodolfo's article), WALKER42 never returned to wikipedia. That is why I was insisting "how suspicious it was"... I can probably confirm an 80% that he/she is a competitor trying to establish "what is conveniente" for his/her business because has removed all the quotations that can only affect to a Rodolfo's competitor, like: 1-designer of the first hair prosthesis ( which is true!)from the hair prosthesis article. 2- offering free hair prosthesis without any outside economical help from Sofia's hair 4 health article. and many more!. Dorvaq, I would like to know if you can help me to provide the true in that "hair prosthesis" article. The current one will give a completely wrong information to the readers. If you agree to help me, I will send you more information and facts about the true. Anyway I've added external sources for verification that are showing different things that WALKER42 is trying to establish in the "hair prosthesis" article, like they are covered by insurance when it was only approved from 2001 (see the external link) and under special conditions (very few cover and less than few paid in full, almost nothing). again, best regards justice all the way 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here justice

Dorvaq Hi! Me and others have added "verificable sources" to the article of Rodolfo Valentin. But, a editor of name Bikeable, is "again" stating that the article looks like and add! Again I am very confused...it probably feels that way for "bikeable", because Rodolfo has a very interested life and everything he does is related to famous people and creative life. But I don't want to start anything again, it really was a nightmare just a few weeks ago what they did with the article and thanks to you it was saved, specially from competitors of Rodolfo that just showed up in WP to mess up the article. Please take a look and give me your opinion. I think all statements are having their sources! best regards justice all the way 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Bikeable. I'm afraid no matter how many sources you add, it won't change the feel of the article. The article still reads in a manner meant to sell Rodolfo Valentin and portray him in a positive light. If you wish to eliminate the ad feeling, then you need to change the wording. Keep in mind, however, Bikeable has mentioned that the article is doing much better and I agree with him on that point as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq: thank you for your help with the article. Regarding the "ad", I am asking a magazine editor friend of mine to help me to clean up the best possible the feeling. I will be doing it asap. Thanks againjustice all the way 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dorvaq, you did a great job to Rodolfo Valentin article!. My friend added the source for verification for Rodolfo's Private Atelier for Hair in Manhattan as a winner of the grand design award. Now, I want to ask you something, regarding as a winner of the hair coloring techniques award, "Commco and Science" does not publish it in their website. They issue certificates. I've the approval (and the copy) of the certificate. Do you think that we can load it as a picture, noted under "Hair coloring Techniques Award", and readers as an any other picture they can click and read the award certificate?. Please let me know what you think I will be do it right away. THANKS AGAIN!justice all the way 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Just make sure you tag the picture appropriately and give all the necessary details. The picture will, however, not do for a source if that is what you are asking? Surely the issuing organization publishes the winners somewhere? Remember, sources do not have to come from the web. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul McKenna archive blanking

Hi - sorry to not have replied earlier - it seems that I let the topic drop into my archive :). The reason that we have for blanking talk pages (etc) is to rmeove them from immeidate view, such as that used by search engines (Google). For a time, the search engine cache could still hold the incriminating remarks, but given time they references would disappear from searches. Thanks, Martinp23 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hockey totals - Stanley Cups, Conference championships, etc.

I noticed you reverted changes to many hockey team pages in which some anonymous user when to the trouble of adding the numbers, rather than leaving a pretty much useless list of dates. I thought it was fantastic to have the numbers there, since it is a significant statistic. Why do you deem the numbers as "unnecessary"?Ccrashh 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, individually, these edits are considered minor, but as whole; to unilaterally decide what should go into an infobox template currently being used by some 30-odd articles is pretty significant. Significant changes should be discussed before being made.

As for why they are unnecessary. First off, having a statistic appear with a "pretty much useless list of dates" adds clutter, which can be potentially confusing to a casual reader. Secondly, one can easily arrive at that statistic by simply counting the dates.

