User talk:Satori Son/Archive 7

---

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I would like you to unprotect the Hollis/Brookline Middle School page, so that I can update it if something new happens to the school, or we make some kind of achievement or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.122.115 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article has been the target of extensive vandalism by its own students. The protection is due to expire later today, but if the vandalism continues I will have to protect it for a longer period of time. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Satori Son 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that it was not you that just vandalized the Rat article. Either way, I have had to temporarily block your IP address from editing. -- Satori Son 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I won't vandalize anymore. I just wish the JTF would fight racism and antisemitism as well as islamic terrorism because there are white terrorists out there like the Ku Klux Klan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.196.122 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand you may have a noble motive, but you've got to admit this edit was so offensive and inappropriate that it just makes you look like foolish. Thank you for stopping. -- Satori Son 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how placing information about what we do is any different to listings for thousands of orgs or individuals on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFroggatt (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "article" you posted was advertising, plain and simple. Please read WP:ADVERT and WP:CORP for information on how to write a proper encyclopedia article. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Satori Son 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for that demeaning IP thing. Invades privacy. I have not vandalized anything nor am I a sockpuppet of anyone. So remove it please. 68.215.251.139 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but once placed, those templates remain on any IP talk page that has ever been used for vandalism. The HBC AIV helperbot uses them to classify WP:AIV reports.

As I have told you before, if you want anonymity, please create an account and log in. Then, no one will know who your ISP is or where you are located. Thanks,  Satori Son 04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to determine what vandalism is, I think I will too. You vandalized my discussion page. Here have this — 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no need to make this personal and vandalize my talk page. Obviously, I have reverted it.

I'm sorry you were so offended, but I tried to politely and respectfully explain the way things are done here and why. You have unnecessarily overreacted.

And now I see you already have an account at User:JohnnyAB, so why didn't you just use that one in the first place? I really don't understand your behavior here. -- Satori Son 05:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find out why the Chris O'Rourke page was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.143.21 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A little over a year ago, that article went through a process called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Basically, another editor nominated the article for deletion, and that nomination was posted for other editors to comment on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris O'Rourke. My opinion there was that the subject did not yet meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). The administrator who closed the nomination apparently agreed with me, and the article was deleted.

If Mr. O'Rourke has now "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," then it might be appropriate to recreate the article. Do you know if that has been the case? -- Satori Son 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how this reply system works so I'll lave my message here (apologies)

With regards to your comments about spamming in Online Dating.

I'm well aware of the no follow tags and their use. My inclusion was not meant to be spamming.

The relevance of the item to the subject is clear. This is an encyclopedia and people (particularly parents of the myspace/facebook generation) looking for information about online dating should be able to know that there are sites appearing on the web that deal with the problem of shyness in dating, particular in children (where most of the concern is nowadays).

I'm quite happy for other site links to be put in here and even don't mind if the link to the site I put in to be removed but I totally dissagree with removing this inormation in it's entirety. To be told, in a section for online dating, of the trends in virtual dating but not about safety concerns being addressed is simply not telling it as it is.

Once again sorry for leaving this message here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsin250 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tamsin. No problem at all leaving this message here; I would be happy to discuss this with you.

The edit in question is here. If you would like to include such information, it must be cited to a reliable source. For example, where did you get the opinion "This seems a safe way, particularly for younger users of the myspace and facebook generation, to overcome what is generally a difficult hurdle to overcome"? If that is your own opinion, then it does not meet Wikipedia's policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

And remember, if you have significant relationship with coolapproach.com, then you really should not be making such edits at all. Instead, such edits should be suggested on the article talk page for other editors to evaluate. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

That being said, if you do have reliable sources for this information and need help properly citing and formatting it for the article, please don't hesitate to ask. Fully verified, neutrally presented facts are always welcome. Thanks and have a great day. -- Satori Son 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why the article was deleted, if sources were stated and Urufu Ryu is registered with the United States Martial Arts Association, under the sources cited in the article. Who was contacted in an attempt to find a reliable source to establish the notability of our style. I believe you can contact Kancho James Rosenweig at [email protected] if you would like full indepth details on the founding, the members and the accreditation of Urufu Ryu Karate Do. I kindly request that the entry be undeleted as soon as possible. Thank you Trysta Rosenweig —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepShadows2 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the technical reason it was deleted is because another editor proposed it for deletion, no other editor objected for five days, and when the deadline arrived I deleted it as an uncontested proposed deletion.

