User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8

---

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Auto Mag.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Auto Mag.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Y Fixed for Automobile Magazine article. — Satori Son 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC

Vandalism has picked up again; I think you should semi-protect it. indopug (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one month. — Satori Son 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Your message to User 129.62.170.157

Re Your message to User 129.62.170.157

You should back off from User 129.62.170.157. May I remind you of Wikipedia's policy concerning blanking user talk pages?

"User talk pages Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."

24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

First of all, that addition to the language of Wikipedia:User page was made just three months ago. For several years, it has been widely accepted that "IP talk pages" are not "user pages" that fall under the guidelines of WP:USER. I do not believe there is an established consensus for that change, and I have raised the matter with editors who know a little more of the recent conversations.

Second, you are incorrect in stating WP:USER is a policy. It is only a guideline, and that distinction is quite significant.

Finally, even if this change to the advisory guideline stays, which I am not convinced it will, it is one that I will occasionally choose to ignore when I believe my edits are in the best interests of the project. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the note on my talk page. Rather than run a parallel discussion, I replied to your query at WT:UP. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks so much. — Satori Son 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dottie Rambo

Hey Satori Son! Long time no talk to. I wanted to ask why the edit was done to the Dottie Rambo page in reference to the Hall of Fame? The reasoning was that it was mentioned in the list. Well, if we go with that argument, then we will have to remove the Grammy and Dove Award verbiage as well. They too are mentioned in the list. I think we could have a compromise here and find a better way of saying it so that it too can be left in the header. Thought? It is great to see you again! Canyouhearmenow 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again! Hope all is going well.

You're talking the Dottie Rambo's awards article, right? I do think more needs to be trimmed from the introduction. Since it's a list article, the intro should be very brief instead of listing awards then redundantly listing them again below. Similar to List of Björk awards and nominations, List of Christina Aguilera awards, List of Carrie Underwood awards, List of Frank Sinatra awards, etc. Also, the article name needs to be changed to List of Dottie Rambo awards. — Satori Son 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I fixed the header and the link as well. I think you should be happy with that kind sir! Again, its great to run into you again. Canyouhearmenow 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. I went ahead and did a history merge so now the new article has the full history and Dottie Rambo's awards is a redirect. Thanks. — Satori Son 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Culzean clock tower.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Culzean clock tower.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This bot is woefully inadequate for this purpose... — Satori Son 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bullied and ganged up

Dear Satori Son,

I need your help. If you look at CPI(M) page you will see my edits have been reverted by a number of people which include at least

• Soman
• Ism schism
• 75.175.29.40

They have been reverting my edits and seem to be working in Tandem to block users. Please look into the history of CPI(M) page and see how many times Soman and other users have blanked edits which is critical of CPI(M). I see many good authors have been forced to leave and a lot of intresting material lost. Kindly investigate so that we can ensure that the article is balanced and no one is victimized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 18:16, June 27, 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sindhian. I am sincerely sorry you are feeling bullied. Most editors here on Wikipedia are reasonable and collaborative, so please try to keep an open mind about what others are saying to you. Also, I fully realize that Wikipedia can be a tough place for newcomers who don't yet know all the customs and procedures. It can be difficult, but try not to take the criticism and rule-citing personally.

I don't know all the facts of the situation, but my suggestion to you is this: Go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and submit a request for assistance. The MedCab is staffed with volunteer editors who are extremely experienced in this sort of dispute resolution. If they are unable to informally help you resolve the situation, they can direct you to other processes which may be more helpful.

Also, please remember to follow all relevant Wikipedia policies, especially Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. By following the rules, other editors are more likely to listen to your opinion and help you implement your edits in the proper way. Good luck! — Satori Son 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PLease investigate

Satori Son, some people will say and make it look like it is a content dispute. This is vandalism where a froup of people take turns in blanking sections which they feel are not good for the image of their party. They force the editor to revert more than three times and get him banned. They harrass and discourage people from writing and have compromised the NPOV of most of the articles Indian political parties. Some administrators aslo seem to be supporting them. They are waging a political and propaganda war here. Since my allegations are serious and have serious impact on the NPOV of Wikipedia, I again request a serious investigation preferably by someone who can be trusted to be neutral. Please look into the edit history of CPI(M) to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

For you latest deletion, it was irking me Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, that was one fast vandal-bot! I couldn't even get it salted fast enough, and ended up having to delete it three times. Oh well, it's semi-protected for now. — Satori Son 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it was starting to piss me off with 5 e/c in a row....lol Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto... — Satori Son 04:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a current request at RFPP to have his page perm full protected. Maybe you should go ahead and fill that request ;) Dusti^SPEAK!! 05:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM issue

Collapsed unpleasantness...

