User talk:Rockymavia9999

Vandalism
Please do not refer to good-attempts to improve Wikipedia as vandalism, as you have done at this AfD. This is offensive and disheartening to people who are doing their best to help. Please read WP:What vandalism is not and try to discuss the issue rationally. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If reddogsix thought that the references were truly links then he should have changed and stated that on the very first day. When he realized his argument was not being supported he went ahead and changed the references to links on the 6th day. That is vandalism of a page under the guidelines.
 * No, it isn't. You don't get to decide what is vandalism and what is not based on what you do and do not like. Discuss the changes, but stop calling them vandalism. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 08:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not deciding it on what I believe. Give me proof from the guidelines on how I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.40.254 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dhaka Paranormal Society
I see you have threatened to report me for vandalism for changing items you believe to be references to links. References generally are statements that are associated to specific statements in an article. These are links that may support the article, but they are not associated to a specific statement in article. Your concern that this will cause the article to be deleted should not be a concern - article inclusion is determined based on content, not form. I would also suggest you retread the comment above. In addition, I would also suggest you comment here rather than on the AfD page. Any concerns you have about my behavior are better addressed here instead of on the AfD. red dog six (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- No we will continue the discussion on the Afd page. Everyone needs to know what you are doing before they decide on what to do with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - You do not seem to understand the premise of an AfD. The AfD will not decide if the article will remain based on my actions, but rather the AfD will make this determination based on the merits of the article and if it is supported by non-trivial references.  As I have indicated, I will not be answering your comments in the AfD but rather any communication that is not directly related to the AfD will be posted here.  I also encourage you read what Basalisk has written about vandalism and take that to heart.   red dog six  (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Signing Your Comments
Rockymavia999, in the future please sign your comments by inserting four tildes ~ after your comment. red dog six (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Paranormal Society (2nd nomination). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -   t  u coxn \ talk 06:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. You are giving false information and I'm simply stating it. If you don't like what I have stated about the Dhaka Tribune being a reliable source, then you are welcome to give facts and state how I'm wrong. Rockymavia9999 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)