But the real reason it was deleted is that it provided no sources whatsoever. Our official policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, states that all "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Do you have such reliable sources that could be used to verify the article's contents? If so, please post them here and I would be happy to look at them. -- Satori Son 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to use your program here. As for Urufu Ryu being in your online encyclopedia who ever submitted it I am honored. As for the deltetion it really doesnt affect Urufu Ryu as my daughter stated above Urufu Ryu is recognized by the grandmasters involved and By the United States Martial Arts Association. Also It was certified as a style By the International Martial Arts League. I tend to stay out of the politics of the martial arts. If this helps you in any way you are welcome to the information. If you want any other information my daughter printed my email wrong it is [email protected]. I wish you well. ~~Kancho James Rosenweig-Founder Urufu Ryu Karate Do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.37.94 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

...for protecting John Severin. It was crazy there. I much appreciate your looking in on it and helping. --Tenebrae 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I only semi-protected if for one week, so after that we'll have to keep an eye on it. Keep up the good work! -- Satori Son 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and (assuming you're seeing this after Oct.24), welcome back. There's been some really odious, pornographic vandalism at John Severin since protection was removed by something called DumbBOT. If you could step in and help again, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks! --Tenebrae 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like FayssalF took care of it while I was away. Thanks for keeping a watch over things, and let me know if you need anything else. -- Satori Son 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those later/recent edits. I caught a few but I guess they decided to come back and vandalize a few more times with more graphic descriptions. Hope all's well JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujubey (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look again at the newest edits of the Web.com article which I commented on the talk page. It's obvious that the edits are made by a company representative like often before in the history of that article (see earlier comments on talk page). Note that wrong numbers of revenue were placed in the info box and all negative facts (losses) of the newest company history have been deleted. I ask you to take appropriate action. I'm not interested in reverting over and over again. --Peter Eisenburger 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the cuts were a little severe. I'll chime in at Talk:Web.com. -- Satori Son 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied on the web.com talk page. - I would be interesting to look int the deleted Interland article. Is that possible?--Peter Eisenburger 13:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since that article was never actually deleted, only converted to a redirect, the full history is still available. The last version before the redirect is here. -- Satori Son 14:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That was most interesting. And before that Interland Inc.. Note that Jeff Stibel himself wrote most of the early versions and other related company articles also. Jeff Stibel is CEO and President of ex-Web.com and future President of Website Pros. Note also that there were months long edit wars in the Interland article. Someone kept on deleting not welcome facts from the article, above all a legal case v. Heimann covered in Web.com's own files. "The court has set a trial date in October 2007." With the redirect all information was gone for the normal user. I didn't know that it could be recovered. Just yesterday I had the idea that User:Obgydd is Jeff Stibel. He keeps on changing his accounts. I have no ressentiments against Jeff Stibel at all. I appreciate his work. But we are an encyclopedia and not a company PR machine.--Peter Eisenburger 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See the latest developments. It's about a legal case of more than 25 million - four times the profit of the acquring company of one year.--Peter Eisenburger 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat myself hear since Peter has placed his comments here and on the web discussion board but this is getting a bit absurd. "Too funny! And here I thought you were working for one of their competitors until I saw your photos (which are very nice by the way). In any event, I think you are missing my point completely. The question is what is relevant for this web page. Again, this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Most of this stuff does not rise to that level. As for the legal stuff, maybe the company should disclose all of this (and they do as you point out) but don’t mistake a pending case with a verdict. Just about anyone in the US can sue for anything. McDonalds was sued for millions b/c someone spilled coffee in their laps! In any event, I think you are missing my main point. Bad or good, positive or negative, let’s keep it brief and concise and try to write a good page. This page is littered with poor writing and duplicate information. At least your other pages that you seem to control tell a good story (although I would argue there is too much information there as well)..."--Obgydd 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I also said earlier, I would look forward to others chimming in; not just Peter. Not sure what his bias is, but it is there and it is making for a less interesting and readable page.--Obgydd 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm a new member to Wikipedia and started to create an article called Debt Free Direct. Stupidly I saved it without putting content in it, so it has been deleted. The instructions I just read recommends I don't re-create it as could be protected against recreation. What would you recommend I do? I have content I have written for the page, perhaps I can submit the content to you to read first if you like? Or if I re-create it with content, will that be ok? Thanks! Heath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathamanda (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, yes, go ahead and recreate the article. It's not like it was deleted as spam or an attack page, so posting what is essentially all new content is not really that big of a deal.

