User talk:Satori Son: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 28 February 2007

Please click here to leave me a new message. I will reply here on this page, so please temporarily watch this page.
If you are here to reply to a comment I left on your talk page, please reply over there — I will watch your page.

Nick Ingman

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

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

Web.com listing

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

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

Sorry for the repeat message but I am new to Wiki. The content that was removed from Web.com is not accurate or relevant. That is the reason it was removed. I think this is the appropriate thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]66.223.59.xxx IP addresses such as this one traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland): atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you believe the information is inaccurate, then I have some suggestions: Sign up for a user ID and use it to edit. Read the Conflict of Interest guidelines and disclose if you have any relationship with the company. Take your concerns to the talk page of the article and discuss it. Mass blanking of information in the article without comment is considered vandalism, and continuing to do so will get your IP blocked from editing. Instead, please work with the editors of that article - if you are indeed right, the facts will come out. -- Satori Son 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for the feedback and advice. I posted on the talk / discussion page per your suggestion and will get a login from Wiki. Much appreciated and sorry for the confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]sorryHi. This is headsrfun. i'd just like 2 apologise 4 taking up ur time with u having to fix my edits. i only just realised i had messages today on the 3rd of feb 2007. i was just having fun and i didn't think about anyone else while i was doing it. i promise that i won't do it again. once again, my apologies. Headsrfun.Hickory Flat GAPlease take a look at let me know if the new phrasing is okay. FYI - The school is non-profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rstaten1 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]How can a link to our own website be considered spam in a page about usWhy is it spam to link to the current project of the Royal Naval Museum? Seems a bit draconian to remove the link to the Sea Your History project. Seayourhistory 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Seayourhistory is referring to [this edit]. It may not have been clear that http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/ is the site for an exhibit at the museum, rather than a commercial site. --Eastmain 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]non supported?I accept your position - but describe "non supported". Are you suggesting the washington post, the denver post, and other news agencies wouldn't support their article? Describe in your opinion, what it would take for something to be "supported", the comments in the article show provide clear summaries to the articles cited. No different then the only item before it, being that they suffered storm damage to their building. I would suggest perhaps an edit based on your comments. Based on that information - I want you to show me support for every other item in the Autonation Article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]I am not saying those sources themselves are not reliable, simply that the articles cited do not exactly support all of the negative info as phrased by your edits. The inclusion and verifiability standards are quite high for negative information. Liability issues and all that. If you want to re-add, it must be presented in a very neutral and unbiased way. No personal opinions (yours or any others). Thanks,-- Satori Son 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Do you have a Bias?One last piece of information - with regards to "Negative Info" - it's still valid info, the Autonation Wiki entry should not describe their numbers and shareholders - it should display vital sources of credible information - both good and bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]No, I do not have a bias. -- Satori Son 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]If you want the full story[1] If you want the full story on what I've been dealing with between that ip and a few others, its all there. A long block of him wouldn't be premature.--Crossmr 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Not only does Crossmr not tell the "full Story", from reading his text, you would think it is a single person who has issues with him, yet he says they are in many places. Strange. 131.22.200.64 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]To 24.116.200.178 (talk · contribs), your edits here, here, here, here, here, and here are harassment, pure and simple. Please stop. To Crossmr, as I don't yet have the mop, there's not much more I can do to help resolve this situation. Hopefully this will get the admin attention it needs. -- Satori Son 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Autonation article without information from all parties is an ADPure and simple. You seem to be one of the few maintainers so I'm guessing you maintain it for your employer. Prove otherwise. Pgurlygirl 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Once again, I do not work for AutoNation. -- Satori Son 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]If an article continually has negative (albeit valid/citable) information removed - it's maintainers are subject. Based on the companies size/scope, it would not be unheard of for Wikpedia entry policing to be part of a company blog seeding campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgurlygirl (talk • contribs) 14:57, February 26, 2007 (UTC)If you had been active on Wikipedia for more than 36 hours, you would probably grasp the irony of accusing me of being a corporate spammer. I've been called many things on Wikipedia by SPA's and trolls, but never that! :-D Satori Son 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Updated a controversial item???(→Controversies - update EEOC lawsuit info to verifiable info) - The original argument made in reference to my additions to Autonation was that the information was not verifiable. On that subject, it's now verified? Unless this article gets some content - and fast - it's nothing more then an advertisement. If you work for the company, at least earn your keep. Pgurlygirl 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Of my 6,300+ edits on Wikipedia over the last nine months, a whopping 10 of them were to the AutoNation article. If my job was to edit that article for them, I would hope I'd have been fired by now. -- Satori Son 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]BelatedThanks so much for the note! Glad to hear you took an extended Wikibreak. RfA is kind of a PIA, but is worth going through to help out the project. If you need anything let me know--Hu12 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]LAN Gaming Center DisputeI wish to dispute the validity of your claims with a higher level moderator. I'm not sure if you are aware, but the current conversation has moved from iGames to the validity of the articles only current external link DMOZ which is of very poor quality. I have tried twice now to replace the link with a high quality categorized list of lan gaming centers and had it removed for what seems to be no reason at all other then yourself being bent on a warpath. Please explain your reasoning as to why DMOZ should be linked in the article and why LanAtomic.com should not be linked in the article.

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ==Belated==
 Thanks so much for the note! Glad to hear you took an extended Wikibreak. RfA is kind of a PIA, but is worth going through to help out the project. If you need anything let me know--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
+==LAN Gaming Center Dispute==
 I wish to dispute the validity of your claims with a higher level moderator.