User talk:Satori Son/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

01 – 02 – 03 – 04 – Archive 05 – 06 – 07 – 08

Contents

Nick Ingman

I removed the {{prod}} from Nick Ingman after I found some good references. Often a weak article about a musician can be salvaged by looking the person up on http://www.allmusic.com and, if the person has done film work, http://www.imdb.com/ --Eastmain 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Good job! -- Satori Son 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Web.com listing

You continue to revert back to content that is not acceptable Wiki content. It is biased, incorrect and irrelevant to the current page. The references do not reflect the postings and are focussed on an incorrect notion that the stock was the worst performer in 2006 (incorrect and not what the article states) and a random court case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

66.223.59.xxx IP addresses such as this one traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland): atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net. --A. B. (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeat message but I am new to Wiki. The content that was removed from Web.com is not accurate or relevant. That is the reason it was removed. I think this is the appropriate thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

66.223.59.xxx IP addresses such as this one traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland): atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net. --A. B. (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the information is inaccurate, then I have some suggestions:
  1. Sign up for a user ID and use it to edit.
  2. Read the Conflict of Interest guidelines and disclose if you have any relationship with the company.
  3. Take your concerns to the talk page of the article and discuss it.
Mass blanking of information in the article without comment is considered vandalism, and continuing to do so will get your IP blocked from editing. Instead, please work with the editors of that article - if you are indeed right, the facts will come out. -- Satori Son 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback and advice. I posted on the talk / discussion page per your suggestion and will get a login from Wiki. Much appreciated and sorry for the confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

sorry

Hi. This is headsrfun. i'd just like 2 apologise 4 taking up ur time with u having to fix my edits. i only just realised i had messages today on the 3rd of feb 2007. i was just having fun and i didn't think about anyone else while i was doing it. i promise that i won't do it again. once again, my apologies. Headsrfun.

Hickory Flat GA

Please take a look at let me know if the new phrasing is okay. FYI - The school is non-profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rstaten1 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

How can a link to our own website be considered spam in a page about us

Why is it spam to link to the current project of the Royal Naval Museum? Seems a bit draconian to remove the link to the Sea Your History project. Seayourhistory 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't believe there should be an external link for every exhibit at a museum. The Smithsonian Institution page would be a nightmare! Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and please read WP:Conflict of interest. And finally, the restrictions of WP:EL do not just apply to "commercial" websites as Eastmain mistakenly asserts. -- Satori Son 15:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

non supported?

I accept your position - but describe "non supported".

Are you suggesting the washington post, the denver post, and other news agencies wouldn't support their article?

Describe in your opinion, what it would take for something to be "supported", the comments in the article show provide clear summaries to the articles cited. No different then the only item before it, being that they suffered storm damage to their building.

I would suggest perhaps an edit based on your comments.

Based on that information - I want you to show me support for every other item in the Autonation Article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I am not saying those sources themselves are not reliable, simply that the articles cited do not exactly support all of the negative info as phrased by your edits. The inclusion and verifiability standards are quite high for negative information. Liability issues and all that. If you want to re-add, it must be presented in a very neutral and unbiased way. No personal opinions (yours or any others). Thanks,-- Satori Son 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a Bias?

One last piece of information - with regards to "Negative Info" - it's still valid info, the Autonation Wiki entry should not describe their numbers and shareholders - it should display vital sources of credible information - both good and bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

No, I do not have a bias. -- Satori Son 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the full story

[1] If you want the full story on what I've been dealing with between that ip and a few others, its all there. A long block of him wouldn't be premature.--Crossmr 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only does Crossmr not tell the "full Story", from reading his text, you would think it is a single person who has issues with him, yet he says they are in many places. Strange. 131.22.200.64 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
To 24.116.200.178 (talk · contribs), your edits here, here, here, here, here, and here are harassment, pure and simple. Please stop.
To Crossmr, as I don't yet have the mop, there's not much more I can do to help resolve this situation. Hopefully this will get the admin attention it needs. -- Satori Son 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Autonation article without information from all parties is an AD

Pure and simple. You seem to be one of the few maintainers so I'm guessing you maintain it for your employer. Prove otherwise. Pgurlygirl 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I do not work for AutoNation. -- Satori Son 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If an article continually has negative (albeit valid/citable) information removed - it's maintainers are subject. Based on the companies size/scope, it would not be unheard of for Wikpedia entry policing to be part of a company blog seeding campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 14:57, February 26, 2007

If you had been active on Wikipedia for more than 36 hours, you would probably grasp the irony of accusing me of being a corporate spammer. I've been called many things on Wikipedia by SPA's and trolls, but never that! :-D    Satori Son 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated a controversial item???

(→Controversies - update EEOC lawsuit info to verifiable info) - The original argument made in reference to my additions to Autonation was that the information was not verifiable. On that subject, it's now verified?