But before you do, please make sure you have read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability, or you risk having it deleted again for different reasons.

Please let me know if you need any help whatsoever. And if you would like me to look over it before you post, I would be happy to do so, but that's completely up to you. Just let me know. -- Satori Son 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the barnstar. Yes, I guess all the vandals want a piece of me. At least I haven't lost my cool (yet) :) The Chronic 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely know the feeling. Keep up the good fight! -- Satori Son 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Emailed you with a private heads up. WP:DENY and all. -- Satori Son 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Satori. Yes, i really do that but it is more about the mess she does at the articles. I've just filed a report at the ANI to see what can be done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. You have my heartfelt empathy - the trolls (both anon and registered) have really been getting to me lately. -- Satori Son 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You too. I see that the trolls behind you come from another part of the world. They share their knowledge and exchange their tactics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. The irony is that I only intended to dabble in vandalism patrol for a short while to help learn the admin ropes, but the tide of it seems so never-ending I haven't weaned myself off yet. One of these days I'll get back to actually writing articles again! -- Satori Son 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand some of the reasoning here: while I may not agree with your removal of the sub-sections, I understand that's just merely a stylistic difference from my method. However, why would you remove old warnings? They serve to show a long-term pattern of abuse by the IP. --LeyteWolfer 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite a common practice to remove stale warnings from anon talk pages: I and other admins have done so many, many times. Administrators base their block length for vandalism on previous block lengths (found in the block log), not the current talk page messages.

As far as your style of sub-headings, I have never seen it before and found it somewhat distracting. Generally, a cleaner talk page is better. But if you would like to try and gain a consensus for such a new style, I suggest posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to solicit opinions. Thanks, Satori Son 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, deleting prior warnings from that perspective makes sense. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And please keep up the good work - we need all the help with vandalism we can get! -- Satori Son 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper place for this request, but can you semi-protect my user and talk page, as it is receiving the same type of vandalism from different IP addresses. Ctjf83 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your user page for 48 hours due to IP vandalism. Hopefully they will get bored and not come back, but please let me know. (Also, you can get this kind of help at WP:RPP if I'm not online.) — Satori Son 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate your assistance Ctjf83 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from reverting my talk page without a reason Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.85.96 (talk • contribs) 07:07, November 10, 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. If you want to "own" a talk page, please create an account. Because more than one user can edit under one IP address, it is not "yours". Thanks. — Satori Son 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you reverted the talk page for no reason. I was well within my rights to remove the warning based on the user talk policy. I invite you to revert your edit back to the version that was edited by mself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.85.96 (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

IP's are not userpages', therfore it it is considered vandalism to remove warnings--Hu12 08:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry again, but Hu12 is correct. The aspect of the user page guideline you continue to quote does not apply to IP talk pages, which, because of their transitory nature, cannot be owned by any one user.

Please, I strongly encourage you to create a user account (you don't have to tell me or anyone else what it is) and you will never have this problem again. Best, Satori Son 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It woulld have been easier if Satori Son had told me that to clear up any confusion instead of just reverting my page without any explanation when i thought i was well within my rights. This should'nt happen and i think there should be a warning or somthing for people who revert eddits repeatadly with no explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.85.96 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought my first explanation above was fairly clear; sorry if not. And I just noticed that you did indeed receive a prior warning here from another editor, so this wasn't exactly a new issue for you.

