User talk:Satori Son/Archive 4



Saga (Singer)
I don’t want to persuade your vote in any way, but I would like for you to take a second look at the article Saga (singer), an article you recently voted to delete. I, among other users have vastly improved the article, as well as the sourcing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikischmedia (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You are right; at least some reliable sources did exist and I failed to find them. I have updated my comment to "Keep". Nice job! -- Satori Son 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Birds of NA
I've added a note on the Spam December page. (and the article) DGG 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the update. I really did think it read like an advertisement at first, but I certainly understand that you did not intend it that way (and the notability was always apparent).  Anyway, you've done a great job with the article and I appreciate you keeping me in the loop. -- Satori Son 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated
Thanks for the Rescue Barnstar! When an article is nominated for AfD within 1 minute of its creation, there is almost always room for improvement of it. --Oakshade 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That does seem a little hasty, but great work on your part saving it nonetheless. -- Satori Son 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

beefjerky.com
FYI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Beefjerky dot com spammer. --A. B. (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I put in my two cents over there. Thanks so much for taking the lead on this one.  I've been fighting to keep that article clean for months, but you put in the extra time and effort that was needed to get to the root of the problem. And double thanks for the Barnstar gift below. Between vandals, trolls, and spammers, my Wikistress&#174; was starting to get up there, but it's editors like you who keep morale high and everything humming along. Seriously, you're a great asset to the community. Thanks again! -- Satori Son 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory
In the bad old days, the Spamstar actually had a can of spam on it, but that was a trademark violation ... --A. B. (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Articles for deletion/GeMagic
Thank you for bringing this Gemagic to my attention. Deleted and salted now. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I've deleted it as well. Not salting yet, but I've watchlisted this one and will promptly salt upon an eventual further attempt to recreate this. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

 * Thought I'd spam your talk page with a compliment. Well deserved ;) --Hu12 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I actually visited your page last month to slap a Spamstar on there, but I saw A.B. barely beat me to it.  Your hard work around here is greatly appreciated, as well.  Thanks again,  Satori Son 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

is this votestacking?
-Canvassing, WP:SPAM -Hu12 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure; this one is kind of a gray area. Since the solicitations for comments were made on article talk pages, as opposed to user talk pages, it might be questionable whether WP:CANVASS applies.  Either way, I have left a comment at Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination) suggesting that it would probably be best to refrain from doing so. Keeping up appearances and all that. -- Satori Son 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[ Remainder of conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination). ]

GamerBio
Why was this one deleted when there are others just like it? If you consider it advertising or anything, feel free to remove any links or anything. How is this any different than the profiles for friendster or myspace? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCitizen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your query. The GamerBio article has not yet actually been deleted, it has just been tagged as eligible for speedy deletion.  I did not tag it, but I noticed it and simply wanted to let you know about it.
 * It appears the article is so tagged because the editor feels the subject of the article does not meet the notability criteria of Notability (web). You have two options at this point: First, you can place a  tag on the article and work quickly to improve it.  Second, you can politely ask the editor who tagged it, Calton, to remove the tag while you work on it (but it could still be tagged by another editor if the article is not improved).
 * I hope this helps. I know that the various Wikipedia guidelines and inclusion policies can be confusing, so if you have any other questions whatsoever, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Satori Son 15:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lynch
Hi, Good to see link spam being removed! Pleclech 23:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've been removing your share as well. Have a good one! -- Satori Son 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Block log glitch
Hi. When I viewed the two different logs you mentioned, the first did not show the block, while the second did. Strange indeed. +Fenevad 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one of those MediaWiki mysteries, I guess. At least you can see the one - I certainly understand why you were perplexed, though. Have a good one! Satori Son 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for catching my mistake
Oh, it's no reflection on you. These things are hard to spot, particularly when they're buried under subsequent revisions. I only saw it because I was cleaning up after a particular user. Keep up the good work! NewEnglandYankee 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Satori Son, and his right to exist.
Hi Satori Son. I'm not offended by your moderation. That was, of course, expected. What I AM distressed over however, is the fact that I was modded by someone named "Satori Son". Can you please apologize for that name? Thank you very much mister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.83.151 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I find it difficult to believe that someone who says Mandy Moore is "an admitted anal sex maniac" would be offended by much of anything. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. -- Satori Son 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Spamming?
Please clarify where there is persistent spamming on Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) I only see one edit war on January 26, 2007.

