User talk:Satori Son/Archive 9

---

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

This is iamkevin4life

Listen you dumb douche this is the side account of Iamkevin4life (talk · contribs · block log). I demand you unblock me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkevin4life2 (talk • contribs) 00:35, September 1, 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. If you believe that block is unjustified you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page at User talk:Iamkevin4life. Thanks. — Satori Son 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I got information

i got information so i think it is appropiate to edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cperea1994 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What is this in reference to? — Satori Son 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS maybe?

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

I am back, still editing from time to time, although i frequently edit with this old anonymous account (no advantages, considering my edit approach, to be registered).

Just to let you know that user 92.3.217.16 (talk · contribs) (see for instance this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A1s) could VERY WELL be PARARUBBAS "in disguise". No external links removed, at least some examples (i have already checked his edit history), but he keeps GLUING SENTENCES!

Always nice to wikisee you,

FROM PORTUGAL, all the best - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vasco. Since this IP hasn't edited for over a month, I suspect it probably was him but now his IP has changed again. Please let me know if you see him active again and I'll try to help keep an eye on things. Best, Satori Son 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My ears are burning...

I'm wondering if I could get your advice, since you've interacted with one of the concerned parties. I noticed that no fewer than three recently joined users are talking about me, specifically regarding my edits at 5W Public Relations: here,here, and here. It's weird enough that I'm talked about on such a minor article, even weirder that they seem so authoritative after just a handful of edits.

Now, I realize that WP:AGF is there for a good reason, but I can't help but notice the similarities in their arguments for questioning and undoing my edits. There is also a similarity in tone to the accounts mentioned I have clashed with over this article (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman), and I'm reminded of an edit where User:Judae1 (an exec with the firm and the creator of the 5W article) tried to "out" me as one of his commercial rivals during a contentious deletion debate. My question is, are my suspicions enough for me to request any type of Admin action (say, checkuser or sockpuppet inquiry), or should I leave it alone? Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that due to the editing patterns and single-purpose nature of the accounts, a new checkuser request is warranted. Obviously, using sock- and meatpuppets to give the appearance of consensus would not be acceptable.

I will update the request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman and see what they say. — Satori Son 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've added Judae1 to the checkuser list, since I found it incredibly odd that his name came up when I haven't interacted with him in years, and I've seen a similarity in tone between him and the SPAs. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!!

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

Unfortunately, these things keep happening, after all one's hard work: There are 2 JOSE LLUIS MARTI (MALLORCA footballer). In one, the good, i improved/created storyline, added refs, links, the whole stuff (here is his piece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Luis_Marti).

In the other, THE BAD...nevermind man, here it is too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Mart%C3%AD_Soler), you can compare both and choose which one to remove...I strongly recommend you remove the second, LOL!

Best regards, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but there was a simple fix so I decided to be WP:BOLD and made the change. Since José Luis Martí is more complete and has a longer edit history, I ended up making José Luis Martí Soler a redirect to the older article. I hope this resolves everything. --Mosmof (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Satori Son 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SATORI my man, just one more thing:

If you decide to remove the more complete storyline of the better more complete example, in the player stated above (MARTÍ) could you please send its text to me, so that i can glue it in the remaining version?

Many thanks (again) in advance,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to tell you that, regarding the other two requests i made previously, all is superbly taken care of, courtesy of user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mosmof, as you can clearly see on your talk page.

I have already directed the proper thanks and bows that the man duly deserves, nice teamwork!!

From PORTUGAL, as always saying "cheers",

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was away. My travel schedule has been just crazy lately, so I might not always be around. Very glad that Mosmof was here to lend a hand. — Satori Son 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking - now editing as User:$laveryWorldwideInc

Obvious here: [1].--Gregalton (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And blocked. — Satori Son 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You might be interested in the discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Already on top of it - thanks. — Satori Son 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

"Hey Stifle. Hope all is well with you. Gregalton, a user I have had good dealings with, has requested an unblock, and I am inclined to agree with him. The situation is very complicated, and I have tried my best to summarize it at WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. (As you can see, Greg's 3RR block was not my main reason for posting there.) Your comments and consideration would be appreciated. Thanks. — Satori Son 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

I'm going to reply at the ANI thread. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully I made sense of this mess. Thanks again. — Satori Son 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts on ANI

Hi, there is already a thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help? about the edit conflicts, the problem arose here [2] and someone needs to reinsert the lost edits. I can't do it, as I get to many edit conflicts when I try. An admin needs to protect the page and do the required, then unprotect. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, it's been fixed now, till the next time! DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away from the computer for a while. Wow, what a mess. Thanks for your help with all that. — Satori Son 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on the unblock