Anyway, glad you understand now, and if you need any help in the future, please don't hesitate to ask me, Hu12, or another site administrator. -- Satori Son 08:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

dont u dare edit my talk page. i work hard on creating appropriate pages. got a problem? see a therapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk • contribs) 07:20, November 10, 2007 (UTC)

You have already been told not to create articles on that talk page. If you continue your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Satori Son 07:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

dont sheeple Wikipedians get it? i will NEVER create an account. NEVER ever. N-E-V-E-R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the prod from his article. It had already been prodded and removed once, and with a quick search I found the man had an interview in the New York Times. He also appears to have a lot of possible reviews, although since he is a journalist his name shows up as the author in a lot of the sources. So maybe put it up for full AFD instead of deletion. Even with that interview I'm still on the fence myself, but I think it warrants more than a prod. - Optigan13 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I didn't see that it had been prodded before. I'll take a closer look at the sources when I get a chance. Thanks, Satori Son 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tris McCall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tris McCall. Thank you. Optigan13 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

why did you block me for vandalism?? i cant edit pages and i dont know why as i have never tried to befor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.205.200.19 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not blocked under you current IP, so not exactly sure what the situation is.

More than likely, you're editing under a dynamic IP, so sometimes you'll get a blocked IP that someone else vandalized with, and most the time you'll get a "clean" IP. The best course of action is to create a user account and log in. That way you will never have to deal with this issue again. Thanks, Satori Son 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So why do you keep deleting additions to the Lucky Strike page? What makes you think it's vandalism? If you don't like the tone, fix it, but I don't see how Opie and Anthony references to Lucky Strikes are any less relevant than many of the others on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.225.139 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting some vandalism by 74.33.96.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have been trying to respond, but you're keeping my talk page busy calling me childish names. If you have a real concern, please come back when you cool off. -- Satori Son 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Satori Son. The user has requested an unblock. In looking over the edits, I'm thinking there was just a mistake made. When you removed the old signpost, you also removed his message to you. You then blocked him for the messages that followed without warning. It looks like a mere misunderstanding, so I wanted to get your view of it. Lara❤Love 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand how the original misunderstanding happened, but their resulting behavior was extremely disruptive and uncivil, so a 24-hour seemed appropriate. Based on their follow-up to my offer to discuss later, an unblock does not seem wise, but I will gladly defer to the judgment of those uninvolved. Thanks, Satori Son 05:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to step on your toes, in reviewing his few edits, including the one he was asking about, considering it was his first edit and was constructive, and the whole situation was just an unfortunate situation, I believe a block may be counter-productive for an editor who has literally just started out editing. Also, because he received no warning, I'm feeling an unblock to be justified. Lara❤Love 05:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked. Thank you for your understanding and calm voice. — Satori Son 06:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good man. Thanks and you're welcome. Lara❤Love 06:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] Hey! At least you have them calling you pompous... I get them calling me jerkoff and the like... :) Jmlk17 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no doubt. I went ahead and unblocked because I'm trying hard to put myself in newbie shoes. And sometimes those shoes are really tight and make you angry, I guess. We'll see how it goes... — Satori Son 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satori Son,

I have read the guidelines for posting external references. I do not understand why my edits are being reverted. Please explain. The links I am creating are to industry leading tools and interviews. Any professional or sophisticated retail investor interested in ETFs, IndexFunds or Commodities Investing would find these articles and tools of much value. As a matter of fact, the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo Finance and Barron's have all linked to and recommended the same pages I am linking to.

In the case of the Jim Roger interview, I am simply adding a link that was already there.

Thanks, Fernando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friveraz (talk • contribs) 15:27, November 14, 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of external links. While we do allow a small number of EL's per article, our standards for which to include, and how they may be added, are actually quite high. Typically, only notable and reliable sites with a long history are allowed, and even then only if the link is really required to make the article better.

If you disagree with me, and the other administrators who have previously removed these links, you are encouraged to make a suggestion on the talk page of the relevant article. If the consensus of editors there is that the link is valuable and unique enough to be included, then someone will add it.

You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, just in case. -- Satori Son 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Satori Son

I certainly understand your point about limiting the number of external links. I think I can make a valid case for a link to the ETF Data Screener, which I linked to from the ETFs page, because it is the best ETF data tool available for free anywhere on the Internet. I have made that point to the editor who originally deleted my link. I think, however, that highly regarded, specialized niche sources of data and information will be excluded in favor of more "mainstream", yet less valuable sources.