You responded to what I wrote, saying:

I strongly disagree that adding appropriate content might somehow excuse clearly inappropriate behavior

I never thought appropriate content could or should excuse inappropriate behavior. What makes you think I ever thought or said anything like that? Adding appropriate context is NOT inappropriate behavior. There was no inappropriate behavior. There were only some grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior. The suspicion should have vanished when the content, and therefore the behavior, was found to be appropriate.

Don't misrepresent my position. I did not say appropriate content could excuse clearly inappropriate behavior. Do not attribute that position to me. Do not put words in my mouth. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree. Mass addition of links, even potentially appropriate ones, is exactly the inappropriate behavior I am referring to. Come on now, you're too smart to play semantics: you know what I meant. — Satori Son 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at my comment, perhaps I was overly succinct. I apologize for the confusion, and have now articulated my position more clearly. — Satori Son 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear about my position:

Your way of phrasing it could make it appear to reasonable readers that I was saying some inappropriate behavior should be excused under certain circumstances. That MISREPRESENTS what I said. What I said was not that it should be excused under those circumstances, but that it is APPROPRIATE behavior under those circumstances. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, behavior that you feel is appropriate, I feel is completely unacceptable under any circumstances. That is where our disagreement lies.

As I said, I'm am genuinely sorry if it appeared I was misrepresenting you. I can assure you that was not my intent. I have apologized here and at Wikipedia talk:Spam‎#Proposed policy change. What else do you want? — Satori Son 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass linking

"Dirk, I'm not sure we should get that hung up on the COI issue. Would you agree that this sort of mass link addition is unwanted whether there is a conflict or not? I believe that is the current consensus. — Satori Son 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

Why? Are you saying that if I had added the same multiple links to lectures at Gresham College to articles to which particular lectures were relevant, that would have been a problem? What about the many hundreds of external links to MathWorld articles, encouraged and facilitated by that most successful of all WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? Is that what you consider "unwanted"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered here. — Satori Son 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Choosing a case"?

Do you really think that I chose a case to support a proposed change?? That is lunacy. I saw a good editor, entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his edits, being treated as if he were a vandal. I objected. Then someone cited the policies in support of the way he was treated. I was shocked. I could only think they should be embarrassed to realize that their policies had led to this outcome. I still don't understand why they're not. I can understand how the policies could have led an inattentive admin to mistake that user's edits for spam, but I still don't understand how someone could sympathize with that admin's actions after they realize the nature of the edits. I never noticed or cared about these policies until this case came along. I did not decide to say anything about the policies and then choose a case. Rather the policies came to my attention because of the case.

user:jamesfranklingresham's edits were good and I have awarded him a barnstar for them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good god, man, do you really need to ask every single question twice? — Satori Son 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask this question twice. Got it? What is the occasion for your use of the word "every" to refer to only one question? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All three of your posts here on my talk page have been repeated verbatim at the guideline talk page. That's "every" time.

Kindly accept my final word on this issue: I simply do not agree with your proposal. Nothing personal. — Satori Son 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is: yes, I have to post in both places. Too often people neglect things posted elsewhere than on their talk pages. Obviously I have far more experience with Wikipedia than you do and I've seen that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. — Satori Son 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ref fix on Asif Siddiqi

Thanks, I tried adding a ==references== section and it didn't work. You did the trick. DonPMitchell (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sorry if you got any edit conflicts - I'm finished now. Have a good one! — Satori Son 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS discussion

Hi there SATORI, this is VASCO from PORTUGAL,

Thank you very much for your note on this disruptive editor's issue. I would like to block him myself (he adds NOTHING), but don't know what to do, man.

