User talk:Seaphoto/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Seaphoto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The reason why i blanked this page is because it was overly vandalized, to a point it needs to be rewritten completelly.Leopardmon (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, we can simply revert back to the last good version. If you know where that was let me know, otherwise I will look. Please do not blank the page again. Thank you. Seaphoto^Talk 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it to an old unvandalized revision. Sorry for the trouble.Leopardmon (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your edit! Seaphoto^Talk 04:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been vandalized over and over in the last 2 days. Any way to temporarily lock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.219.136 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have requested temporary page protection for the article. Seaphoto^Talk 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 173.180.219.136 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

i think that the Coat of Arms of the Philippines.svg was unappropriated for the Congress of the Philippines. because the Congress of the Philippines has its own Logo and please respect the Emblem of the Philippines by not putting into the Congress of the Philippines, in such you do not share the wrong information. I hope that you understand what I want to express to you. please stop editing wrong information through the article Congress of the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.2.91 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that you did not state that as the reason for removing it, you instead claimed it was a non-free image, and impersonated another account,DASHbot, while removing it. Your credibility is not very good at this moment, sorry. Seaphoto^Talk 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Exuse me, Mr Seaphoto sir, but the recent edits I have made on wikipedia's cryptozoology page are truthful. You are accusing me of vandalism and of violating wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. However, wikipedia has violated it's own neutral point of view policy by presenting blatantly biased information on the subject of cryptozoology in favor of the skeptical point of view. A case in point is an edit to the cryptozoology page which declares cryptozoology to be a "pseudoscience." The very fact that my edits were deleted while this "rash dictum" was not, clearly proves that wikipedia doesnot suscribe to a "neutral point of view" when it comes to the subject of cryptozoology. Not only is much of this skeptical information misleading, it is also unfair and flat out false. There is indeed much physical evidence in support of the existence of cryptids including, hair samples, fecal samples, DNA, and footprint casts just to name a few. Therefore I believe my recent edit accusing wikipedia of bias is indeed valid until appropriate changes are made to this website, which truthfully incorporate, as you say, a "neutral point of view." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.14 (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting because you are putting your opinion about Wikipedia in the article, not for any edits you made on the subject itself. There is a talk page associated with each article; that is the appropriate place to discuss the article, resolve conflicts and discuss any issues regarding it's quality. Seaphoto^Talk 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is regarding my latest entry to Minecraft, which I, LeagueX, added some more stuff in there, so readers could also get a better understanding of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeagueX (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot copyright additions to Wikipedia. It is inappropriate to take credit for them in the article space in any form (such as "by so and so". If you would like to re-write the list in a more encyclopedic tone, (without the comments) then it has a better chance of standing. I hope this helps. Seaphoto^Talk 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the correction to Ordeal by Innocence regarded as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you vandalising the correction to Ordeal by Innocence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read your talk page, it take a few moments to make corrections...Seaphoto ^Talk 07:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, Thanks for stopping the vandalism on the World Affairs Conference article. Keep up the good work.

Aasdfghjkl1 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, thank you for your contributions to the article, including the restoration of both sponsoring schools, which I missed. Seaphoto^Talk 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For the anti-vandalism Barnstar! N419 BH 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		YOu know why you have got --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for all the clean up work you do!!!

DocOfSoc 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! Seaphoto^Talk 04:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for reverting that vandal at my userpage :). Red Flag on the Right Side 04:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The least I could do considering I messed up the first time I reverted your edit LOL. Sorry for the confusion. Seaphoto^Talk 05:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just found this is my messages:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Foursome (golf) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. SeaphotoTalk 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)"

...nothing to do with me, squire...Martyn Smith (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what that is about, I don't see it in your talk page history. Well anyway, if it doesn't apply, feel free to ignore it <grin> --Seaphoto^Talk 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When are you going to use Huggle again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I had an issue with my computer that prevented connecting with Huggle. It' sorted out now, but I've been busy with other projects. The coming of Winter should give me a bit more time for Wikipedia. Seaphoto^Talk 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you also revert vandalism on my talk page if somebody vandalizes it? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be glad to if I am online - I just started using Huggle again, and experience lockups pretty regularly. I will add your page to my regular watchlist too. Seaphoto^Talk 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I added your talk page to watchlist too! WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No. S H6 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of User:Wayne Olajuwon, I have granted your user page semiprotection. Given that you are a prolific vandal reverter, and that virtually every IP edit to your userpage is vandalism, I think this discretion is appropriate. Of course if you don't wish for it to be protected, let me know. WilliamH (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate your doing that, as sometimes a bit sneaks in that I don't catch right away. I'm glad you left the talk page unprotected though, as I feel that should be open to all, regardless of vandalism. Seaphoto^Talk 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right - user talk pages are rarely semiprotected, however, in the event that they are, it is legitimate to have a separate unprotected page linked conspiciously from them to allow messages from non-autoconfirmed users. WilliamH (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Wow! I can't believe what all the reverts you're getting out there on Huggle are mostly unbeatable right now! Man, you're fast! Keep up the good work! WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne! I am trying to keep a closer eye these days when I get a chance. Seaphoto^Talk 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome Seaphoto, and good luck at what you're doing! You also deserve a treat.