Best, Fernando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friveraz (talk • contribs) 15:56, November 14, 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but that is not inline with the current community thinking on external links. Again, though, you should make your suggestions on the individual article talk pages. Thanks, Satori Son 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. I'll keep an eye to see if I need to say anything there. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing a little levity to my talk page. It makes it easier to deal with the abuse when you have someone to laugh with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to admit, every time the abuse starts to get me down, I just pop on over to your talk page and see what you're dealing with! Man! And you never lose your cool - nice job. — Satori Son 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited that article exactly twice in 17 hours. But I can see others whom had made reverts three times in 24 hours. And you warn me to stop being disruptive, yet don't say a word to any of them. To put it simply, bugger off. I know the rules quite well. Your attitude is quite insulting, so please stop. Alyeska 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said.

No, I won't stop. — Satori Son 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well with that kind of response, I have to follow your footsteps. No, I won't stop. Alyeska 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your choice. -- Satori Son 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I normally edit under this username. Why do you ask? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. — Satori Son 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But I already have. You just need to look closelier. ;) Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you why you restricted yourself just to revert edit instead of speeding or proding it? Thanks. sharara 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. That was just a vandalism rollback from a diff link at recent changes. — Satori Son 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Thanks for the heads up! — Satori Son 15:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am dumb. I am unable to figure out whether it is attack page, advertisement, article or what? Thanks. sharara 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tough one. Let me dig into it a little. Thanks for the sharp eye! — Satori Son 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for another admin who recently touched the article to get their opinion on it. — Satori Son 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologize for the other admin's comment about you (I wasn't going to say anything, but based on your ANI report I know you must have seen it). He is an extremely talented and long-time contributor, but he certainly can be a little gruff at times. Please don't take it personally. You will quickly learn that you need a thick skin to survive around here, regardless of what any policy might say about civility and whatnot.

As far as the article goes, while it most likely is not a G10 speedy candidate, I have the same COI concerns you do. I see you have already been referred to the WP:COIN noticeboard, which was going to be my next suggestion to you. Good luck, and please don't hesitate to ask for help or advice whenever you need it. Everyone was new once, myself not very long ago, and no question about how we do things is dumb. — Satori Son 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up note: user left Wikipedia within a week. — Satori Son 13:28, November 27, 2007

I assume you left the same warning you left me to user mhking. He is the one that started the 'edit war' and is deleting factual information regarding the trademark ownership and a trademark dispute that involved the other company listed on the page. I have read Wikipedia's guidelines and the information that I posted is completely factual, was added in good faith and directly relates to the title. In my opinion mhking's continuous deletion of this material is malicious and unwarranted. I am going to repost the information after the 24 hour waiting period. If mhking deletes it again I am going to escalate the matter within Wikipedia.

Ralph Press Tdenusa (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. — Satori Son 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

again - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The article was already speedy deleted, and I have indefinitely blocked the user who keeps recreating. Clearly a vandal-only account. — Satori Son 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have commented at the WikiProject about your concerns. Though body modification is a statement of fashion, so modification for cosmetic appearance would seem to be appropriate articles for WikiProject Fashion. I also note that the TV show Extreme Makeover about cosmetic surgery was already tagged as WP Fashion prior to my tagged of other cosmetic surgery articles. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with She Who Photographs (talk · contribs). I appreciate it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, she will come around and become a solid editor, but I've watchlisted Woodburn Company Stores‎ just in case. Give me a shout if you need anything else. — Satori Son 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going to work out fine. Another editor stepped in and greatly expanded the article. We'll see what happens after the POV editor comes off her block though. I've got the article in my watchlist, too. I'll probably leave it there for a couple of weeks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Satori, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

now he uses 172.132.65.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Spike (MGM)‎, Barney Bear, Droopy Dog, Screwball Squirrel, John Goodman, DreamWorks Animation and Nickelodeon Movies, please help these. 123.193.12.44