I will only say this: After being warned several times, he continues to revert (including TODAY) in the manner i explained in the discussion page subjected to these matters.

Thanks again, have a nice WEEKEND, from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. — Satori Son 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That history merge...

...completely confused me! I can't quite remember what revisions Woodburning stove had, but didn't it have a bit of independent history from Wood burning stove after it got stubbed? If not, just ignore me, but if so, didn't the history merge mix everything up? Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Woodburning stove was the first actual article but is now only a redirect, I was performing a full WP:HISTMERGE. Now all relevant contributions and the complete history are found at the only existing article. Hope that makes sense. — Satori Son 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In some ways yes, but in other ways no. The contributions were to two separate pages with overlapping article histories. The redirect got created later - after the deletion in fact. When you merged the article histories, it made it look like the edits were only ever to one article. GazBrum's independent recreation of the article in April 2008 (I don't have a screenshot to prove this unfortunately), now looks like he was blanking and overwriting the previous article, when in fact, he wasn't. From April 2008 until July 2008, the two articles were separate, and Beagel put a nocontext speedy tag on the "woodburning" version, which is the edit Michael was referring to below. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It had one edit by user:Beagel, that was only a definition, but otherwise complied with usual Wikipedia conventions. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sorry but I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Is the full history merge okay with you? Also, thank you for fixing the title, now Wood-burning stove. — Satori Son 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit. After that, the page got deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

...OK, I see that it got restored after that. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No it didn't. That edit is still deleted. I'm not going to quibble, but this sort of rejigging of what happened is why I avoid history merges, or at the least why I think the MediaWiki software should insert markers to show where such merging has taken place. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored that edit and I will try my best to address your other objections.

When GazBrum created a new but duplicate article is precisely when the problem started. At that point, editors had made contributions, licensed under the GFDL, for the exact same topic at two different locations. GazBrum's creation occurred in April 2008, but an article on the subject had existed since October 2007. What GazBrum should have done instead was move the existing Woodburning stove article to Wood burning stove (or Wood-burning stove) and make changes from there. For all intents and purposes, they were "blanking and overwriting the previous article", since the other was later deleted and re-created as a redirect. Though that is not actually what they did, it had the exact same effect.

The problem I was trying to solve is that this resulted in subject contributions in the revision histories of both "articles". Many of the edits under the Woodburning stove redirect had been deleted and never restored. My goal was to ensure that the entire history of the article, with all "wood-burning stove" subject contributions back to October 2007, was available to everyone (not just admins). It seemed the most logical, and GFDL compliant, place to host that full history was at the final, existing article.

If that is not acceptable, or there is something else you would like me to do, I am happy to discuss further. I honestly believed this was a fairly non-controversial history merge, and I'm really, really sorry if you feel I mucked things up. — Satori Son 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not saying you mucked up, I just thought history merges were not done like that. If others do it the way you did, then I might be wrong. I thought history merges were to repair cut-and-paste moves, but the same problems still apply. For what it is worth, I would have restored the deleted redirect, and made a note in the edit history and talk page of the primary page that edit history existed at another location. It is fairly common for history to reside in redirects and never get merged. I personally think it is simpler that way. If you know others who regularly do history merges (I don't), maybe you could point me in their direction and I (or you) could ask them. Maybe you regularly do history merges for all I know! :-) Seriously, I'm not trying to lay blame or anything, just trying to clear up my confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this essentially was a "cut-and-paste" vs. move error, just without the "cut". It still created the exact same problem.

I actually think my solution tidies things up a little better, but I'm not opposed to your method at all. Since it's not a big deal to me, and there doesn't seem to be a guideline on how to retroactively fix this specific type of mistake by GazBrum, I'll be happy to just do it your way if I come across this situation again. Or just leave it alone altogether. ;-) Cheers. — Satori Son 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I was able to get a full name & strong link to the COI through very uncreative, very simple googling. Since any editor can easily find it, lets just not talk about it. Noroton (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have modified my comment. — Satori Son 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Noroton (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS does not learn

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

I just saw that PARARUBBAS has returned from his 24hr blocking and...Guess what? He came back doing the SAME! I give up, since i don't know how to (and IF i can, given i am anonymous user) block him myself...