Not just the unblock, but your kind words too.--Gregalton (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys sisters? Judge, jury, executioner - and impartial academic economist - all rolled into one conspiratorial little neo-con ball. I thought incest was illegal in some parts of the US (and Canada). - FreemasonsUnite! (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Karmaisking. I'd encouraged Karma to ask to get unblocked through the proper procedures rather than continuing to sockpuppet, but he's reverted to type. (Of course, when asking me for assistance, he couldn't resist attacking another editor, so I told him to figure it out on his own). After the comment above, good luck to him.--Gregalton (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel bad about blowing this off when you first asked me.[3] I thought this was just some prankster having a laugh at us, but now I realize this is a POV-pushing troll with some serious behavioral issues. It's really sad that some people have no productive outlet for their energies. It did give me pretty good laugh to be called "neo-con", though! — Satori Son 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Report

If I feel that you have abused your position on Wikipedia, to whom do I submit my complaint? Misessus (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You may file such a complaint at either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. — Satori Son 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. Misessus (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Satori. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a convoluted case to awaken to! It's truly amazing sometimes how much transpires while one sleeps. Excellent job on everything, and I went ahead and voiced support for your resolution. I agree - it seems best to give them one more chance. Have a good one. — Satori Son 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI laugh

Thanks... and there was I thinking no-one would notice, lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nicely done! — Satori Son 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Visibility

Just an FYI that I set up the {{Visibility-IT}} template to appear whenever anyone edits an Image talk: page, so you don't need to worry about adding it manually to each existing page. :) Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be much smarter than what I have been doing... Thanks! — Satori Son 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on User:Misessus

Having seen this user at work, I'd endorse your call for a topic ban on anything related to the Mises Institute or Austrian economics. How best to proceed on this?JQ (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my proposal for such at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents received very little response, but that noticeboard is extremely overworked and, many times, important issues do not get sufficient attention there. I believe the best option is to submit a "Request for Comment" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. While the process is not especially onerous, it does take some effort to concisely and effectively present the necessary evidence.

Let me say that my involvement in this whole matter has been quite cursory. I stumbled across the Karmaisking (block log) sockpuppetmaster only because Gregalton's talk page was still on my watchlist from some unrelated spam cleanup we collaborated on some time ago. Because of this limited involvement, I did not, and still do not, feel comfortable starting an RfC process (which is why I simply submitted the ANI report). Ideally, two or three actively involved editors, perhaps from WikiProject Economics, would put one together. I would be agreeable to helping out with formatting and such, and will make a statement in support of a topic ban based on the behavior I have observed. Once consensus is shown at RfC for a topic ban or other appropriate remedies, any administrator can, and should, enforce them.

If you or others are willing to undertake this task, please be sure to read all of Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case. The section "Expertise of Users" has some extremely relevant advice for situations such as this. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to email me. Thank you and good luck. — Satori Son 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I need help

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here hope's all well by you,

I had to log-in for this message (was not able to enter the "message page" on your user camp with anonymous account 217.129.67.28)...Here it goes:

Regarding PEPE (Brazilian footballer), i had quite a scuffle with user 202.75.80.182 (talk · contribs) (you can see edit history) about a ridiculous (not as ridiculous as the spectacle he put on) matter. PEPE scored NO GOALS in his season for R.MADRID, only an own goal (and SEVERAL websites can attest to that). Three or four times, he reverted my edits to 1 goal, even leaving this "charmer" on my talk page (i think i already showed you this, but here's a "reminder"):

Hello VASCO, this is user 202.75.80.182,

According to your reference, I like to apologize about my edits as you referred. But I just want to know. What is the meaning of adding 22 goals on Spanish cup? I only stated that he scored 1 goal for the league, but 0 for CUP. Are you trying to VANDALISE the article before saying I'm trying to add silly edits? If you say YES, I will forgive you, because you only put 22 goals on CUP section. If you say NO, FUCK off.

Anyway, I stated that he scored 1 goal, because I think that goal is a good goal. You are welcome to give me any comments on my talk section, but don't give me any nonsense, such as it's just an own goal, or OWN goals are BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. Thank You.

4 months later, i went on to see if i could improve on this player's article, and what do i find? PEPE scored 1 goal for REAL MADRID, courtesy of same user. I don't know man, is he "intellectually challenged" or is he doing it JUST to get on my nerves. If it is the second, he is achieving it. I would like to see your views on the matter. As with "user" (or "unuser"?) PARARUBBAS, i will not rest until the "WIKI-truth" is restored...

Have a nice weekend, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. That original “F**K OFF” message was actually left by 202.40.210.131 (talk · contribs). I don’t remember seeing that before – sorry – but obviously it’s too late to block them for it now.