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What he said is not exactly a lie... but it is just not verifiable.” T_eLeS (T_{@ L C S}) 06:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, one of the things I enjoy most about reverting vandalism is that it quite often it is good for a laugh. Have a great day! Seaphoto^Talk

Why has my disambiguation redirect been removed? I was looking for information on the penile bone and found information on Scott Bakula, which I did not want; I think the note is useful. 192.17.109.252 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, I have read WP:VAND in addition to your vandalism page. Since the content I added was legitimately useful to users such as myself who might have gotten to the wrong page, and it had the best intentions, I believe I was justified in editing the page and that it was inappropriately tagged as vandalism. Since I don't want to violate WP:3RR by getting into a rollback war, I'd appreciate if you responded here or on my talk page. 192.17.109.252 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Baculum is sufficiently different than Bakula, so no disambiguation page is needed. Wikipedia would become a mess if every possible misspelling of a subject was disambiguated. Seaphoto^Talk 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But Bakula is a possible mispelling of Bacula, the plural of Baculum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.117.191 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but for someone looking anatomical information is unlikely to search for the plural. It's just not needed on a Biography of Living Persons Page. If you disagree state your case on the talk page for Scott Bakula and see if a consensus develops for it's inclusion. Seaphoto^Talk 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Nice job tonight on Huggle, Seaphoto! Just continue to show off your vandalism reverting skills Huggle-style and you'll be receiving more barnstars in no time! :) WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, you are pretty speedy yourself! Seaphoto^Talk 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am, Seaphoto! Is there a place where you can put your barnstars, Seaphoto! WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is where I put them - eventually - LOL Seaphoto^Talk 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You may put it in there if you want, lol. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I assumed that your second reversion here was an error or a system problem, and I've re-reverted it. Hope this is OK. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I reverted on purpose, as the editor did put a reference in the edit summary, which took it out of the realm of vandalism and into POV pushing, as there was a kernel of truth in there. I bookmarked the article and put in a line about the controversy and a link to the newspaper article this morning. Thanks for looking out! Seaphoto^Talk 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Gotcha, and sorry. I just saw all that outrageous generalization and PoV about Kenya and thought "wow". Your sort-out, though, is very very nice. Good catch. Sorry to go blundering in! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, had I seen that pattern, I probably would have done the same thing. Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 02:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Rikhav-Infotech, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikhav-Infotech until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alice.michelle16 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you reverted changes for a user back to mine on the page India at the 2010 Asian Games. There has been a lot of vandalism on that page and our sincere efforts to keep the page up to date is getting tougher. Please, if you can, revert the page to original and ban that user who is making all this rubbish changes. Amboeing747 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am using a tool that allows me to revert obviously vandalism quickly but is not good for subtle types - such as changing the name of medal winners in an ongoing competition. Edits for that page are coming in quickly and from a variety of editors without any sources, so it is hard to know which are vandalism. You can request page protection here if you think it is getting out of control, but right now it is looking like you and a few other editors are staying on top of it. Seaphoto^Talk 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system. Yaris678 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reverts on my sub-pages. See you around! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 05:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for revert on my talk page. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! Seaphoto^Talk 05:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bkerensa you reverted the edit, however http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-15/bay-area/17511693_1_bomb-threats-first-threat-threat-authorities is a credible source. I understand it was removed in the past (apparently someone thought it was irrelevant?), however he is doing the same thing now. Cos he ain't getting his way, he is DDoS'ing the netgamers IRC network, as well as our websites and spamming our users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelen Shar (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That kind of comment doesn't belong on a User page. If the IP is indeed that of the editor, then it falls within the "Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit" section of WP:UP. If not, it is someone vandalizing a User page. Whatever problem you have with the editor in other venues, please pursue them somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. Seaphoto^Talk 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I'll just go back to blackening his name elsewhere on the internet. Only reason i did it here is because its a high result in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelen Shar (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...the cleanup was appreciated. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Seaphoto^Talk 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my stuff?!?! I am not vandalizing nor self promoting. Notice there are no links to my site?!? I looked up my company and there were no entries. It was a blank page, so I added my company details, history and my background, in no point making an advertisement. There are thousands of other company information on this site. Don't you have anything better to do than remove peoples information? You can remove it all you want and I will continue to repost it. I sit at the computer all day so we'll see who can undo the fastest. You need to get a life, Hey maybe I can offer you a job as I can see you are definitely dedicated to a site that is open to the public to edit, I'd imagine you would be a really good worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.86.156 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps this page will help you understand the policy on self promotion. The page you are editing, Ricketts is not a blank page, but a disambiguation page. We place those pages when there are multiple subjects using the same name, so that users who search for a term can find what they are looking for easier. Even if you or your company are indeed notable (and notability must be established using verifiable third part sources), a new page would be made for it rather than using the disambiguation page. Although there are indeed thousands of companies listed on Wikipedia, they must meet a notability standard for inclusion - if you think about it there are millions of companies in the world, and billions of individuals. Without some sort of threshold each would want a page. In passing, I note that neither my company or myself has a Wikipedia page. I hope that answers your concerns. Seaphoto^Talk 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A friend was viewing the article and he didn't think I could immediately change it. So I wrote "Hi Stoley!" and saved the page and told him to hit refresh. I was going to revert the change but you (your bot?) did before I could. C0h3n (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I use a tool that allows me to see and revert changes very quickly. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I encourage you to find an article that you find interesting, and see if you can improve it - it can be a lot of fun and very rewarding. Seaphoto^Talk 21:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for reverting my talk page! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. That contribution on my part was bang out of order and I am glad you corrected it. Nollaig Shona Duit! --86.45.143.186 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Apparently, the user who was harassing my on YouTube just moved onto Wikipedia after I blocked him on YouTube! NHRHS2010 \| Happy Holidays! 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 04:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Slakr's Acetone Award