Unless this article gets some content - and fast - it's nothing more then an advertisement. If you work for the company, at least earn your keep. Pgurlygirl 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of my 6,300+ edits on Wikipedia over the last nine months, a whopping 10 of them were to the AutoNation article. If my job was to edit that article for them, I would hope I'd have been fired by now. -- Satori Son 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated

Thanks so much for the note! Glad to hear you took an extended Wikibreak. RfA is kind of a PIA, but is worth going through to help out the project. If you need anything let me know--Hu12 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LAN Gaming Center Dispute

I wish to dispute the validity of your claims with a higher level moderator.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the current conversation has moved from iGames to the validity of the articles only current external link DMOZ which is of very poor quality. I have tried twice now to replace the link with a high quality categorized list of lan gaming centers and had it removed for what seems to be no reason at all other then yourself being bent on a warpath.

Please explain your reasoning as to why DMOZ should be linked in the article and why LanAtomic.com should not be linked in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarhead (talk • contribs) 01:24, February 28, 2007

Let's keep this discussion where it started at Talk:LAN gaming center. Thanks, Satori Son 01:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Mwarhead

You should really think twice next time before going off and requesting checkuser on people. The rest of us gamers are going to see to it that Moondyne and A. B. have their admin status revoked for endless harassment of other editors. BigTimeGamer 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did think carefully about it before submitting the request. And please don't make threats against other editors. Thanks, Satori Son 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you are not User:Mwarhead, you will have my sincere apology. But that is exactly why we have Checkuser, so instead of throwing around accusations and harboring doubts, we can just clear things up right away. If someone falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet, I would be the first one to want a quick Checkuser request to clear my name. But, again, if I am wrong, I am sorry. -- Satori Son 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seas

Hi, I added the redlink to the Seas disambiguation page per WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks as I believe that an article on the company could and should be written. I may write the article myself if I find good sources, but right now I don't have those so I just put the redlink in as a bait. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Satori Son. Just popping over to say a heartfelt thanks for your support at my RfA. Great level of support, humbling result. And a special thanks for your very kind words. :) Bubba hotep 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Satori Son, thank you for your note. I will keep that in mind when further removing spam links from wikipedia pages. I don't like either (like you do :) when people place non-relevant commercial links. user:Jtata

Link to About.com Site Removed

Hello,

Please let me know why the link to the RSI page at about.com was removed, when it's only topic was the RSI, and it included a description, the calculation, and examples of the use of the RSI in trading.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.238.48.13 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

First of all, are you the same person that has edited under 195.238.48.12 (talk · contribs)? I left a fairly detailed message on that user talk page that referenced the applicable policies, and I now see that two other editors placed similar notices there as well. If you did not see those messages, please read the following:
If, after doing so, you have further questions, please come back here and I will be happy to help.
First, however, if would like to correspond with other editors it would be very helpful if you would create a username account. That way, your messages aren't left on several different IP talk pages. Thanks, Satori Son 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Einstein's Origami" website

Dear Mr. Satori Son

At this point in time my " Einstein's Origami " website ( http://www.geocities.com/snowflakegame/index.html ) does not make any money. Because my website is so different than all the other paper folding websites on the internet, it is a very useful website to promote paper folding. - Rick Nordal - Einstein's Origami

Apology/Question

Hello there, and sorry about the edit; I mistakingly thought all edits done on my computer would were only visible on this IP address. I now know I was wrong. Anyway, I have a small question, unimportant, but my curiosity is too much to handle. I was just wondering what sort of benefits, if any, a user, administrator, etc. receives for working tirelessly patrolling Wikipedia for errors and vandalism. I was not sure if there were any monetary benefits, although since the site is opensource, I have my doubts. Thank you for your time, and a reply would be quite appreciated. Saywhaaa 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem on your first edit. Many of us started out with an "experimental" edit to see how things work. No harm done.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia and several other sites, has only 3 or 4 paid employees. Almost all work here is performed by the approximately 3.8 million volunteer editors. Of that number, only about 1,150 are administrators, who are also volunteers but have been given access to additional tools. So, the answer to your question is "no". Even though it is somewhat difficult to become one of the very small number of admins (I am not one, either), there is no compensation whatsoever associated with the status. Have a good one, Satori Son 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satori

Thanks for the mail Satori. It was really helpful. I'll let the owner of Zorpia check the mail. I hope it helps cause i tried my best to help them. The only thing that i can do now is wish them good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelMillane (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Happy I could help. Like I said, there are some confusing policies involved, so I can certainly understand why you and others were getting frustrated. All the best, Satori Son 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Test edits

my apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.190.71 (talk • contribs) 02:49, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Skapsis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Skapsis, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

microfinance edit removal

Dear Sir,

With regard to your removal of my edit to the microfinance article:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Microfinance. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Satori Son 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)"