The language issue is pretty much clear in my view. He has to be Portuguese, since his edits are 99,999999% of footballers of that country or working in that league. His english is appalling, as confirmed by this edit on JOÃO ALVES (PORTUGUESE FOOTBALLER): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Alves&diff=225234333&oldid=224806307

I have left another warning in Portuguese in his talk page...I can clearly see him saying: "Talk to the hand..." What a pity...

Greetings, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

God Made You Special

Hi Satori,

I was wondering if you would mind recreating God Made You Special. I feel that it is a notable topic, and am under the impression that it was simply deleted because no one objected.

Thank you,

Neelix (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the subject is sufficiently notable, but you're right: an article deleted under the WP:PROD process is normally restored if someone objects. So... done! — Satori Son 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bye all

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here again,

Upon writing to WP:ANI about PARARUBBAS, former admin SCEPTRE replied to me, telling me and THE VANDAL to both COOL IT, so...

After 1 year and 9 months (approximately) of ALWAYS TRYING TO HELP AND IMPROVE, without an account (anonymous yes, nothing to hide), i am officially leaving WP (at least as editor), tired of being told to "Cool it", "Your edits constitute vandalism", "Please stop adding defamatory info" (having done NOTHING OF THE SORT), one guy even told me to "Fuck off" if i disagreed with him (user 202.75.80.182)...Oh well...

PARARUBBAS (and other vandals), vandalize away, no more worries with me from now on, i will "cool it"...Permanently. I will leave him a message in Portuguese (i will not insult him, i promise) telling i am leaving, he can do what the hell he wants. Block him, cool, don't block him cool too.

Happy life/wiki-work to the good, the VANDALS you know what i think of you... VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider staying and creating a username to edit under. Rightly or wrongly, you'll be treated better if you do. I will also help you keep an eye on Pararubbas (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Pararubbas again for the exact same pattern of disruptive editing. Three days this time, and next time will be a week or longer. — Satori Son 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Although i am still quite focused on leaving, this doubt has just surfaced my mind: When you consult an article's edit history, you can clearly see that some usernames are highlighted in red, as opposed to the habitual blue, and others have the icon "talk" in the same fashion. For instance, i am anonymous user, but all my options are "in blue", whereas PARARUBBAS' account name is in red.

Can you please explain to me that difference in colours? That could explain his silence, not his vandalism and removals.

Cheers, mate, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry Satori Son, I was just looking, but, the red means that Pararubbas didn't make a user page. The red means that there is no page to actually link to, while blue means that there is a link. Cheers. --69.231.5.166 (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right on that. Sorry I didn't get back to you on this message - missed it somehow over the weekend. — Satori Son 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary S. Paxton

Satori Son, hello. I was wondering why you removed the information on the Gary S. Paxton page about him being shot in the head? You cited that the information was not from a reliable source. The information came from Gary's wife Vickie's personal web page. I don't think you can get anymore reliable than that. That is straight from the source and we would be safe in using it since it is a source given reference. That information is very important in the history of Gary's life. He still suffers from Hep C because of a tainted blood transfussion during that episode. Thoughts? Canyouhearmenow 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not me. If you could please provide me with a diff link showing where that info was removed I'll help you figure out who did it. — Satori Son 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go [2]. I hope that helps Canyouhearmenow 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at that edit just one more time. ;-)   — Satori Son 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I see the edit is not as I originally saw it. I just looked and saw it in red. I did note though that you removed the HAll of Fame induction as Spam link. How can we redo that as not a spam link. Should I just do it as a cite web with a ref at the bottom. I think its an important addition as he was just inducted. Suggestions? Canyouhearmenow 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to fit well in the "Body of work" section, along with the Country Gospel Music Hall of Fame info, with a ref tag as you suggest. — Satori Son 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Scot Brown

I added some references to Scot Brown. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scot Brown. --Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. — Satori Son 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm still not convinced the subject is sufficiently notable. It is a close call, though, so I'll be curious to see what the consensus is. Either way, your efforts are sincerely appreciated. — Satori Son 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

Just to let you know: Pararubbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned, and he is doing the same!!!! Permanent block anyone?