Also, these lists of dates are far from being useless without the running totals added. With a quick glance, they tell me exactly what years any given team of the NHL has won a Stanley Cup, a conference championship, and/or a division championship, which is pretty informative on its own merit.

Anyhow, I'm all for statistics, but there's surely a better way of displaying these figures without clogging up a previously accepted table. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then this is something we should discuss. If I wanted to see how many Stanley Cups the Habs have won, you are saying it is perfectly acceptable to have to count the dates? The numbers, to many people, are probably as relevant as the dates themselves, since it provides a quick statistic that otherwise is not easily available. How stupid does someone have to be to be confused by the number after the words "Stanley Cups"? Take a look at the stats table for the New York Yankees. Concise, easy to read, and it provides totals as well as dates. Now, putting in the numbers should have been done via discussion. However, taking them out also should have been done through discussion, not unilaterally as you have done.Ccrashh 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is a template that was accepted through consensus. Any substantial edits should be discussed before being made, so I therefore acted appropriately by reverting *without discussion* a substantial edit made by one user.

Ccrashh wrote, "How stupid does someone have to be to be confused by the number after the words "Stanley Cups"?"

Sure the numbers may be self-intuitive to you or I, but unfortunately, not everyone who visits Wikipedia is at your intellectual level, so we can't assume as much.

Lastly, you are right in that the New York Yankees infobox looks great. The numbers are well apart from the dates, which alleviates any potential for confusion while leaving the dates well-aligned. Now if you wish to have these statistics added, then by all means bring the discussion up on the Template talk:NHL_Team page and bring the New York Yankees infobox up as an example. You may also want to leave a note on a few NHL team pages redirecting people to the discussion, as I am unsure if the template is currently being watched. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IP

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for checking the edits and responding to the IP on my talkpage! --Caltas^(talk) 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for reverting the changes I made to my user page without signing in. I think that's the answer to why the quality of Wiki Articles tends to be high over time: community benefaction plus individual accountability. Lycurgus 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not being sarcastic, entirely serious. I hope my sarcasm is more apparent when I do use it :) BTW there's a funny quote on the Tom Lehrer article: "I'm fond of quoting Peter Cook, who talked about the satirical Berlin cabarets of the '30s, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the Second World War." Lycurgus 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion for entry Skipintro

Hi, could you state why you set the entry Skipintro for deletion please?

I've posted my response on your talk page: User talk:Wickedwikiwarrior — Dorvaq (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

American vs Canadian English

You "fixed" the word "colours" on the Montreal Canadiens article to the American spelling. Why are we using the American spelling of words for a topic/article that is most definitely Canadian in content?Ccrashh 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I had changed it for consistency, but I've mistakely thought the consistent language was American English. I have undone my edit. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada

I did see the discussion. Both of them. They don't interest me.

Editors are not required to participate in discussions, and "see discussion" is not a valid reason to revert someone. Besides which, even if I was interested in participating in the discussion, there is no consensus either way on the issue so there's no call for reverting my change out of hand. Kafziel ^Talk 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but in fairness, seeing as you are not interested in the issue and knew it was being discussed, you could have at least allowed a consensus to be reached before deciding to make the change yourself. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no waiting for consensus before editing. Kafziel ^Talk 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am aware of that, but in fairness; in order to avoid edit warring... but regardless, as I indicated earlier I could care less what version we use... — Dorvaq (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that you had reverted your edit. It has been discussed to death that "largest country in North America" is ambiguous, and so I reverted it back as necessary. Lexicon (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "necessary". As I already said, the fact that it has been "discussed to death" does not mean the subject is closed. What's abiguous about it? The fact that it's smaller than the US if we don't count the water? But we do count the water. It's like saying the US is smaller if we don't count Alaska. We do count Alaska, so there's no point arguing about it. Kafziel ^Talk 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I agreed with was Corticopia's, which didn't really have anything to do with "ambiguity". The point was a simple matter of throwing the statement regarding Canada being the largest country in North America into the geography section, and replacing it with "occupies most of northern..." in the introduction, which in effect would situate Canada within North America. Corticopia felt from a reader's perspective that it was more important to situate Canada than to establish it as the largest country. No argument regarding ambiguity was made at least on my part. Anyhow, I must stress again that I really don't care what version we use just as long as both statements are used. I really have no issue with either. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, thanks for the message, and I want to apologize for what happened. What was added to Wikipedia was not by me, I was in school and someone used my account while I was somewhere else. It won't happen again. I like to think of myself as a good and helpful Wikipedian.