Regarding the issue on the Képler Laveran Lima Ferreira article: While I am always willing to assist you if you come across a disruptive or abusive user, I am woefully unqualified to assist with a content dispute on an article for a South American footballer. I strongly suggest you ask for some assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. That project is staffed by numerous volunteer editors who are well-versed in the subject, and are experienced in sorting out these kinds of content disputes. Sorry I could not be more of help, and good luck! — Satori Son 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Just wanted to apologise for the recent changes to the Large Hadron Collider page. my roommate ian, often enjoys to play practical jokes on me and this w3as one of them. i have added a password to my user so it shall not happen again. Retbutler92 (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As you likely know, I have already blocked the Bigboldian (block log) account. Since you share the same computer as both he and John kirkham (block log), and you just vandalized the Earth article, I have blocked this account as well. Please find a new hobby. — Satori Son 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

Hi. Since you semi-protected the Delta Air Lines article could you please acquaint yourself with the situation, visit the talk page there, discuss your concerns and perhaps become involved in mediating since you believe we still have issues to work through. I personally believe that we have resolve at this point but I am certainly willing and interested, as I'm sure everyone else is, in working with you non-the-less. Best Regards. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your question at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Article Lock?. — Satori Son 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Check it again. Your reply is unsatisfactory. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My reply is my reply. Your efforts toward resolving this dispute are appreciated, and I am sorry you are personally unsatisfied, but my rationale is valid, my actions comply with Wikipedia policy, and I am not willing to unprotect the article at this time. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well thankfully the work and efforts that I personally carried out have not dissipated so that's encouraging. Maybe it's time for me to become a registered user although if things remain stable as they seem to be increasingly doing then that won't be neccessary. May I ask why the request was removed instead of going to the granted section. I had no idea that I had to go the history otherwise I understand how the history works and would have found it very quickly. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of the amount of traffic that page gets, completed requests can only be kept on the front page for a fairly limited amount of time. Currently, VoABot[4] is programmed to keep up to fifteen requests in the fulfilled/denied section, or all closed requests under 12 hours old (whichever is greater). It is kind of confusing, and I hope it didn't seem condescending to point you to the help page for histories. With IP editors, it's always hard to know who is experienced or not, especially with this "behind the scenes" stuff. Thanks and good luck. — Satori Son 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility talk page

Even if you reverted it... Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Wikipedia talk:Civility, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Replied here. — Satori Son 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the policy on edits by proven socks?

As you probably know, Karmaisking is back again, and editing furiously as 165.228.245.66 - a self-proclaimed sock of a sock of Karmaisking.

I was under the impression that we should revert new edits made by socks of banned users, on the principle that if you don't, you encourage sock usage. But I can't find this rule anywhere in the Wikipedia guide pages. So, I come seeking guidance on this issue:

Should I on principle revert contributions by socks? Or just leave them and treat them as I would contributions by anonymous editors?

Thanks, lk (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not aware they were back (my involvement with this whole thing was fairly accidental and I have not kept up lately). The policy you are looking for is WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. If you decide to revert their edits, make sure you link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking in the edit summary so everyone clearly knows why you are doing it. If they continue to edit, you can request a block of that IP address at WP:ANI. — Satori Son 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 165.228.245.66 appears to be the long term IP of Karmaisking, and should be banned if we want banning to mean anything. I'll file a report at WP:ANI. thanks, lk (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see this comment, and I remember seeing the Karmaisking issue before. I've blocked the IP for six months. On the question of whether posts by a banned user should be reverted: in my opinion it's seldom worth the trouble. (Unless a lot of other people are responding to the bait). New IP socks can always be blocked if they start editing articles, but if they only participate on talk, it may not matter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kensington.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kensington.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed. — Satori Son 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Monitoring LUTZ

Thank you for monitoring the ongoing Al Lutz saga. I know that I had previously requested semi-protection of this article (twice) in the last week and it was denied both times. I am pleased that even when declined, that admins do still pay attention to such requests.SpikeJones (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was one of the admins who declined it, so I knew it was my responsibility to keep an eye on things. Sorry it ended up this far. — Satori Son 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all good. I've expressed my opinion on the talk page in what I believe is a calm and reasonable manner and have stayed out of the actual page editing hijinx. I don't think consensus will be reached anytime soon, but you never know. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

dick fuld article

Thanks for repairing the current status of Fuld as CEO - i was unsure what to do about that, so I'm glad you were. Bigtrick (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There's also been confusion over the exact same issue at Talk:Lehman Brothers/Archives/2012#request for consensus - "is" vs. "was" for describing existence of company. — Satori Son 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking related mischief

User:Misessus deleted a sockpuppet warning from one of Karma's sockpuppets, see here. I'm at a loss as to how to even deal with this type of ongoing nonsense. (Oh, and Karma has a new one, User:MakTheKnife.--Gregalton (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MakTheKnife indef blocked and talk page deleted.