Always nice to wiki-see you,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BanRay has given them a very firm warning for these newest edits. I will definitely block for a longer period of time if this continues. Thanks so much for you vigilance, but also please remember to be civil at all times, even to apparently disruptive editors. Have a good one! — Satori Son 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sea Island, Georgia Edits

Dear Satori Son,

I apologize for the confusion about the Sea Island, Georgia article. On behalf of Sea Island Resorts, I am making edits to the Wikipedia page by using press materials that were written by our public relations firm. An older version of the same backgrounder had previously been posted on our web site, www.seaisland.com, and was available for media use. As it turns out, g8seaisland.com used on old version of this backgrounder for the web site, which is now outdated. Since the G8 Summit, Sea Island has undergone several changes to all aspects of the resort, truly a six-year, $500 million complete resort rebuild, and we have been trying to update information on the web about Sea Island. It has come to our attention that the information posted on Wikipedia currently is outdated, and since Wikipedia is consistently listed as a referring web site to seaisland.com, we wanted to make sure the information on Wikipedia was as up-to-date as possible. Thank you so much for your concern and time.

Sincerely, Doodlebug42 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Thanks. — Satori Son 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this once more...

Hey there SATORI, VASCO here,

I hope ALL is fine by you...Just check this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aly_Cissokho), to see who REMOVED LINKS and REFERENCES...I guess you will be (NOT) surprised.

Happy WEEKEND, hope we can continue to contribute,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right: exact same inappropriate editing as before. Blocked for 2 weeks this time with a note that next block will be even longer, maybe indefinite. Thanks again for monitoring this. — Satori Son 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

National association of senior move managers

I am the Executive Director of the National Association of Senior Move Managers. The text that you deleted is from the www.nasmm.org website. Please reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbuysse (talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that "article" was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if you were willing to forego your copyright and release that specific text into the public domain, advertising copy is not the basis for a proper article. Please see:

• Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING
• WP:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Essay:On notability#Writing about subjects close to you

Thank you. — Satori Son 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of my page..

I never placed misinformation, Epse is a small village, it has got 1900 inhabitants, Napoleon Bonaparte DID spend the night there, AND it is known for it's WEED..

So you tell me, what's the vandalism??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsenaar (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, very funny. Take it to http://uncyclopedia.org. — Satori Son 05:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Really i'm not kidding, There is no online source to which I can place a link... BTW, Epse is in The Netherlands.... If you didn't know yet, we can legally smoke weed here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsenaar (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why do you persecute me? What have I done to deserve this? We're both Freemasons after all...--AlexanderHamiltonWasaJerk (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, tell me your real account and it might give me a clue what in the hell you're talking about. I persecute an awful lot of editors.  ;-)   — Satori Son 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. — Satori Son 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also documented this user under long term abuse, and you've seen more of it with various IPs. Are there steps that can be taken to deal with this beyond continuously documenting his sockpuppets under RFCU?--Gregalton (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser and indef blocking is probably fine for now. It takes him longer to change IP's and create a new account than it does for one of over 1,500 Wikipedia admins to block it.

Don't let these kinds of things get to you. He's pushing some POV and having a little fun at our expense, but it's really not that big of a deal. Just keep up the good work. — Satori Son 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite NPA

I don't really think your comment was a personal attack, but it was simplest to remove your reply along with the attack.[3] -- SEWilco (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your removal of both the original comment and my response to it. Thanks for the heads up. — Satori Son 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could consider reverting the off-topic personal attack against Tvoz at Talk:John Edwards#New NE charges: $15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances starting at "Also, for Tvoz: you have never apologized to me, and so i will bring forward to this public venue my continued concern over your behavior." The other NPA against me doesn't faze me -- I've been called worse than snotty for considering the National Enqurier an invalid RS, etc. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was traveling and did not get this message. You're right – those comments were not appropriate – but it looks like got it worked out, sort of. Good luck with everything over there. — Satori Son 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Return of the MACK

Hi there, SATORI, VASCO here,

Just (after hoping all is well by you) dropping by to let you know that PARARUBBAS' block ends in EXACTLY 2 hours.

Tonight, i am off for a few drinks but, when i return home, will be on his case immediately, like a stray dog on exquisite garbage. In the meantime, i know you will also do your utmost BEST.