If your answer is that Arlingtoncards.com is spam, please prove your point.

Thank you.--T54 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)T54
 * Please see edits here, here, and here. Remember, spam or not, Wikipedia is not a link repository. That would be DMOZ. Thanks, Satori Son 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The third reference you referenced was a mistake on my part, so thank you.

However, I am the original contributor of this article and I placed those links so that readers could see more detailed information. Anyone I have ever spoken to is delighted that they found Arlingtoncards,com, whether they found it on Wikipedia, Google, word of mouth, or in the newspaper.

Plus you are changing your argument because you have been busted. First it was spam and now it is link repository that gives you the right to blank those links? Why don't we just eliminate hyperlinking all together (kidding of course). It seems that would make YOU happy.

I don't want you to remove the Illinois Glory Days, but why would you leave that link and not leave the Arlingtoncards.com links. All of the photos that are in the Illinois High School Glory Days site about Arlington High School are from the Arlingtoncards.com website. Arlingtoncards.com is the original source of information on Arlington High School ... and some of that information was cited on the Illinois High School Glory Days site. Why would a reasonable person want to waste their time discussing such a petty issue. Wikipedia is great. Why would you want to limit it like this. One simple little link to Arlingtoncards.com? Give me a break! Wikipedia is supposed to be about cooperating with other people, right? Wikipedia is a radical idea ... every single person is given free access to the sum of ALL human knowledge. That's right from the mouth of [Jimmy Wales]. Why don't you stop putting limits on access to people's knowledge.--T54 07:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)T54
 * As you have been told by at least three other experienced editors, the link to your website does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Please respect consensus. -- Satori Son 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Randy Quaid
User:Gailjones has again inserted what appears to be a copyvio cut-and-paste onto this page, which you reverted recently. She's been warned repeatedly by myself, you and one other editor, and has yet to make any indication of explaining her edits. I'm putting together a 3RR report right now; as I'm at my three reverts, would you mind going back and taking a look again? Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like beat me to it, but I will definitely keep an eye on it.  Thanks for taking this up at WP:AN3RR, and keep up the good work. -- Satori Son 06:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Thanks for just reverting instead of discussing, really. Perhaps you can find the proper tag instead of making the problem worse? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're acting in good faith, I would apprecaite you adding Disputedpolicy-section in its place in the proper area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though we have disagreed in the past, I have always treated you with respect and courtesy, so your sarcasm is somewhat disconcerting. The tag you have suggested seems applicable, but as I am not involved in that specific dispute, it would not be appropriate for me to add it. Have a good one. -- Satori Son 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed the tag and suggested a different one. It would be very appropriate for you to add it.  And I know we've had a good relationship here, which is why I was shocked at your blind revert. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you feel my revert was "blind". I did not leave the default "Undid..." text for the edit summary, and I thought my custom summary was polite and clear (else, how did you know I suggested using a different template?). And when you immediately questioned me here, I immediately replied. But if you were slighted, I am sorry: that was absolutely not my intention.
 * But I still do not feel it would be appropriate for me to add the Disputedpolicy-section tag. It is not entirely clear to me exactly what is in dispute and why, other than the fact that the entire article's status as a guideline is not in question. And if someone asks me why I added it, I should have a better answer than "Another editor I respect asked me to." Do you not feel it would be better for you to add that template yourself?  -- Satori Son 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * no, I don't. If you didn't want to get involved, you shouldn't have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say I "didn't want to get involved". I said simply that I do not feel comfortable doing what you have asked of me. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree once again. Thanks, Satori Son 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I should apologize to you for misdirecting my anger and stress toward you this morning. You probably didn't know of the crossfire you inadvertently walked into, and I had a bit of a moment of weakness with a couple people who didn't deserve it, you being one of them.  So I'm sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for saying that. I have no hard feelings whatsoever, and I hope that you don’t either.  Obviously, there are many intelligent, opinionated editors here who feel passionately about the project, and the heated debates can get quite stressful for anyone. I’m sorry for adding to your stress level with my perhaps too quick revert. All the best, Satori Son 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"futures" -external link
Hi,

I recently posted an external link on "futures" to www.stirfutures.co.uk, which although a commercial site, contains a wealth of information. You deleted the link - can you tell me why ?

Regards

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirfutures (talk • contribs) 10:47, January 31, 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your query. Since there are numerous issues and Wikipedia guidelines involved, I will reply at User talk:Stirfutures. -- Satori Son 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on WP:UW
''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.