User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8

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.

Trium

Can you please revert your deletion of this article as I would like to see it go to AFD. As I mentioned when I removed the prod, this is a brand from a very big company which should be a sufficient claim to avoid an outright speedy. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you may be offline, so I have raised a request at DRV. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Restored. Thanks for giving me all of 16 minutes.</sarcasm> — Satori Son 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick page move

Thank you for moving Factory_Pattern to Factory_pattern so quickly. It is nice to know that someone is paying attention to such things! E James (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thanks to you as well. It's nice to be appreciated once in a while for the mundane chores. Happy editing! — Satori Son 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some voice of reason?

Please listen to the wise comments and constructive criticism you have received here, and please change your behavior in this area of adminship duties. — Satori Son 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice is welcomed. I take more time to consider each block and unblock as well as other administrative actions. You and others are not aware of the several actions that I have decided not to take after careful consideration. I believe there was a reasonable basis for making these actions but I haven't done so because of possible opposition simply because I would be the one making the action. Who loses? Other possibly innocent wikipedia editors.

In contrast to your giving of advice, Fut Perf. (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) is starting a very confrontational step of starting a RFC. I think this will be counterproductive and confrontational. Archtransit (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have never asked you to completely refrain from blocking or unblocking. My advice was that if you intend to take an action that is even remotely controversial, you should first discuss it at length with other administrators to get some feedback. That has always been my only point, and the reason I was frustrated is that you still have not done so since our first discussion.

As far as the RfC goes, it's better than an ArbCom case against you. And while it may still seem counterproductive and confrontational to you, in my experience an RfC can also be a learning experience for a user. Remember, it is officially just a "Request for Comments": some comments will likely be harsh and critical, but others will be forgiving and encouraging. The tenor of that debate will also be determined somewhat by your attitude. My advice would be to stay away from the "I know best what is right, and I will do it even though it's unpopular", because that stance is dismissive and uncollaborative.

So, if it comes to an RfC, try to keep an open mind and roll with the punches. And most importantly, listen. You could easily come out a better contributor for it. — Satori Son 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

PROD

Sorry, but I think that you are hardly the right person to lecture me on interpreting criteria, given your abysmal mistake on Trium. It seems that you are either a rampant deletionist or just very careless. I will not stop removing prods if I think that the article should be discussed, I am doing it in good faith and no harm is done with a discussion, and it is much more preferable than good articles being deleted. You, on the other hand, need to stop mindlessly deleting important articles. We don't need admins on a deletion powertrip. You seem to keep advising people to listen, well you should listen to the comments that were made at DRV by other contributors who can actually interpret very clear guidelines, maybe you will learn something rather than thinking you know it all because you have the delete button. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are quite mistaken. Given your inappropriately hostile attitude, complete ignorance of our notability guidelines, and continuing personal attacks, further conversation seems pointless. Good day. — Satori Son 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from others' pages

Howdy. WP:User notes that "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." In addition, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." To remove a warning from someone else's page is therefore inappropriate. Please refrain in the future. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What page is the problem? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have included a link - [1] 138.23.246.0 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your continuing to harass E Wing after being told you had misinterpreted our site guidelines by two different administrators was wholly inappropriate. You continued to falsely accuse him of vandalism, even after two Wikipedia administrators informed you that was absolutely not the case.

If you continue to harass users and edit in such a disruptive manner, I will have no choice but to temporarily block any and all IP addresses you have used. You have been warned. — Satori Son 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet been told that I "misinterpreted site guidelines." I have asked, in fact, to be directed to those guidelines which I have misinterpreted. I am happy to understand wikipedia policy, if you will simply point me to the one which declares that IP addresses can not utilize their User Pages like any other user. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you were, but in any case you've been told now, and in no uncertain terms. — Satori Son 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. I can find no record to a link to any guideline or policy which declares IP editors are "not" users, and do not have the same rights users have. Without that info, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to keep from violating it. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. — Satori Son 12:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by IP

It's nice to know that they've been blocked. That was nice of you to try and comfort me, thanks. Don't worry, I'm used to vandals. But how did you come across me in the first place anyway?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I regularly run a check of IP contributions to talk pages. Always lots to follow-up on there, to say the least. Glad to hear you weren't too traumatized. ;) — Satori Son 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I never knew there was a page like that! And yeah, I wasn't a bit "traumatized". Though I am still learning (even after being hear for almost 10 months) I've seen enough about trolling to know how to ignore it. You may have heard of the quote "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger", well now I've gained more experience. Well thanks again for your kindness.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)