Cheers mate, from PORTUGAL (and a great weekend in case you don't see this post today),

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good.[4] I really hope they come around on this and stick to constructive edits. — Satori Son 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pod_August_Night_DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pod_August_Night_DVD.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed. — Satori Son 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocking

To return from self-imposed semi-retirement to levy an unexplained block is inappropriate especially when you expressly declaim the need to defend your positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.130.202 (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I have never retired from Wikipedia, semi- or otherwise.
2. The blocking reason was "Personal attacks or harassment of other users."[5] Not exactly new behavior from you.[6]
3. You are a troll, plain and simple, and as such are unwelcome here. Please go away.

— Satori Son 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Spells/Witchcraft on WIKIPEDIA

My man SATORI, VASCO here,

Just asking you a small favour, if you please: Could you check SERGIO GARCIA DE LA FUENTE (SPANISH FOOTBALLER)'s article and correct this...Oops sorry where are MY MANNERS? Here is the link mate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Garc%C3%ADa_de_la_Fuente).

The situation is this. At the bottom of the page, GALATASARAY squad template appears, but he plays for REAL ZARAGOZA. Vandalism or not, i do not know. When i try to fix it, EVEN AFTER SAVING, the wrong team template appears...Why could that be?

Thank you in advance for the help,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

SATORI, VASCO again,

Now i checked his page again and ZARAGOZA template (the correct one) appears again, without me (or anyone else, i checked edit history) having done anything.

Thanks anyway,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. A little late, but I found the problem. As you can see here, someone vandalized the template itself at Template:Real Zaragoza squad. It was fixed eight hours later by De728631 (talk · contribs).

This kind of transcluded vandalism makes it difficult to figure out what is going on sometimes, so I certainly understand why you were perplexed. It's gotten me a few times. Sorry I wasn't around to help, and have a good one. — Satori Son 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

News on PARARUBBAS

HI SATORI, VASCO here,

User BANRAY reverted an edit on PREDRAG JOKANOVIC (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predrag_Jokanovi%C4%87&diff=227011257&oldid=219503493) by user 92.5.9.102, and i will only say this: this user removed the EXTERNAL LINK, he glued sentences, and his "new contributions" so far consist also of PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL. My guess(es)? He could very well be PARARUBBAS, with a different account, or as a sockpuppet or whatever...BEWARE!!!

I'll catch you later,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to keep an eye on 92.5.9.102 (talk · contribs · block log) as well. — Satori Son 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers!

--Kevin Murray (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know we have some very different opinions regarding inclusion versus deletion, but I completely agree with you on the unreasonable number of sub-guidelines for notability. Hopefully, the coming RfC will address this issue.

Have a good one. — Satori Son 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You got played

No hard feelings, but you got played. There are a small handful of editors who have been harassing me for quite awhile. However, every time they've brought in an outside admin to review my edits, that admin has ruled that I've been editing in good faith. So, these editors needed to find somebody with the power to block users and who didn't have the time to review the case. Its over and done with and I have no hard feelings about it, but I thought you should know you got played.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, nope. You vandalized an article after being warned and got blocked. No hard feelings on this end, either, though. — Satori Son 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I'm aware that this IP can be used by more than one editor. I didn't factor in that the vandalism could have been committed by one of the other editors. I thought you were accussing me of vandalism. Sorry about the confusion. I'm regularly getting harassed by a group of about 8 other editors and I thought your actions were part of that.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm sorry you felt like I was ganging up on you, but I don't have any idea about who might be stalking you. No one contacted me about this; I just stumbled across that edit to Lee Harvey Oswald in the recent changes log.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, too, and have a good one. — Satori Son 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Account

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here...

Just to let you know that, following your advice, i have decided to sign up to the site. I am that chap that keeps bugging you about great user PARARUBBAS, in case you have forgotten...

