User talk:SAT85

Welcome!

Hello, SAT85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Dependent statement, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JL 09 _^q?c 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dependent statement

I have nominated Dependent statement, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dependent statement. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JL 09 _^q?c 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Man, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please stop removing that template without consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. I gave the following explanation in the edit summary: "Wikipedia discourages the use of disclaimers. This one might give the incorrect impression that the obscenity is officially sanctioned." Also see my elaboration at the bottom of the Talk:Man page. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben Dawid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A case of disruptive paranoia, not sockpuppetry, as per the outcome.SAT85 SAT85 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, a case of genuinely wondering if we were being gamed by another set of sockpuppets at that article, which thankfully turned out to not be the case. If it was unfounded or sketchy, a clerk wouldn't have authorized it nor a checkuser actually looked into it. Please curb your current line of posting. I apologize for how far that went, but per the actual situation, I had genuine concerns. Happy editing! Heiro 05:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but if you folks had focussed on the issue at hand--whether there are in fact some good reasons for giving that exhibitionist par excellence at Man his marching orders--rather than digging into our IPs and checking where they geolocate to, there would have been nothing to worry about. Anyway, no harm done. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, if we folks had focused on the issue? We focused on the issue, and a policy based consensus was reached on the issue. The digging into IP locations and contrib history was undertaken after you showed up at several editors talk pages asking them to recuse themselves from further involvement with the dispute because you felt they were some how over-involved in the dispute. You seem to focus on this one area, to force you moral views into the project. Myself and the other editor, we edit hundreds of articles, many disparate subjects. In fact, the only time the other editor and I have ever even crossed paths is in another ANI posted matter, concerning an editor with an extremist political agenda. There are some of us here who actually care about the future and the direction of the project, especially regarding censorship and agenda driven editing. If you hadn't so vociferously asked for me to recuse myself, I wouldn't have given you a second thought, but it made me suspicious so I looked to see what was there. Now, the issue over at Talk:Man is pretty much laid to rest for now, as several other editors have commented, pushing this issue again so soon would be unwise, (not a threat this is just friendly advice). Any actual policy reasons for making the changes you want would have been brought forth by now. From here forward, I'm planning on keeping out of this as much as is possible, but if you keep pushing at Talk:Man as I suspect you might, the community at large there will deal with the situation. I suggest if you want to stay on here as an editor, diversify your edits and leave that issue rest for awhile. At this point, no good can come from pushing against the consensus recently reached. I hope you take my advice, we need to good people here, although you seem to be ideologically opposed to me LOL, but if you tough ift out it could be worth it. Heiro 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Some good points, though I have to say that a number of quite cogent policy reasons have been adduced for the removal of the photo: for example, no professional encyclopaedia would have such an image on a non-anatomical page like Man, which triggers this policy. Then there's the three depictions further down, which have all the necessary anatomical details, thus triggering WP:PROFANE (a guideline, admittedly, rather than a policy, but still supported by community consensus). And that's all before we start talking about how man would normally be encountered in the real world, and asking why we get a sensible lead image in Hermit Crab, but cannot get one here... but I have to be a pragmatist, and I agree that pursuing the point at this stage is not likely to be very productive. Take care, SAT85 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)