The problem with fanatics is that they're so... fanatical. I'm sure we'll be dealing with Karmaisking and Misessus in one form or another for quite a while. Let's just do our best to clean up their messes whenever we can and keep up the good work elsewhere. Cheers. — Satori Son 21:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your patience is impressive and a model. I'm fairly certain that User:Flying Pete is another Karma puppet.--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The perpetual checkuser request has been updated. Thanks. — Satori Son 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for MilkyTracker

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MilkyTracker. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ysangkok (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. — Satori Son 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines redux

Because the edit warring with Delta Air Lines has been non-existant in the almost two weeks since your semi-block and no one has raised any issues on the talk page questioning the resolve of the prior debate, I would again like to appeal to you to remove the block. Obviously, I was one that supported the article being where it is right now so I don't make this request with the intent of re-igniting any new problems by making further changes. However, I think the last week and a half have provided evidence that make it more than clear that the block is no longer neccessary. Best Regards 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to say that there has not been edit warring since I semi-protected the article is not really a reason to unprotect it. If anything, that confirms my decision was correct.

The protection is due to expire automatically in five days, but I am willing to consider lifting it at this point. Could you please give me an example of an edit to the article you would like to make? — Satori Son 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan to make anymore edits to this particular article for the forseeable future. I'm happy with it and from the lack of conversation on the talk page about it I assume everyone else is too. It just appeared that the issue that lead to the block had subsided so that's why I came back to speak to you again about it because this same thing was done with the Spirit Airlines article at one point and the protector forgot they had done it and left the article uneditable to alot of people for almost a year. However, you obviously had it automated to undo itself eventually which I didn't realize so I guess I really didn't need to bring it up again. Thanks for unprotecting it though.I'm certain you won't have anymore problems with it. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again for all of your help with the dispute. — Satori Son 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Community Reinvestment Act and IP edits

Hi, I've noticed that you're one of the few admins interested in economics. Could you check out Community Reinvestment Act and perhaps semi-protect it? There's a campaign from the Austrians to frame the US housing bubble as a result of liberal regulation. Non-Austrian sources have basically refuted it, but they keep playing it up. II | (t - c) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though my undergraduate degree was in economics, I have been an attorney by trade for quite some time and no longer consider myself well-versed in the subject. Strictly in my role as admin, however, I have tried to keep tabs on some of the sockpuppets and POV-pushers who have plagued those articles. I stumbled into the whole thing entirely by accident, but, as you say, I'm one of the few admins dealing with it.

Regarding the CRA article specifically, I really don't feel comfortable semi-protecting it at this time. It just hasn't received as much vandalism and disruption as, say, Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which I had to protect earlier today. If I was challenged on it, I don't think protection there would stick.

However, I will add it to my watchlist and do my best to help enforce policy over there, too. Sorry I can't be of more help right now. — Satori Son 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

About warning

Mr. Satori Son, why did only I get a warning but not for example Iberieli or Kober who violated WP:GAME by organizing a group which reverted my edits together in order to avoid 3RR rule? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel you are being singled out; that was not at all my intent. You are actually the 32nd editor who has received formal notice of the "Eastern Europe" editing restrictions set forth at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. If you believe that other editors should also be placed on notice of such restrictions, please provide me with diff links which show disruptive editing behavior on any Eastern European topic. Since I have no involvement whatsoever with this dispute, I can and will take administrative action if so warranted. — Satori Son 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Constant removing of POV tag with an active ongoing POV dispute, gaming the system: [5][6][7][8][9] SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While you are correct they should not have edit warred over the placement of the {{POV}} tag, I see no evidence of violations of Wikipedia:Gaming the system guidelines, which very specifically define that practice as "seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support."

If the tag is removed again by the same editors, however, I will issue them a {{Uw-3RR}} warning. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And so warned. — Satori Son 16:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For this - sorry I didn't think of that myself.  Frank  |  talk  19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Good luck with it. — Satori Son 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs more than luck. I recreated it because there was some comment as to why I had deleted it in the first place (A1). It's in better shape now but still a long way from stable, in my opinion.  Frank  |  talk  19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, the first was definitely an A1 candidate and the new article needs some work. Hopefully WP:WPM will be more help than I could ever be on this kind of stuff. Have a good one. — Satori Son 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

U 552

Thank you for reviewing this 3R claim; the edit rowing is still going on; there has been no response from User:75.181.153.57 to requests for discussion. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I block them for 3RR, I would have to block you as well. The best thing at this point is for you to ask for help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. That noticeboard is staffed by volunteer editors who are quite experienced in helping to resolve this type of content dispute. In anticipation of such, I tagged the article with {{POV}}. Good luck. — Satori Son 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose, though I don't see how we can keep dodgy stuff out if it isn't reverted. I have notified NPOV as you suggested, but I can see there’s a waiting list. Meanwhile our edit contretemps continues; my anonymous opponent appears to be editing from 75.181.143.239 now. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked and reverted. Thanks. — Satori Son 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! thankyou: I reverted again, but it seems you beat me to it. I was also making some other edits for neutrality; can you check if they're OK? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WWII submarine warfare is hardly an area of expertise for me, but I do have a few observations:

1. In Bridgland's book, I cannot find a quote in which he refers to the sinking of the Atwater as an "atrocity", and that word is not used at all on page 216 (the cited page). If we cannnot locate a reliable source that specifically calls that incident an "atrocity", then that term shouldn't be used anywhere in the article, and especially not in the introduction.
2. I'm not sure the http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/ should be included. On the surface, it does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:External links#What should be linked.
3. The sinking of the Atwater is not listed at Second Happy Time#Chronology of Attacks off the East Coast of the United States, though that may be a simple oversight at that article.