I thought about deleting it afterwards

but realised that it would simply be recovered in the history and then I would have to face accusations of cowardice as well as incivility. I wrote it in response to Liberty's comment that I had rounded up a group that agreed with me to challenge him. The claim was so ludicrous, and so insulting, that I felt I couldn't let it go unanswered. Perhaps I was wrong. Still, not much I can do about it now 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see you have decided to delete the entry afterall. If anyone accuses you of cowardice, then you can just point them to our discussion on your user talk page, which should serve to show them that the deletion was completed in good faith. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter politics

Please add to talk if you feel any of the citations are false. Deletion will be considered vandalism and reported. Libertycookies 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you start with me. Administrator Jossi, and plenty other people for that matter, has more than explained why the section doesn't belong in the article. I'm going along with his decision. Any further additions will be considered disruptive, and you will be blocked. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I already spoke to Jossi about his delete, which he said he would add, which I did for him. You've been warned about the delete without talk, and I suggest that you choose to play by the rules, since I am trying that approach now. If you have a legitimate complaint about the material, please make your case in Talk. Libertycookies 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics of JK Rowling

Hi Jossi, Is the entry too long? How about a spin off article, since issues of civil rights are obviously of great importance to Rowling, and some sections of Harry Potter are fairly autobiographical? Thanks Libertycookies 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add to Harry Potter, and if it becomes to large we could consider a spinoff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am following the rules. If you are convinced Jossi believes the section should be re-added, then why don't you allow him do so seeing as he is the one he removed it in the first place. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it is my 3rd and final revert for the day. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note, Jossi has suggested adding the section to the Harry Potter article, and *not* the J.K. Rowling article. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about Hermoine is autobiographical to Rowling, not Harry Potter. I could ask you why you don't allow Jossi to delete for himself. Libertycookies 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about Hermoine is autobiographical to Rowling, not Harry Potter.

First off, having *one* part "autobiographical to Rowling" does not justify adding the entire section. Secondly, it's not because Rowling states that Hermione is an autobiography of when she was young that Hermione should be mentioned in her *biography*. You can illustrate Rowling's civil rights sentiments without relating it back to a fictional character from one of her books.

I could ask you why you don't allow Jossi to delete for himself.

Because Jossi deleted the section in the first place as a result of consensus — his actions and words speak for themselves. You're the one claiming he wishes do have it re-added. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of Poland in WWII article.

Why did you removed Poland from WWII article?

I removed Poland some time ago as result of consensus. Please see the article's talk page and respective archives. — Dorvaq (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tardy, but thanks nonetheless...

Well thanks. Hope to see ya around. -Flubeca^Talk 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Dorvaq. Question. Why remove one person's opinions from another persons talk page? Isn't that excessive? Thanks in advance for what will surely be an illuminating answer.

I don't know why I feel compelled to entertain your question, as I find it somewhat suspicious that an anonymous user is monitoring another anonymous user's edits to an established user's talk page, which leads me to believe that you already know about the answer I left on the originator's talk page, but what the hell; I'll humour you (and myself for that matter) anyway.

Anyhow, the reason I have removed the opinion in question is that it's hardly an opinion to begin with. The user is stating he/she disagrees for the sake of disagreeing without detailing his/her concerns — and that can be considered trolling, especially after verifying both users' history and being unable to identify any legitimate disagreements between Caltas and the anonymous user. This makes me suspect that the two users had a prior disagreement with the anonymous user logging in under an actual username or a different IP.