Have a look at the "new name" here ;) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_S%C3%A1nchez_Moreno&action=history)

Have a great week, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it! I slapped a "Welcome" on your talk to get rid of that pesky redlink. As always, don't hesitate to ask if you need anything. I'm on the road travelling quite a bit, but when I'm around I'll be happy to help. — Satori Son 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Help from a "newbie"

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

New to the place and already asking stuff!!:)

My request is this: There are two articles on same person, PORTUGUESE FOOTBALLER CALADO. In one he is referred to as JOSÉ CALADO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Calado), in the other as JOSÉ ANTÓNIO CALADO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ant%C3%B3nio_Calado). Could you, after some deliberation, remove one of them.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE,

From PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. User Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) had already redirected it, but I reverted that and used a delete/page-move in order to keep the oldest history. Thanks for the heads up. — Satori Son 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

re: John Edwards

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to John Edwards. Thank you. Please see the ongoing discussion on the article talk page if you would like to suggest alternate wording or sources for the article. MastCell Talk 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello LegendXXX and welcome to Wikipedia. You may not have been aware, but the topic of your edit to John Edwards has been a source of significant dispute. You are welcome to participate in the debate at Talk:John Edwards, but please do not make controversial edits to the article without first obtaining community consensus. Thanks and, again, welcome! — Satori Son 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, my edit WAS referenced, and second, it turns out that he was lying and the Enquirer was right, exactly as my addition said. I did not claim that he WAS the father, just that there was evidence indicating that there was an affair and that the Enquirer CLAIMED he was the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendXXX (talk • contribs) 14:22, August 14, 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have still not read the discussion on the article talk page, which has now been archived at Talk:John Edwards/Archive 4. Setting aside the quality of your "reference" for the moment (I did not even leave that part of the message you quote above), your edit was clearly and directly violative of the consensus that had just been reached there after a long and heated debate. Wikipedia is a wholly collaborative project, and your edit was unilateral and unhelpful. You are welcome to participate in the ongoing discussions, but similar edits against community consensus will be reverted and may result in your account being blocked from editing. — Satori Son 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"THE TIME"

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

This time i do believe i am leaving WP for good, at least as an editor. Upon entering MATS MAGNUSSON's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Magnusson), i found that PARARUBBAS, previous to being blocked, also did his poor deeds in this FOOTBALLER's page. I proceeded to correct/improve it, also "dropping a line" in edit summary (and i DO ACKNOWLEDGE sometimes i am not very CIVIL, but only when VANDALS/DISRUPTIVE USERS are at large).

Five minutes later, admin KRAKATOAKATIE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KrakatoaKatie#Goodbye) proceeded to drop a message on my page, where i was called HYSTERICAL just for using CAPS (also for scolding PARARUBBAS, which he deserved). Hours later, user KARENJC also reprimanded me for telling some user had edited in "VERY POOR ENGLISH". Here is the gist of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing

That is NOT THE WORSE: I was browsing through KRAKATOA's page, thinking she could have replied there (since after her attack i tried to reach her, politely 3 times), i found out she removed my messages, and added "THAT'S ENOUGH OF THAT". Account or not, i guess i am stil treated like a vandal, so it's CHEERIO...GOODBYE.

My friend SATORISON, thank you very much for your help and teamwork, but i am still leaving, WP has way to many guidelines that maybe i am not all that ready to comply to. I did try my best, and did not "lose it" with anyone that did not deserve it.

Have a nice EVERYTHING, from PORTUGAL (will also leave a message to my other WIKIFRIEND, BanRay),

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I may have told you before, Wikipedia can be a tough place. It's not for everyone, but I think you could fit in here. Should you decide to stay, my advice to you, and I'm paraphrasing some colorful language, is don't give a frig. It sounds flippant, but it's serious advice. You simply cannot take this project too seriously, else you become emotionally entangled and thus overly sensitive to the vagaries of human social interaction.

I've been called every name in the book by vandals, trolls, and even fellow administrators. I've felt like abandoning the site and its "community" many times, but eventually I just smile and get back to work.

I'm not saying the volunteer work we do here is not important: it absolutely is (see my favorite Jimbo quote here). But to succeed here, you just can't get too worked up about stuff. There's copious drama, more than a few massive egos, and plenty of simple misunderstandings. All of it can drive you crazy if you let it.

