User talk:Satori Son: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:05, 14 November 2007

Please click here to leave me a new message. I will reply here on this page, so please temporarily watch this page.
If you are here to reply to a comment I left on your talk page, please reply over there — I will watch your page.

Online Dating

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Urufu ryu karate do - Deletion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you!

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kim Kardashian

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)[reply]

Web.com

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion of article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Barnstar

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)[reply]

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

Unhappy customer

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An application of BIO

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)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

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

207.160.119.252

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Help

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

warning

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

???

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)[reply]

?

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)[reply]

Tris McCall

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tris McCall

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)[reply]

why did you block me for vandalism??

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd call you a pompous ass, but that would be redundant, after reading all of your prior talk entries.

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :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 '''<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} create a user account]</span>''' and log in. That way you will never have to deal with this issue again. Thanks,&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User talk:Satori Son|<b>Satori Son</b>]]</span> 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
+I'd call you a pompous ass, but that would be redundant, after reading all of your prior talk entries.