User talk:Satori Son/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Vipers of Impending Doom Edit

Hey, I was just curious what the rationale behind this edit was[1]. Thanks and happy editing! Yanksox (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Accusation of Vandalism

Hello, and thank you for coming to me with a question. From your original edit, which consisted to removing a welcome template from a registered user's talk page, I had come to the conclusion that if the user who's page you edited did not want that information displayed, the user could remove it for him or herself. Removing content from other user's talk pages is usually not conducted unless the page contains content that is espically detrimental to the encyclopedia, such as 500,000 bytes of repeated characters or markup used to deliberately make the page inaccessible (such as thousands of pictures preventing the browser from loading the page).

In a case such as yours, I would like to remind you that the editing of user's talk pages should only be done when vandalism warnings or block messages are removed and need to be put back, or when the user has vandalized their own page in a way that hampers others from accessing it.

If you have any further questions, you have already found my talk page and I invite you back to it. Thanks, ZsinjTalk 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As a fellow member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I know how much time and effort you devote to keeping Wikipedia top quality, so the time you taken here to provide a thoughtful and thorough response is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully, however, you have still not provided me with the official Wikipedia policy, or even guideline, that my edit violated. What you have provided is your personal opinion. And as thoughtful and reasonable as it is, it is still just that: the opinion of a fellow non-admin user.
My humble opinion in this case is that when a user has been repeatedly warned for true vandalism, has continued to vandalize Wikipedia article and ends up being blocked by an admin, at that time it is appropriate to remove the stock welcome text from his talk page.
But the fact that we have a difference in opinion as to the proper edits to another user’s talk page is not the issue. You may well be right, but my issue of contention specifically involves your placing of a vandalism warning template on my own talk page. If you disagree with any edit I make, you are, of course, more than welcome to revert it and explain your reasoning, as you have considerately done above. But to use the tools Wikipedia gives us to fight vandalism to impose your personal editing style on other users is, I believe, wholly inappropriate. Such tactics smack of elitism at best, and, at worst, intimidation.
I apologize for any misunderstanding as to the original edit, and, again, thank you for your time. --Satori Son 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page to your reply. I have been out of town for a bit over a week and was not able to see your reply until now. Thanks, ZsinjTalk 02:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re Bellard's Formula

Hi Satori Son. This is not a criticism, just a note. I appreciate your work on RC Patrol. I'm not quick enough for RC patrol (much), so I sometimes paw though the speedy list to see if there's anything salvagable.

Anyway, the article Bellard's Formula certainly looked like a speediable mess, but putting the proper capitalization on the terms generated a bunch of bluelinks, so I think the article was worth saving (I removed the speedy tag and cleaned it up, although maybe it should be merged with Fabrice Bellard). I don't really expect patrollers to spend much time on marginal articles like this, and in fact the article didn't provide much context, so I understand the speedy tag, just dropping this note FWIW. Herostratus 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote an article that you listed {{prod}}

Konichiwa Satori Son. I just notice that someone created an article, Western Plaza Shopping Center and then you listed it for Non-Notable Business purpose article deletion. I'm trying save the article from deletion because I'm busy working on Wikipedia articles related to my hometown. In addition, it seems people are working on defunct shopping malls articles (see the category listed on the bottom). The business is notable in the community and was a scene of a notable murder case which was featured in American nationwide television.[2] In addition, the external link I provided had the author of the website stated: I wish I knew more about this place, but I was thrilled and thankful I found it. It undoubtedly holds within it much history and I was one of the last people to walk through it. It's demise in inevitable. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have removed the {PROD} notice I placed on the article. You did a great job cleaning up and providing outside references, and I appreciate the update. --Satori Son 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Mall articles