For excellent effort in reverting vandalism, you are hereby awarded some acetone to help scrub out the toughest of attempts at turning articles to mush. Plus, if you ever need to get nail polish off, it'll help with that too. :P

Thanks for helping out. =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Seaphoto^Talk 04:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brian Nolan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Did someone call out to all Wikipedia users to vandalize the eBay article? I mean, what's going on here? I listed it at RFPP. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It happens from time to time on some articles. Once the RFPP is granted we can go back to the last good reversion. In the meantime, reverting and warning can at least ID the IP's involved. Cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Huggggggggg! Joyous Noel! !!!!!DocOfSoc (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Joy! Have a great New Year! Seaphoto^Talk 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Woah - holy moly batman - this guy is the wiki editor who never sleeps! I made my first attempt at 'vandalism' today and it barely lasted a couple of hours! What a guy - even sent me a cordial message... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio2k (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

uh oh, looks like my wikipedia career is coming to a quick end...

Merry★* 。 • ˚ ˚ •。★Christmas★ 。* 。* ° 。 ° ˚* _Π_____*。*˚★ 。* 。*。 • ˚ ˚ •。★ ˚ ˛ •˛•*/______/~＼。˚ ˚ ˛★ 。* 。*★ 。* 。* ˚ ˛ •˛• ｜田田｜門｜ ˚ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio2k (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Any special reason why you not only removed the accurate and citable additions I made to the drooling page, and accused me of vandalism? What you did is vandalism, because you removed accurate information. Adding information is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.91.55 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than threaten me with being banned, you should sue me for libel. Except then the fact that truth is on my side would play a role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.91.55 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm waiting for the apology. What I put on the drooling page was true, and you both removed it and accused me of vandalism. Making an accusation of vandalism is actually libelous, but since I don't know who you actually are you can hide behind anonymity and are safe to do what you please. So, please check the facts, and when you have done so you ought to correct the drooling page and apologize for your unfounded accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.91.55 (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For helping out on my user talk. I'm fairly tolerant regarding folks posting there, but some things just need to go. See ya 'round Tiderolls 13:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure - it was a busy Christmas on Wikipedia! Seaphoto^Talk 17:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalized page back to mine :) It was my first contribution and I felt proud and all being I just started college and felt all smart lol. Keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemjunkie (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, thank you for your contribution, and I hope you improve other articles. Seaphoto^Talk 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Think I should just put it under semi-protect until this is verified or passes? Did the pending review thing in the interest of taking the lightest touch. What do you think? --Kbh3^rd talk 01:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Think I should just put it under semi-protect until this is verified or passes? Did the pending review thing in the interest of taking the lightest touch. What do you think? --Kbh3^rd talk 01:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just a 24 hour semi-protect, unless a verifiable source for her death surfaces. I scanned CNN, the Philadelphia radio station, and Google news and can find no news of this; mostly twitter feeds which are fanning this. Seaphoto^Talk 01:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