As I said, I have no expertise in this area, but the article seems a little thin on reliable sources for the Atwater sinking. Hopefully, you will get further assistance from WP:POVN#U 552. Good luck. — Satori Son 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it again; I was extrapolating from the title of bridglands book (WoH:Naval atrocities in the second world war) to the inclusion of the Atwater incident, but it could be clearer. The external website was one I was familiar with, and I wanted to counterbalance the one already there; again, it needs work. Thanks for your time; this probably won't be the end of the story. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Content issues aside, I'll try to keep an eye on the block-evasion sockpuppetry. — Satori Son 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mistake - Help needed

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

Just dropping by for a small request: Made a mess which i cannot fix in MALICK BADIANE (Senegalese basketballer)'s article. Would you be so kind? I tried over and over and cannot come around as to what is necessary doing... ;(

Here is a shortcut to BADIANE's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malick_Badiane

Happy weekend, from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. I'd be happy to try and help. What is it that you're trying to do? — Satori Son 13:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here

As the title implies, all is taken care of, by user ANOMIEBOT. If you check the edit summary history, you will see that, in one of my anonymous edits, i screwed up the article's display. That user composed it, even though i did not send him a message.

Once again, nice teamwork, thank you very much for your attempt anyways, mate!!

From PORTUGAL, have a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it was resolved quickly. And sorry I never seem to be around when you need me! The wife and kids are really starting to cramp my style. — Satori Son 17:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Karma's back

New sock--Gregalton (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... done. — Satori Son 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. And I do intend to do some serious article work as well. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

It has happened again, and the first time, i also tried to reach for you, but friendly user MOSMOF "got in the way"... ;)

There are two PIER (Spanish footballer) articles. The first has VIRTUALLY NOTHING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_(footballer)) and the second, the one i edited is more or less complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Luigi_Cherubino). Could you please (as i dont know how) remove one of them (the one that reads PIER (FOOTBALLER), keeping PIER LUIGI CHERUBINO)?

Thank you very much in advance,

From PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect - PIER

SATORI my man,

Again user MOSMOF "butted in" and resolved...Nice teamwork!!

I hope your frantic schedule gives you time to breathe, sorry 4 any incovenience.

From PORTUGAL, have a nice weekend(s),

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IP sock of Emetman returns

I'm new to the discussion, but it appears an IP sock 12.103.203.218 (talk · contribs) you blocked for block evasion is back making the same edits to 5W Public Relations. Shouldn't he be reblocked? In any case, there's no rationale or consensus for his edits, so I've reverted him for now. Since you blocked him last time, I thought I'd come here first. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like this is being investigated at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emetman. — Satori Son 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS does not quit - BAN please!!!

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

coming to think of it, it might even not be him, but i found this for you: In CARLOS CARNEIRO's article (Portuguese footballer and, i remind you 99,9999999999999999999999% of this idiot's edits were about Portuguese football) - seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Carneiro) - there is a user (nº 92.2.200.217) with the EXACT SAME modus operandi: external links and stuff, OUT!!! No words for this!!!

From PORTUGAL, hoping to hear good news from you,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

U-552, again

Hello Satori Son
I was in contact with you about a month ago over an edit war on this page, (See here); this seems to have flared up again.
The neutrality issues are being worked out with a number of editors, but the anonymous editor at 75.181.153.57 (talk)is still not participating in the discussion, and continues to make unilateral edits.
Any suggestions?Xyl 54 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like LessHeard vanU took care of it while I was away. Thanks. — Satori Son 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

MilkyTracker

MilkyTracker's page is deleted because you say it's a recreation of a deleted page. The original deletion is attributed to the lie that a google search for milkytracker returns 2 results. (It actually returns 38,000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/MilkyTracker That's 6 legitimate links to it from other articles. (15 total)

I'm in no way affiliated with milkytracker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.153.141 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MilkyTracker. If you believe the subject is now sufficiently notable, please file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you. — Satori Son 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Parker Smith article

Advice on keeping the Parker Smith article from being deleted? Parker presents am independently cited research resource for children seeking informtation on adaptive sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmithjr9 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Parker Smith. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

EmetMan Sock case

You had added a template to this case to add it to the checkuser page. The report really needs to be filed according to the WP:RFCU page. I'll be glad to help if you still want to list it there. In the meantime, I have removed that template to prevent it from showing on the CU addition page. JodyB _talk 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't look closely enough and initally thought it was a checkuser request. After I saw my error, I still left it on thinking someone should move it over to RFCU, and looks like EdJohnston handled it. Very sorry I didn't have time to do it correctly myself. Thanks for the following up. — Satori Son 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird message.