Hi, you recently voted to keeep the article Macarthur Square. Could you please suggest something that could be added to the article to make it notable compared to all the other articles for shopping malls on Wikipedia? I ask this because I cannot see what makes one shopping centre notable compared to the one in the next suburb. Not every house has an article, why should every shopping centre? Thanks, I hope to implement some of your suggestions. I am happy to conduct a reasonable amount of web-based investigation to implement some of your thoughts. --Garrie 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All Westfields are the same. Please see my suggestion that All Westfields are the same, and my proposed new article, Westfields in Australia.--Garrie 05:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I took so long to respond on this one (and you've probably moved on), but I wanted to do a little research and think about this one for a bit. My vote on Macarthur Square was a Weak Keep, and now that I've had a little more experience with AfD's it may have been a Weak Delete. I think the problem is that so may editors have widely differing views as to what is notable for buildings and geographic locations. For example, when it comes to a town or village, most editors believe there is no requirement for notability whatsoever. If it exists, no matter how small, it should have its own article. On the other end of the notability spectrum is the WP:BIO policy for persons, which has a pretty high threshold for inclusion. I guess buildings are somewhere in between, although the proposed WP:HOTELS is also pretty strict and I do agree with much of it. I guess, though, I really don't have enough experience to say exactly what my personal threshold is for shopping malls. I will say that your proposed article, User:GarrieIrons/Westfields in Australia, is a great idea for the subject(s). Thanks for your efforts and desire for my humble opinion. --Satori Son 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never moved on! I just have a large to-do list and I'm not going to rush what might get a few people's hackles up.
Thanks for your comments above re: my Westfields proposal. I'm about to implement it.
Would you mind going to the talk page for that article and making comment there also?
Garrie 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sonny diaz

Hi. Can you help me? While patrolling new pages, I came across what looked like a user page created in the mainspace. I moved the article. (See above). Did I do this correctly? If not, what is the best protocol to clean such articles? Thanks. CPAScott 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If a new page is clearly intended to be a User Page, the method you used would work, but unfortunately leaves a Redirect. I also might be a little concerned with how to determine the intent of the author - maybe a quick question on their Talk page to determine what they were trying to do? Edits to someone else's User Page can be a touchy subject, so best to err on the side of caution. In the past, I have had the most success by simply tagging the page with the {{db-bio}} template. Hope my humble opinion is helpful, and keep up the great work! --Satori Son 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hey -- technically speaking, non-admins aren't supposed to relist AfDs I think, although I don't disagree with any of your decisions. However, if you're going to do this, please (1) actually relist them, by transcluding the debate on the AfD log page for the current day, and (2) remove them from the old log page so they won't count as "still open", and the old day can eventually finish. Mangojuicetalk 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good and thanks for the tip. The two times I've done this they were pretty obvious situations and I was just trying to ease the workload on the sysops. I certainly won't make a habit of it. --Satori Son 01:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical quesiton about tables

Hey Satori Son! Seeing as I keep running into you, I thought you might be able to help me out. I'm in the process of revising my User Page, but I've hit a glitch. I'm not an HTML expert (nor Wiki markup for that matter) and IMHO, Wikipedia's help files are woefully disorganized. I'm trying to create another sub-box within the main box on my user page, but I can't seem to figure out how. (Another box that looks like the "About Me" box below the current one). Does that make sense? Hard to explain here. You can see what I mean if you move the User Page template into the master table -- it doesn't appear below the two inset boxes, but rahter BEHIND the inset box on the right (try moving it and hitting preview -- you'll see). Can you help with the technical aspects of the code? I've probably confused you, but appreciate your trying anyway (or directing me to someone who is an expert at tables). Thanks. --CPAScott 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, I am probably one of the least informed editors on this subject, as is illustrated by my own woefully inadequate User Page. I tried to do a little research, because I also need this information myself, but couldn’t find much helpful, either. I’ll keep looking and post on your Talk Page anything I find, and would be greatly appreciative if you would do the same. --Satori Son 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hot Rod Surf / HOT ROD SURF AfD

I have nominated Hot Rod Surf and HOT ROD SURF for deletion using AfD. The nomination page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Surf, feel free to drop by and share your thoughts. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Fraser Pirie and George Pirie

Thanks for your comments on the Alexander Fraser Pirie and George Pirie articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fraser Pirie. I wanted to let you know that I added references and categories to both articles, and I think that they are now worth keeping. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Molnar

Hi, the citations are on the individual species pages of the dinosaurs and mammals he has co-authored, as is the case with many of the paleontologist pages . I will go through and cross-link the rest. Very little is written on many of the living paleontologists themselves (other than inside book jackets) and most paleontology stubs do not have this tag on it (which is bigger than the text). Cheers Cas Liber 10:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of stock puppet