I dropped a {{uw-error3}} on their talk page, but unfortunately I'm logging off and don't have time to follow-up at the moment. If it continues, please report to WP:AIV. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He is continuing NOW, i reported at WP:AIV123.193.12.44 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satori, I was going to try to save this. The info box seemed to say he was a goalkeep for Sporting Cristal. Is that a pro football/soccer team? Is he notable? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that: with no context, there was no way to tell if it was legit. But if you prefer, I certainly would have no objections whatsoever if you used your shiny new buttons to restore it! :) — Satori Son 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just so apologetically apologetic for what I did. Will you find the heart to forgive this sinful creature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.47.41 (talk • contribs) 06:21, December 2, 2007 (UTC)

Only if you please stop. — Satori Son 06:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed I shall stop as soon as possible. Please refrain from providing any unnecessary punishment as I will refrain from adding nonsense to that wikipedia page. Once again, will you find the heart to forgive this sinful creature? I do indeed apologize with all my heart. All I desire is to take back all the wrongdoings I have committed. You must understand the guilt that I feel every second that I live on. I cannot bear it unless you do forgive this sinful soul. Will you accept? 61.72.47.41 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar because everytime I reverted a vandal today, you had either reverted them previously or beat me to the revert. Everywhere I went, there you were. Nice work! -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looks like we're both on a roll tonight! — Satori Son 07:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact vandalized peoples user pages and asked them if they like cakes/nachos etc. I do realize that this was unconstructive and unnecessary. Do you accept my apology as I may try to help wikipedia from now on? 159.28.161.197 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. — Satori Son 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Satori Son, thank you so much for your strong support and your compelling comments during my RfA: "exceedingly civil, mature editor with a cool head and calm demeanor." You don't know just how much work it is for me maintain that demeanor some times!

I will work that much harder at pulling this off now that I have those new tools. Regards, A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see unanimous support for your RfA! It was well-deserved. Congratulation and see you around! — Satori Son 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What did I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdZeNaProductions (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This. Please stop. — Satori Son 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to add some citations and references to John K. Snyder III. It's not much and I leave it to you whether to retain the PROD or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Before I Prodded it, I did a Google search but couldn't find any reliable, third-party sources that had covered him. The ComicVine site has some good info, but doesn't really establish sufficient notability. And the DC Database entry is just a stub on another wiki.

Do you think there are any better references out there? Maybe I missed them, but we should really add some to the article before taking the Prod tag off. Thanks again. — Satori Son 18:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we both found about the same thing, Google-wise. There's just not much out there. BTW, I just added it to the proposed PROD list on Wikiproject comic books. They will know where to find something notable on Snyder, if anyone can. regards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the effort and the update! — Satori Son 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entry on the talkpage because it was about an article that no longer existed and the talk page is for an IP address registered to Chapman University. Leaving a message for 4,000 students is really kind of pointless 72.130.39.180 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but messages on IP talk pages should not be removed, and instead are kept for some time as a record of the template messages that have been issued. Usually for about a year or so. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Thanks for uploading Image:LgoGoody.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. — Satori Son 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? If you wish to discuss edits, please be more specific, otherwise I consider your message harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.57.107 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy. You've been warned about your disruptive editing on cigarette articles many times, and, in fact, have been blocked for doing so three times. Please stop. — Satori Son 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Archtransit, it appears that you still feel your block of Jehochman was justified. I am dissapointed, to say the least. My suggestion is that you let this issue go as gracefully as others have."

Ok, I'll let it go. Should we make policy more clear, perhaps in a month to let things cool down? I am willing to clarify the blocking policy at WP:BLOCK. Archtransit (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The blocking policy is not the issue. As should now be abundantly clear to you, it is possible to make a grossly inappropriate block that does not technically violate the literal language of WP:BLOCK. That being said, I think you'll find that most everyone here is very forgiving, but not if you are still trying to justify your actions. — Satori Son 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I now know I shouldn't have made the block. I am in the midst of forming a study group to formulate policy and put current policy in one place. If that is the end result, then it's possible that WP is improved. Part of that improvement might be to make the recent events a violation of WP:BLOCK. Archtransit (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you say you "shouldn't have made the block", but with your recent comments it seems like you are saying that only because you believe there is a perceived double standard for blocking admins. I can assure you that is not the case. No productive editor should be blocked unless there is a clear likelihood of further damage to the project. If you have any questions whatsoever regarding a questionable block, you should pop over to WP:ANI and request a sanity check.