I just did a Wikipedia search, and this popped up in the middle of it: http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2397/weirdkr2.png

Which linked to these.

"new messages": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.17.60.198&redirect=no

"last change": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.17.60.198&diff=cur

What's weird is not only that I've never seen something like this pop up before, I also have no idea what it's talking about.

I never viewed, much less edited, anything about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JohnHancockSignature.jpg".

I don't like being accused of vandalism.

Please clear this up.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.60.198 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone using your IP address vandalized the Image:JohnHancockSignature.jpg on October 16. If you don't want to get these message anymore, please create an account and log in. Or just ignore them; it's fairly common for someone who edits under an IP address to get messages intended for someone else, so if it wasn't you, don't worry about it. Thanks and have a good one. — Satori Son 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Salute/bad news...

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here, long time no see...hope all's fine by you

Just dropping by to say this: Myself, alongside our good wikifriend BANRAY, have tracked down some of (supposedly) PARARUBBAS IP's, and now, under a registered name, i found this "person" (quotation marks intentional): PEP10, here is a list of his "contributions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10).

His MODUS OPERANDI his 100% the same as PARARUBBAS: removing brackets, links and refs, and gluing sentences. Just so you know, have a nice one and take care.

Ah man, i have to leave you with this question, regarding all these VANDALS and stuff: What does one need to do to get banned PERMANENTLY? Believe me, i if ran this site, that PEP10 "fellow" (at least under that name) would not make one more edit and, when/if he changed IP, when that different address vandalized (which is all PEP10, PARARUBBAS and other "persons" do), it would be blocked too ON THE SPOT. Unfortunately, i do not make the rules...

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Hi there SATORI, just wrapping it up by saying:

PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS has been reported here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive495#Disruptive_editors).

Not sure of what else to do, take care...Enjoy your wiki-break and return safely.

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. I've been extremely busy in real life so I've had very little time to help with this kind of stuff anymore. You did the right thing by going to WP:ANI, but I see you didn't get much help. The admins there are very busy, and most of them really don't like having to search through a contribution history to find examples of disruptive behavior.

When I'm here from time to time, I'll try to help keep an eye on Pep10's contributions. I also see that BanRay left them a warning here and here, so maybe that will help. Good luck. — Satori Son 13:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Page resurrection

Hi,

You seem to have previously deleted Image talk:Taheri-azar letter.jpg. I would like to re-create it in order to discuss the image's source and copyright status. May I?VR _talk 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, please do. I deleted that as a pure vandalism creation, but if there's a legitimate need for discussion, it should be recreated.

There was some weird stuff on at that page, by the way. I cleaned up the unsourced opinions, and I'll be curious to see your thoughts on the copyright status as well. — Satori Son 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nofootnotes

I notice that you recently (September) did a clean up on this. I think it may need a bit more tweaking, see Template talk:Nofootnotes#Linked page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up. I'll fix it right away. — Satori Son 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

SATORI, VASCO here,

PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS is active again. Don't understand why he is not blocked...

Sorry to have bothered you, a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, this one was a good edit. Cleaned up a stray line in the "League and Cup History Table".

But as you can see here, they've once again removed the external link section for no apparent reason. As you well know, that's exactly the kind of stuff that got them in trouble with their first account at User:Pararubbas. I have left them one final warning to see what they have to say (though I doubt I will get a response). — Satori Son 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI, hope all's fine by you,

I have a suggestion for you, regarding all the PEP10 and PARARUBBAS out there: Specially regarding this example (since the 2 accounts are obviously the same person), and since you have the "power" to block, how about a block on this individual? You, on your last message, showed me an example of a good edit he made, but how about the destroying of others' work he has committed himself to on endless occasions? He does not have to do that, and he has been warned (speaking of which, i am 100% he does not pay any attention to his talk page, and i seriously doubt when he sees the "new messages (last change)" icon he knows it's for him) constantly. Even so, he is not to remove stuff and he does.

My suggestion is: block him (he has about 15, 20 warnings if we add the 2 accounts) and, when/if he opens a new account or edits anonymously with the same MODUS OPERANDI, block him at once (i mean after the first edit), you will see how quickly the mood for removing stuff not to be removed will leave him.