for acting against vandalism to my user page. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 06:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the commercial link in LaVonne Sallee. I thought I had combed them all out before posting, but I was getting bleary eyed towards the end of my writing. I feel you have saved me from some embarrassment.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! The list could probably use some additional trimming, as there are quite a few links there; if you are more familiar with the subject I will leave it to you. Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, I may have lost some of my perspective while writing this article. I do believe that a visual artist is best served by showing examples of their work; a purely textual description of visual art is like singing about architecture. If you can winnow out duplications, it would improve the article. Also, if you catch any more commercial links that slipped by me, please zap them.

However, how about showing good faith in me, even in the edit summaries?

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about visual artists, and I would never recommend removing all the gallery links. The idea behind links on Wikipedia is to give a flavor of the subject, and guidance to those who wish to explore the subject in depth (as well as verify the facts presented in the article). They are not intended to comprehensive. Of course, the art is getting just the right balance, which is achieved through discussion and consensus. Within those guidelines I have every confidence you will do a fine job with the article. Seaphoto^Talk 20:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Any user, including the article creator, can remove a prod tag. It can not be replaced afterwards. We'll have to nominate the article at AfD now. LadyofShalott 04:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This had a speedy deletion tag on it, not a PROD, let me check the history and see who took that down, I thought it was the article's creator. Thanks for the heads-up.

The article creator did remove the speedy tag once. Then I declined the speedy as not being appropriate. The prod removals are allowed. LadyofShalott 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it should have been tagged G1 as a partisan opinion, not A10, but since the author didn't remove the tags I will revert the warnings. Thank you for catching this. Seaphoto^Talk 04:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It had both a speedy tag and a prod at one point. I didn't tag it G1 because G1 is only for patent nonsense and it excludes partisan screeds. A10 seemed to fit the best since these issues are addressed elsewhere, though I'll admit not very much in the article I linked. In any event, AfD ought to take care of it fairly quickly.

You're right, I am not having a good night LOL. I should have read that more closely. In the long run the Afd will work, as it always does. Sorry about that! Seaphoto^Talk 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WAYNESLAM has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

I want to say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Seaphoto, even though Christmas has past. WAYNESLAM 02:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Seaphoto^Talk 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, Seaphoto, and thanks! WAYNESLAM 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was severely disappointed by your reverting Three Mile Island. I was a physics student at UOM during the emergency and remember many discussions regarding the tax credit. I also had a part time job at the TV new station WTOP Channel 9, and remember its discussion during multiple news programs. The importantce of this item has apparently been lost as I have looked for it but been unable to find a reference, even in the official report. I am not sure why you have elected yourself the sole source of wisdom for this article in Wikipedia, but your change his is misplaced and removes a key piece of information that has been missed by Perrow and others in their analysis of the TMI accident. One of the primary reasons the plant was up and running was because of an incorrectly designed tax credit. If it had been prorated rather than all or nothing the plant might have not been keep running in an unsafe condition. This type of information is indispensible for formulating public policy because it shows that a poorly thought out tax regulation can contribute to an industrial accident. Therefore, you have substantially hurt and reduced the value of the article.

Apparently, direct knowledge of an event is not acceptable to you. According to your logic, you would delete a 1st person description of an event because it lacked a published source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.2.221 (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core policies is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly right - we would remove 1st person descriptions. Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source, but an encyclopedia built of verifiable facts. For more information, please see this page Wikipedia:No original research. Seaphoto^Talk 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Was wondering if you felt like helping with User:68.11.77.254. He/she has been repeatedly editing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to remove mentions of the word "Church" and adding other unsourced commentary that pose NPOV concerns, such as "the Mormon religion, trying to become known as a church." See for example this edit. I have reverted a couple times and left notes on his talk page, asking him to take it to the article's talk page for discussion before making such sweeping changes, but gotten no response and no change in his behavior. Since this isn't clear-cut vandalism, I don't want to get into an edit war with him, but it seems clear that his POV is that the Mormon Church is not a church, he really wants their entry to reflect that, and he doesn't feel like engaging in a discussion of any kind. Any thoughts. Thanks! Zachlipton (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid the last edit and suggesting the editor review NPOV and 3RR policies before resuming, hopefully that will give them pause for thought. Seaphoto^Talk 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Mr. Seaphoto,