I suggest that my link to the article in no way contravened stated link policy, not used for promotion or advertisiing and directly contributed to the discussion at hand. I feel it was a useful link on the subject and do not see how I, short of paraphrasing the whole article linked, could have added to the article in a more meaningful way. The link served to further illuminate the important point I made in the "criticism" section. I would be grateful if you could reinstate my edit.

many thanks Marat Zapparov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.45.193.1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. -- Satori Son 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

hello

Believe or not Ceca is born in Prokuplje, not in Žitoradja. Would you like me to show you a video of her saying it her self? I do wright facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milance (talk • contribs) 11:29, March 28, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you do write some facts, and have even made a few good contributions to the article. But repeatedly adding personal opinions, then vandalizing the article when they are removed, is completely unacceptable. Disruptive editing like this will eventually lead to you getting blocked. Please re-read WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN.
Finally, I would strongly encourage you to use the talk page for the article so that you might engage the other editors who have also been reverting you. To date, you have made 150 edits to the article, many of which have been reverted, but not one single edit to the discussion page.[2] You are obviously a very devoted fan, but you absolutely must work with other editors and follow Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Satori Son 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, believe it or not, i am not a Ceca fan at all, i have my reasons why i do this. And once again, all that i edited was true. On the other hand the pictures, you must agree that she is beautiful ;-), reagardless of that i have no interest to argue with other people on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milance (talk • contribs) 14:36, March 28, 2007 (UTC)
Whether you are a fan, friend, family member, employee, whatever, your edits to the article have consistently violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Your most recent edits were also a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
But I am not here to play article cop. I don't want to see you get blocked, and I am glad you have taken the time to engage in a civil discussion about this. Thank you. Hopefully, we can work together to ensure that the article is complete and accurate, but also presented in a neutral and unbiased manner. Have a great day. -- Satori Son 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article on Second-person narrative

Hallo, I see you have removed the external link referring to a Ph.D thesis on Second-person narration. Why do you consider this link spam? I have put the link there, I am not the author of the Ph.D thesis, I just thought it to be relevant since it is an article on this very specific topic!Jeppebarnwell 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There is always the possibility I made a mistake, but I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Going back through the edit history, I do see I spam link I removed from Second-person narrative, but it appeared to be just a personal blog site based at westnet.com.au. It did not refer to any Ph.D. dissertation. Based on your note here, I went back and looked at the site and its subpages again, and it is clearly just a personal blog.
As you may know, personal blogs are prohibited under the WP:External links guideline unless they are authored by the subject of the article. If you think there is something I am missing here, please let me know. Thanks, Satori Son 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, it is indeed a PhD thesis!!!, I have actually read it myself. It is written by a Dennis Schofield, defended at DEAKIN UNIVERSITY, Geelong, Australia, December 1998. I agree that the front page of the thesis in this Internet version may appear a bit "blog-like" at first sight, yet if you click on the link, you will go to a hyperlinked table of contents, and here you can read the thesis: http://members.westnet.com.au/emmas/2p/thesis/0a.htm Jeppebarnwell 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the link should point directly to that sub-page, not the home page. Second, the website doesn't just appear "blog-like", it definitely is a personal website, which is prohibited (unless it was for the Dennis Schofield (academic) article). If the thesis was published on an official Deakin University website, that might be a different story. Do you know anywhere else it has been published that might qualify as a reliable source? I have added it back for now, but we need to ensure that it meets all of the requirements of WP:EL or WP:V, depending on whether it's an external link or reference, respectively. Thanks, Satori Son 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not been able to find any other source (but we could surely need a more prinatble version), yet I am sure we can rely on the source since it is a personal website of the author, dedicated exclusively to the publication of this very thesis!!! I cannot see that any reference in the world could point more directly to its primary source. If I find a better reference some time, to a page with a a nicer layout for example, I shall change the link.

But Wikipedia is not supposed to base articles on primary sources or the like; we are supposed to base them on quality secondary sources. Specifically, "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This personal website clearly does not meet that threshold. Like I said, I will leave it for now as a gesture of good will, but at some point I or another editor will remove it again if no one finds an acceptable source for it.
I hope you don't think I'm being needlessly obstinate, but the trend here is to now work on improving the quality of our articles and sources, as opposed to the first three or four years when quantity was the big push. I really hope you can find a good cite for this at some point. Thank you for your civility, and good luck. -- Satori Son 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Lean manufacturing, etc

I noticed that you removed as spam [3], a link that I sought clarification about [4]. Not that I disagree, but I'd like to understand your perspective. --Ronz 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all - I'll head over to Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to portals, knowledge centers, etc and comment there. -- Satori Son 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies re: edits to Gumball 3000

My apologies - re: clarification of Wikipedia policy. I was mistakenly under the impression that links to related sites fell under appropriate edits, since Gumball the organization approves of such external supporting communites. I presume such additions are best suggested within a talk page before making changes? All the best, Alex Roy PS I have no direct affiliation with any of the Gumball community sites (other than my own diary/team site) other than as a writer/contributor.

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.