That is just a suggestion my friend, and something i would definitely do had i the ability. Take care, have a nice week, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no checkuser has been done, so we're not absolutely positive it's the same editor (though it does appear extremely likely). As an administrator, I tend to be fairly conservative in my blocks for two reasons: (1) A bad block can get you in trouble at ANI, with lots of people jumping down your throat and making your Wiki-life miserable; and (2) my time here is very limited, so I simply don't have the time I used to have to really dig into situations to confirm all the necessary information and determine with certainty the best course of action to take. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

However, if this particular situation continues, rest assured that I will take whatever admin action is warranted. Please be patient for now. — Satori Son 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Timestamp to fool the archive bot

Hello Satori Son. Per this bot edit, where a state 3RR item finally got archived, I think it is clear that <user name> <date> is needed to fool Miszabot. I notice you added a date to a 3RR noticeboard item back in August that was failing to archive. That seems not to have worked. But Nixeagle tried again on 4 December, and it worked. I wonder if Misza would share the regex (or whatever) that he uses to recognize timestamps. I'll leave him a note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, weird... I saw their reply, so I guess somehow I didn't enter exactly what ~~~~~ would have produced. Next time, I'll just do that and not try to create a post dated stamp. Thanks very much for following up. — Satori Son 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor - Bruno P. Dori

Click "[show]" at right for details.

Hi there SATORI SON, VASCO here (as always, thank you very much 4 helping me),

Putting PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS aside one bit, i bring to your attention this "fella":

User 189.73.106.148 (talk · contribs · block log), whom for some time edited under the account Bruno P. Dori (talk · contribs · block log) has the (bad) custom of the following:

He operates, like PARARUBBAS on mainly just one topic, his/her case being players connected in past or present with FC BARCELONA. He tends to write the word "youth" in YOUTHCLUBS in infobox, which is redundant and occupies unnecessary space of such box. Although he has been fairly warned by BANRAY (in talk pages, seen here and here) and me (in edit summaries), he pays ZERO attention to that (like PEP10), writes ZERO edit summaries (like PEP10), sometimes reverting stuff in five minutes.

One excruciating example: Antonio Longás, who plays with BARCELONA B-team. In "current club" he writes one name, and in last club in INFOBOX (which is current) he writes a totally different name. I correct it and he reverts it, no explanation added (he has also been warned about the three-revert rule). Here is the proof on this example: [10]. By the way, if you browse in this article through "previous" and "next edit", ALL of the anonymous IP are his (189.30.73.159 (talk · contribs), 189.30.65.201 (talk · contribs), 189.30.100.104 (talk · contribs) and 189.30.95.254 (talk · contribs)).

My wiki-friend, don't know what to do, seriously, i know there is no point in reverting (let alone talking with him/her) it 500 times, it will be re-reverted 501...Report it? I don't know if this a case that requires such measure and, if it was, you have seen how i was "listened to" there, so i am through with that one.

Thank you for listening/helping, be safe, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Antonio Longás article for two weeks because of the vandalism. I've also blocked the most recent IP, 189.30.95.254 (talk · contribs · block log), for one week. This kind of editing, especially jumping IP accounts to avoid further vandalism warnings, is not acceptable. — Satori Son 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey SATORI, many thanks 4 your help, hopefully (i doubt it though) this will solve the matter in question.

By the way, could you do the same, in protection (i know there are a lot more articles these IPs have worked on), to another three pieces that have been constantly reverted by the same (i bet my life on it) individual? Here they go: Sergi Busquets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Fernando Navarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Albert Jorquera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I surely would appreciate it.

Many thanks (again) in advance, have a nice weekend(s), VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Sergi Busquets article for a week, but the two others are a little iffy. If it gets worse, please let me know. And, as I'm not around as much any more, you can always file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Satori Son 13:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, see my warning here and the relevant list of socks at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bruno P. Dori. — Satori Son 13:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

I saw that you already entered to revert BRUNO P.DORI'S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori) "contributions", also dropping a message (which i doubt he read, i already said that, like PEP10/PARARUBBAS, maybe they don't even know they have a thing called "talkpage").

As you have very well spotted, he proceeded to simply register and revert everything (i have also done the same, and obviously he will re-revert), so i must say i am TERRIBLY disappointed, i feel like i am facing a storm, trying to keep the rain and snow from entering my house, while being forced to have the windows open at all time...I GIVE UP (at least with this "person"), he either does not know or does not care, so i am talking to a goddamn wall in either case...

As always, thanks a million for helping me, especially given the fact you have such a busy schedule, all i can say is...Wiki-call me if you need help with anything, i will be most happy to oblige.

From PORTUGAL, have a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI my friend, for the last time regarding this issue,

Even after i told you i was going to give up on BRUNO P.DORI, i did an experience and, as i suspected, at least Antonio Longás (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sergi Busquets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Albert Jorquera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ALL REVERTED, with nothing said in edit summaries, in about 3 minutes. Obviously, the article's talk pages are all blank, did you think he was going to pay you (or me, or BANRAY) any attention? Like i said, i give up with this (insert insult here) and, soon will give up to on PEP-PARARUBBAS.