In any case, with no easily accessible history of disagreement and hardly making a point with his/her opinion, it makes me highly doubt that there was a genuine motive to begin with other than trolling. Finally, as I have advised the originator, either be more constructive with the *opinion* or give Caltas the courtesy of deciding whether or not the entry should be re-added. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Muttahida Qaumi Movement

I have removed the content which does not meet the Wiki criteria of Neutral Point of View. MQM is a political party in Pakistan. Those who are introducing material on MQM's page are their opponents. Their information does not meet Wiki's NPOV. If you disagree, then please let me know.

I'll admit some of the changes you've made actually bettered the article, but quite a hefty amount of content you removed was already written in a neutral point a view. When making such large edits to an article, it's generally encouraged to discuss such changes on the article talk page prior to making the edit. Also, summarizing your edit in the edit summary while making the change is also proper practice. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You undid a lot of my changes. How can I go back to my previous version before the massive deletes. I have 14 years of research on the subject matter, and I am working on a documentary on how Google, YouTube and Wikipedia are being used (misused?) in Pakistani politics.

Who do you think I should interview for this documentary?

Thanks

Quebec article

Could you please leave your opinion on whether mention of the "Quebec nation" issue should be removed from the lead (see here). I'd like to get the neutrality tag removed as soon as possible as this is an important article. Thanks. --Soulscanner 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dorvaq. PS- How does one reason with such an editor (Pgsylv)? From now on, I'll simply 'ignore' him. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Settlers: Rise of an empire

Thanks for the help on the article =], even if it was minor, all constructive help is appreciated! Philbuck222 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

for the user talkpage revert. Very much appreciated!! :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

Hi,

from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format: "Diacritics shall be applied to all the player pages (that require them).". Not just player pages of players with diacritics in their names, but all player pages. That's the Wikiproject compromise, so leave my edits alone. Thank you! Elrith (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Race Difference ...

You reverted me in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_Differences_in_Intelligence&diff=196289137&oldid=196281510, however you did not respond to the discussion I started on the talk page. Can you either reply here, my talk page, or on the article talk page, with the quote from the source, in which WSP is identified as not an academic publisher. Thank you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response at: Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence#Academic Publisher

United Kingdom.

I see you have reverted my edit at United Kingdom. However, Britain is the correct short form in this instance, not Great Britain. As the page British Isles (terminology) specifically states:

"Great Britain means the countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit. The term Great Britain is often used (incorrectly) as synonymous with the UK. However, the UK and Great Britain are not equivalent since the UK is a state formed from the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Britain is widely used as a political synonym for the United Kingdom." Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave the entry the way you last edited to, as no other editor seems to have an issue with "Britain" over "Great Britain", but for the record, how another wikipedia article words the definition of Great Britain is irrelevant because Wikis are not considered reliable sources. Meaning that for all we know, the entry at British Isles (terminology) could actually be incorrect. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

hello

i added a text in my problem i posted in the editor assistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Deleted_my_largely_sourced_material.2C_accidental_error.3F

when you have some time take a look

Thankyou for the attention

PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

hello again and sorry for desturbing

i posted again a new message in the editor assistance in the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Deleted_my_largely_sourced_material.2C_accidental_error.3F

when you have some time in disposition i would be happy.

thanks so much

PelasgicMoon (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

now they really violated all the possible, they denied me to write also in the article "Illyrians", you told me in this article the connection should work. they denied me aniway

i posted again here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Deleted_my_largely_sourced_material.2C_accidental_error.3F

thankyou so much for the disponibility

PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, my friend, the information you are trying to add is already found in the article. I deeply apologize for I didn't notice that the information was there myself when I first suggested you migrate your entry there. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Epygi Wiki

Dorvaq,

Glad to meet you. Would be so kind and give me some ideas on how not to describe a product in a non-advertising manner? Any constructive comments are welcome.

Sincerely,

--Epygi (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)