Just to tell you, I wrote the article completely, it's not copied from anything. To give you some background, I'm a retired officer from both the Canadian and British armies with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. I have a Bachelor of Music degree in Theory and Composition, Licentiate of Music from Trinity College or Music, London, in Voice (LTCL), an Associate of Music from the Royal College of Music, London, in Conducting (ARCM), and I'm an Honour Graduate of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall,the leading Military School of Music in the world, as a Military Director of Music, which I served as for 14 years. I spent 10 years in the Entertainment Industry in Britain, worked in every facet of the business, including the music of 5 films, had a leading role in the most famous of BBC's TV shows, toured Australia and New Zealand for 3 years with it, went in to music education, and when I retired from that I became an arts journalist for 17 years, retiring in 2006. I still conduct bands and orchestras in Canada, though I'm living in the warmth of Thailand. And I wrote a novel called Debut for a Spy which was published. I think you'll have to admit that I know about music, both civilian and military, and I can write, having done so for a living for 17 years, plus a year on my novel. I've never met Jack Kopstein, but I've known about him for years. He deserves to be more widely known for what he has done for military music past and present. If you have any further nit-picks, why don't you email me before you make any more clumsy edits like you did in the intro, which I fixed by putting it back the way I wrote it. You didn't even check how you left it. Bad, bad, bad! Contact me at: harrycurrie@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran56 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well that is why the prose was so polished, congratulations on that. As a published author you might appreciate why we don't want to violate the copyright on published works, hence the question. I am sorry you found my suggestions nick-picking, I was trying to help guide you regarding Wikipedia policies on social networks and an encyclopedic, neutral tone. You might also find the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest useful as you appear to have been editing your own Wikipedia article extensively. Happy editing. Seaphoto^Talk 08:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Seaphoto

Sorry if I sounded a bit terse, but I hadn't even finished editing and setting up, and I found the instructions for entering References so complex and seemingly illogical that I decided not to bother, and they've been left the way I stuck them in, even if it's not the proper Wikipedia way. As well, twice I lost the whole thing, though once was because of a one-second power drop. I was getting a bit exasperated. And by the way, just to be a nit-picker myself, the word is nit-picker, not nick-picker, and it means "minute and usually unjustifird criticism." (Merriam-Webster)! But I'm only kidding you, though you didn't fix the grammar when you edited the intro section! 182.53.195.35 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about what you didn't like?