Whatever you decide is cool by me, thanks for the input as always, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. If you happen to stay on top of this, please let me know if they start up under their various IP addresses (see here). If so, I will implement a range block. — Satori Son 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI, more bad news,

BRUNO P.DORI, with this account name, has returned to his disruptions after his ban expired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori) Oh well, so much for teamwork with some "people"...

Have a nice week, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

Sigh indeed, my friend: BRUNO P.DORI, his ban having been lifted, returned, doing what he was not to do, albeit in disguise: IP nº189.7.178.166 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.7.178.166), the rest of the articles i have already worked on (with your precious help) and he has reverted are OK by now.

As far as PEP10/PARARUBBAS, both accounts (one obviously, because it's (thank god, or thank SATORI) blocked) seem at rest so far. I will let you know if i find out anonymous accounts with same modus operandi.

Hope your weekend is fine so far, a friendly salute from Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. I've also implemented a short range block and semi-protected another article. Extremely tiresome... — Satori Son 15:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My wiki-friend SATORI, BAD news,

Although he has been wounded (short-range block), it was not a fatal shot, because BRUNO P.DORI (now under the IP 200.96.99.194, "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.96.99.194), keeps engaged in this futile edit war, instead of engaging in good old-fashioned team work.

I reverted the unprotected piece that was attacked (Albert Jorquera, he "worked" on others, as listed in the annex above), would not be surprised if, as i send you this message, it has already been re-reverted...Pityful.

As always, ty very much for your help, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week and extended the main account block to one month for block evasion. Thanks. — Satori Son 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pep10/Pararubbas again

SATORI my man, just spotted this for you,

PEP10/PARARUBBAS has returned to active, doing guess what? There you go...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Pereira_(Portuguese_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=257327999

Hope the right measures are taken, take care, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Blocked for 1 month. Next block will likely be indefinite, which essentially amounts to being banned if no other admin lifts it. Please let me know if the Pararubbas (talk · contribs) account becomes active again. — Satori Son 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SATORI, hope is all is fine by you, VASCO here,

upon browsing Rio Ave FC (Portuguese football club)'s article, i found 2 IP addresses for PEP10/PARARUBBAS. I am sure it is "our man", because in some edits in these accounts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.4.14.65 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.4.94.151), i recognize the same Modus Operandi: gluing sentences and APPALLING English. Incredibly in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristian_Mart%C3%ADnez), external link was not removed but, take my honest word on this, it's them, 100% sure.

Have a nice week at all levels, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And here, as you can see, the external link and references WERE REMOVED. Any more proof needed? I reckon not, my friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Livio_Prieto&diff=prev&oldid=257777182) - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll file a checkuser request when I get a chance later today. — Satori Son 15:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser came back "likely". Based on that result, the identical nature of the edits, and the fact that this disruption has been going on for six months now, I have indefinitely blocked both accounts. Essentially, this user is banned unless and until they are unblocked by an administrator. — Satori Son 16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A request

Sorry to drop in on you again SATORI,

I need a (very small) wiki-favour: In ELISEU PEREIRA DOS SANTOS' article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliseu_Pereira_dos_Santos), while improving the "piece" everywhere, i was left at the end of it all with a strange message (not on my talk page, in the article itself), seems there is a mixup with the DEFAULTSORT. I have already tipped BANRAY, three days ago, maybe you can have a look, i would greatly appreciate it, nothing like a work (completely) well done.

Many thanks in advance, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken care by BANRAY, thanks for everything though, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation

SATORI, VASCO here,

Just two words: THANK YOU.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, where are you from? I have never asked that in our interactions...

Keep up the good work, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, but I'm really just trying to be a good volunteer here at the Project.

I'm based in the US, but spend some time in the UK and travel a great deal throughout North and Central America. — Satori Son 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption - BRUNO P.DORI

Hi there SATORI, VASCO here,

Someone lifted the protection on some articles the person i am about to refer to previously worked on. Result? BRUNO P. DORI returned, now with the IP 189.73.81.145 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.73.81.145), and did some "contributions".

Take care, Happy Christmas from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And here is another IP from our favorite "fella" these days: 189.73.82.35 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.73.82.35)

Ty very much in advance, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a little and issued a short range block for the new IP range he's using. Thanks for the updates. — Satori Son 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that you already entered Albert Jorquera's article but, in case you did not notice, this IP (189.30.104.203, "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.30.104.203) is also BRUNO P.DORI, bet my life on it!

His MODUS OPERANDI has changed slightly: he stopped inserted the word "YOUTH" in youth clubs, but continues to enlarge INFOBOX when it is not necessary, re-reverting any change we might do in a matter of minutes, with ZERO said in ANY edit summary whatsoever. That, not to speak about this continuous IP changing.

HAPPY XMAS to you and yours, from Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I already blocked that one yesterday. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, and Merry Christmas to you as well. — Satori Son 21:24, 23 December 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.