Hello Satori Son, I have added all my own contributions to each page I have worked on and signed them. I have no control over the post put by any fans of hot rod surf does. Please ask me any question or contribute to the posts. It seems as a personal attack to be call a stock puppet after working so hard to contribute and listen to other responses. Feel free to contact me or post a vaild wikipedia agrument. HunterIrrigation 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The posting of such a notice on a sockpuppet page (not your user page) is not a personal attack. That template is specifically approved by Wikipedia for use on suspected sockpuppets, as that account is. There is a separate template for confirmed sockpuppets, which I did not use.
Based on the edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Surf, it is clear that User:66.74.223.154 is one of several sockpuppet accounts involved in that heated debate (in which you have made a great many comments opposing deletion). Comparing your account with that one, the edits of the two accounts are very similar as to the specific articles edited. Also, you made your first edit on August 21, 2006; the sockpuppet account made its first edit on August 22, 2006. Please see the two edit histories at [3] and [4]. In addition, a reverse DNS lookup shows that IP is based in San Diego, California. Your company, Hunter Irrigation, is based in San Marcos, just north of San Diego.
However, I understand that coincidences do occur, and if I am incorrect in concluding it was you, I apologize. Since you have affirmatively denied it is you, I will assume good faith and remove the notice. Instead, I have now simply tagged it as a single purpose account on the AfD page in question. Respectfully yours, Satori Son 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. Hot Rod Surf is a San Diego company I am sure many of it fans or customer also new to wikipedia want keep it included. I am new to editing on wikipedia and trying to work within the rules of Wikipedia to add contributions to areas I am knowledgable in. I pride myself in living an completely honest lifestyle and hate to be blamed for others actions. If you have any suggestion on how to imporove any post I have made, epsically Hot Rod Surf or the inaccurate chopper page, I will gladly take them. Thanks again HunterIrrigation 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali versus Antonio Inoki

You wrote: "Sorry for not picking up on that. I see that it has once again been deleted." No worries. One can only catch this specific copyvio by accident, as searching any random bit of text doesn't pull anything. The part that was ripped off, looking at it now, isn't too large. As you've worked on it, I'm willing to restore the whole article if you are willing to compare and remove any text that copies from this page. That doesn't mean that the original author didn't plagiarize anyone else, but its at least a start at salvaging a worthwhile article on a notable subject. Let me know how you feel about this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Chuck Missler

Hello Dr. Wood. I noticed that you have listed the article Chuck Missler as an AfD nomination, but in your nomination comments you have started with Keep. I was just wondering if this might be a mistake. Thank you. --Satori Son 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Missler deletion page had already been (partially) created by someone when I happened upon it. Hence my keep vote. Someone else later completed the deletion process.Lloyd Wood 09:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (I always forget the namestamp - I just use the history log.)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. It did look a little weird for the nominator to be expressing a keep opinion. As you can see, I cleaned up that AfD page a little, but in your edit here, you said "Satori Son shouldn't mess with others' recorded comments." I'm not sure what you are trying to say there; perhaps you are just trying to embarrass me? I did not "mess with" any of your comments: they read exactly the same. All I did was correct a wikicode redlink you had placed for the SWANsat Afd page. Ironically, I had admired the work you had done there in debunking that article and thought others might benefit from being able to easily link there if they wanted to (as opposed to trying the dead link you mistakenly used that tries to find a deleted article). I guess no good deed goes unpunished. --Satori Son 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not mistakenly place a redlink. I deliberately placed a bluelink, which went red only when that page was deleted. I did not and do not wish to link to that deletion discussion. If I did, I would have linked directly to it (as deletion discussion, which I initiated, was active at the time I made that comment). By linking to the SWANsat page itself, a redlink shows that the page has been deleted, showing that there's no point in following that link to affect now-completed discussion. Knowledgeable Wikipedians will know where to look for deletion discussion pages; search engines won't. I believe linking directly to deletion discussion pages rather misses the point of deletion from Wikipedia in the first place. I also think the Missler discussion page should have been left in chronological order.
I do not want my discussion comments retroactively modified to link to a page I don't want to link to - it's a small step from that to grammar cleanup to 'you meant to say' to rewriting others' discussion comments completely to change their arguments. Again, don't mess with discussion comments made by other people; please save formatting tidyup and removing redlinks for Wikipedia entries themselves. 'Exactly the same' is in the eye of the beholder - I hope the reasoning for my deliberate choice of link is clear. Lloyd Wood 13:37, 27 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son/Archive_1"