So, take a break at least, then hopefully come back and help us out again. Just don't care so much about it. — Satori Son 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns

"Tart words make no friends; a spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar." — Satori Son 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that didn't exactly make friends is when the fact that a new article was about mathematics was effectively made a criterion for speedy deletion and that kept up every day for most of February and March (and then stopped abruptly), and then we see two absurd edits in one day (yesterday), one of them proposing speedy deletion on those grounds and another proposing speedy deletion not of a math article but of one written by one of the world's most respected mathematicians. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, other people screw up. And I am truly sorry you're frustrated. My only intent was to try and encourage a little respect and courtesy (even to those you feel might not deserve it). — Satori Son 13:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish names

Please do not delete relevant additions to talk pages such as the Irish names I added.[7] This is a legitimate topic of discission (see here for a previous example) and no unsourced info was added to the mainspace. The translations I added are taken from a poor quality source (itself unsourced) and should not be added to the article without additional confirmation. But they are legitimate for a talk page to inspire others to help confirm them. Thanks. Irish Name (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of template spamming of article talk pages is not at all appropriate. Please stop. — Satori Son 12:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:Irish name unsourced for deletion (please see the active discussion here). If you have research to share or other productive contributions to make, please do! That would be more than welcome. But the sole activity of adding this template to talk pages is not what Wikipedia is about. Thanks. — Satori Son 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why EASEUS related page was deleted?

I found this in the deletion log: "01:50, 24 July 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "EASEUS" ‎ (csd r1) "

"I deleted EASEUS as a broken redirect (CSD R1). The actual page content was located at EASEUS Partition Manager, which was deleted by Satori Son (talk · contribs). Talk to Satori Son about the deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"

when i search for"EASEUS". It indicates in the partition magic-see also "Freeware - EASEUS Partition Manager" is not exist. would youplease tell me the reasons?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.109.7 (talk • contribs) 02:57, August 21, 2008 (UTC)

The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11, which allows deletion of "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." That article was blatantly promotional in tone and not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. In fact, the text was written by user EASEUS Partition Manager (talk · contribs).

When the subject becomes sufficiently notable, someone not affiliated with it will write a neutral, unbiased article. Thanks. — Satori Son 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Abcotechnology

You just deleted a blatant spam advertisement article titled Abcotechnology a few minutes ago. I am posting here to let you know that the original editor has recreated the article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away from the computer for a bit. Looks like NawlinWiki took care of it, and thanks for the heads up. — Satori Son 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Help me

I found this List of people named Gurung, an article I created, for deletion. Hitro is puting my page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Gurung. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. (Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?) Please help me. -- Hitro 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it ended up being redirected to Gurung (surname), which seems like a reasonable solution. — Satori Son 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have misconstrued...

my comment the other day. Please take a look. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. Very sorry if I seemed irritated or snarky. While humor may be universal, the methods of conveying it over the Internet certainly are not. Looks like we were both just joking around and my joke just wasn't obvious enough. Sorry again, and have a good one! — Satori Son 12:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, would you consider closing that conversation on AN? I think it's gone as far as it can go; nothing we say to that user seems to make any difference, and what she's arguing is a content issue (and policy trumps her anyway). Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Should have done it without your asking... — Satori Son 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI report on the Wiki stalker

If you could remove the summaries from syjacks and P-W-EE-Her Mn it would be great.

Thanks
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Let me know if you need anything help with anything else. — Satori Son 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries!

Miyokan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think there was a misunderstanding, my apologies!--Miyokan (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

I saw the comment you made. I am not going to shorten it. If I could, I'd lengthen it, but I've run out of room in the signature box, so I can't.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you'll reconsider. — Satori Son 13:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Satori Son,

I got your message. I removed his incivil comment and dropped off a 3rr warning on his page. That's the last bit of editing on his page. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's most appreciated. Hopefully we can get this resolved. — Satori Son 19:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhíannon Thomas

Hi. This is a friendly message to ask you to reconsider - as calmly as possible - your censorship of the Rhíannon Thomas Afd. I haven't written anything particularly important about what was going on but Deor's contribution was important and really shouldn't have been moved. I hope you can think again about this. Best regards. --Kleinzach 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for remaining calm and polite, but your edits regarding this matter are quite puzzling. Anyway, let's keep this discussion where it belongs at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:08, 29 August 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.