User talk:Flavourdan

talk page

Your comment

Hi. To help streamline an out-of control discussion, I moved your post to another heading here: Talk:Virginia Tech massacre#Campus leaders doing nothing .28Or.2C why did the admin react the way they did and can we include speculation.3F.29 --Dynaflow 03:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't remove things

don't take parts out of the Virginia Tech massacre page, without talking about it on the Talk page. Thank you. Violask81976 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to talk about any change you make on the article before you do it on the talk page. I'm doing what's right. Stop vandalizing. Violask81976 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT's not baseless specualtion. LEAVE IT ALONE. It is a current event and it should talk about everything that is involved. It has been brought up by the media, or else it wouldn't be put up. So I repeat, Leave It Alone. Violask81976 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be mean, but you're being a bitch about it. You don't know if it's a bogus claim. Do you know the guy? Do you know that he didn't play violent video games? Or did you just create humans and know that video game violence does nothing to us? Violask81976 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

I noticed that you have recently reverted the same changes to the Virginia Tech massacre article four times in succession. Please keep in mind that while we encourage you to be bold in editing pages, official Wikipedia policy prevents any editor from making more than three reverts to the same page per day (the three-revert rule) to prevent edit warring; violators may be blocked. Please keep this policy in mind, and happy editing! Krimpet (talk/review) 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please cease the POV edits to Virginia Tech massacre. If you continue, you may be blocked for a short period of time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not confuse NPOV with POV. from your own POV you may mistake NPOV and not recognize it. Flavourdan 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victim's Deletion Log

I know Wikipedia says to be bold, but don't you think calling for the deletion of a list of victims is a bit harsh? Mrld 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedians, you should be constructive toward the expansion of new articles. Instead, you purpose to delete articles that doesn't need to be deleted. I would like to know why. Chris 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with wikipedia policy you should really propose changes/argue on the relevant policy pages like WP:NOT. Flavourdan 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:MEMORIAL policy

I believe you did not notice that this policy states that notable subjects are an exception to this rule. You therefore had to provide an argument as to why you believe the subject isn't notable, something which you did not do. Dionyseus 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]