Everyone makes rash decisions sometimes - it is what we learn from them that's important. I hope you are learning the right lesson, and not what you say here and here. — Satori Son 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Lloyd Kaufman's article. I could hardly believe how bad it was.--76.84.186.222 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A great deal of unencyclopedic info was recently added, so I just reverted to a more stable version from a few weeks ago. Thanks for your clean-up efforts as well! — Satori Son 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:She Creature DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed. — Satori Son 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to repost the article you removed earlier today, but could you please give me the code/content for it so I can post it on another website. I worked hard on the code, and would like to have it. The article was on the Pi hi samurai robotics team. You can leave the code on my talk page. (user:alexandertmills)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandertmills (talk • contribs) 01:51, January 24, 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Not much actual code or content, but I've posted a copy of the stub at User:Alexandertmills/Pi Hi Samurai. Let me know if you need anything else. — Satori Son 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy to be of service. Not sure if they were angry because of this or if they just screwed up an attempt to contact you. Either way, I left a friendly note. Have a good one! — Satori Son 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Last night and this afternoon I have added sufficient notable citations to this article to justify removing the deletion prod. At this point I believe I've established sufficient notability comparable with about half of the sports club related articles I've seen on Wikipedia, better than most of the stubs. I'm not certain if the rules permit me to remove the prod myself but I did so. Any further advice would be appreciated.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you did a great job. Since you solved the underlying problem, it was certainly appropriate for you to remove the PROD tag. — Satori Son 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else which is needed to stop the deletion process? I'm still a bit upset over it having been flagged for speedy deletion at a time when I'd put up the first few sentences. If wikipedia wants amateur editors they need to stop this sort of thing. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article looks great and should be safe now.

I understand your frustration, but if you had any idea of the number of inappropriate articles that get created each and every day, you would have a better understanding of why our new page patrollers are so active. And it's also important to realize that the process worked here exactly as it was intended to: 1) A new page patroller marked the page as a candidate for speedy deletion; 2) An administrator reviewed the speedy tag and declined it, tagging with a five-day PROD tag instead; 3) The article creator took that extra time to bring the article up to inclusion standards. Not that you would have neglected your article, but many of our new articles would linger as one-line, unreferenced stubs for months if it wasn't for our new page patrollers.

In the future, if you want to stay off their radar, you have two good options. You can tag your new article with an {{Inuse}} tag. That will tell other editors you are still working on it and they should check back later. But an even better option is to first create the article on a personal subpage, such as User:Trilobitealive/Buccaneer Yacht Club. There, you can privately work on the article for as long as you want, then when it's ready use the move function to get it into article space.

Anyway, welcome to the project! I'm sorry your first article got a little bogged down in red tape, but it turned out great — nice work. If you ever have any other questions or need help with anything at all, please don't hesitate to ask me. It's a big part of my role as an administrator here to make things easier for contributors like you. — Satori Son 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the inuse template. I'll try not to ever start another wikipedia article during my coffee break.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Satori, I will definetly study how Wikipedia truly works and not be an asshole and put things up without sources and I will also keep in mind not to insult the editors....In that note, I will say Wikipedia guidelines aside, some editors in this wiki take this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY, wikipedia guidenes aside mind you. I like wikipedia and plan to contribute constructively and would like to see this website grow more and more, being a site of good content and true knowledge, and I would like to help by doing more writing. You editors can stick together and do this website right or some of you editors can just feed your ego and do more deletes then add to articles, in the end who fucking cares?! The internet is still a massive network of computers, and real life is still a massive network of people. I like people more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilex (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? I like people more, too, that's why I am here. Wikipedia is a community of people, not computers. Some of us take this hobby more seriously than others, but, like any community, when you behave outside of its accepted norms the members will ask you to act differently or to not come back.

But since you say you intend to abide by our guidelines and contribute constructively, let me give you a hearty "Welcome"! If you ever have any questions or need any help, please give me a shout and I will do whatever I can. — Satori Son 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussions are preserved as an archive. Please do not modify them. Further comments or new discussion should be started on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.