P.S. With all due respect, the removal of my post has a -555 rating which should tell you something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strde (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, My mistake. On my LCD screen, your lower case use of the splc instead of SPLC appeared to be a racial epithet due to the subject in question. My apologies, I have reverted the changes and warning. Seaphoto^Talk 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert my edit about GoDaddy and conflict between on one hand making charitable contributions to charities for disabled children and at the same time hosting a hate site (I am a parent of a child with Down Syndrome) which targets people with disabilities? I can understand the earlier reversal by "Morgankevinj huggle" because my initial edit lacked a citation, which I have now added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox - this is not the place for opinion, original research or advocacy. Please see WP:SOAP for more information If you can cite a reliable source for the criticism - such as a published newspaper column or other reliable media source, that would be a different matter. Please read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before reverting back, else you fall afoul of the three revert rule. That said, I agree with your the site in question is reprehensible, but this is not the place to complain about it. Seaphoto^Talk 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am making a point about the conflict between the public face of GoDaddy and the realism of how they make their money. Why is a published newspaper (which is often the politically motivated opinion of one individual) more reliable than the common sense review of a website? You allow a whole section of self promotion under "Marketing" and further considerable self promotion under "Philanthropy" yet you object to some balance in this view. I don't agree with your view on this, I am happy to reword my comments if you can be specific about the issues that you have. This is not to be confrontational - but why do you have the last word on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. If you disagree with my view, you are free to solicit other peoples opinions on the articles talk page. I don't have an opinion on Go Daddy one way or the other; I just saw the changes you have been making while doing Recent Changes Patrol. Wikipedia is all about reaching consensus, and your chances of having your changes remain largely lay in your ability to persuade, coupled with your understanding of the policies and guidelines we have hammered out over the years. My edits have no more validity than anyone's, but my experience on Wikipedia over the years has given my a pretty good understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Seaphoto^Talk 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I have modified to a single factual, cited comment in the "Marketing" section. The site exists, it it hosted by GoDaddy since 2008 (cited from whois) and I have included a relevant quotation from the site. I hope this meets the necessary criteria, at least to the extent that the rest of the GoDaddy page does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to violate the three revert rule myself, so I won't delete the entry. I understand why you are doing this, but do you realize you are giving that site free publicity? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if your edit is deleted by another editor assuming you are a shill for that site. This is why pushing a particular point of view is tricky, it can have unintended consequences. I would still recommend taking the issue to the discussion page for Go Daddy. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That site has 2000 Facebook fans (we are working getting it shut down - but that's a continuous moving battle which we keep closing them down and they will eventually get bored). I know my employer monitors our wikipedia entry and so I assume that GoDaddy will do the same. I know I am blowing in the wind (or something similar) but with my 7 year old sleeping upstairs I feel I have to do something. I will add something to the talk page. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Friend Award
		I see you have stopped the vandalism bug from biting my User page a couple of times today. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful New Year. ttonyb (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 06:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For handling the vandal who consistently added anti-American text to many elected official's pages, I award Seaphoto the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 05:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that! Seaphoto^Talk 05:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ok about the wrong message. I went ahead and added the hang on tag for that user. Swimnteach (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, my connection has been hiccuping a bit today LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't say "it needs expansion and more references" unless you prove that more sources exist. I've seen this endless loop too many times: an article gets nominated, everyone says "keep but source", the article gets kept but no one ever adds any sources and/or discovers that none exist; it gets re-nominated, everyone says "keep but source" again, it gets kept again, it still doesn't get improved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ALMOST in an edit war on the United Nations. Looking for a 2nd opinion. We are also on the talk page. Talk:United Nations Can you give me you opinion? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is the reason for why my article is marked to delete? I'm new here. I didnt advertise. It is a simple help for a poor documentation of a free software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamantix (talk • contribs) 07:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, just to be clear, my revert was for removing the speedy deletion template instead of putting the hangon underneath it; I was not the one who nominated the article for deletion. Wikipedia policy is that the author of an article cannot remove the speedy deletion template. That said, Wikipedia is not here to provide documentation for software or as a replacement for manuals - please see the section WP:NOTHOWTO for more information on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia presenting verifiable facts on a variety of subjects but it cannot be all things to everyone. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 07:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a little trouble with vandalism over at the List of 1000 Ways to Die episodes article. (The one causing it is User: 65.96.83.43.) Please help. Thank You. --Halls4521 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry I was offline today. It looks like you handled the situation well. One resource you can use more quickly is Administrator intervention against vandalism to report a specific editor - generally this gets dealt with pretty quickly, and is where I make my reports. If more than one IP or editor is vandalizing an article, you can use Requests for page protection. Of course, if I am online I'm happy to help. Seaphoto^Talk 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

WAYNESLAM has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WAYNESLAM 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne! Seaphoto^Talk 05:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome, Seaphoto! WAYNESLAM 16:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would actually read what people are adding before removing it. It appears as though a couple of the links on the British Cuisine page do not in fact offer helpful information whereas the site that I have linked does in fact cite its findings and actually have something to do with British Food, it's history, and usage in America and abroad.68.60.243.140 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)68.60.243.140

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor is it here to promote your site. There are already adequate links on that article, in fact, the last link could probably be removed as well. Seaphoto^Talk 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe I have to waste my time writing to you, but I am wholly astonished and regret that you have made my first expierence of taking part in wikipedia a confusing and unhappy one. I made a comment on a discussion page, the first act I have ever taken on Wikipedia and discovered I had two messages from you. Please do not contact me about editing pages I have not even heard of, please check your facts first. 78.105.199.11 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you are not registered, your contributions are coming from an IP address. There have been previous contributions from that address that constitute vandalism. See . You may have not been the person who did that vandalism, but it did happen from the address you are using. Before attacking an editor you may wish to get your facts straight first. Seaphoto^Talk 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought your idea of correcting those article where the ships are misidentified as battlecruisers to reflect the consensus developed here after years of discussion. I have had one reversion at Battlecruiser#Norwegian campaign. There is a discussion of this at Talk:Battlecruiser#Scharnhorst and Gneisnau (again).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have written a comment in that discussion supporting the change to battleship. Thanks for letting me know. Seaphoto^Talk 05:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for the help with that editor. Appreciate it! Kind regards, Man way 08:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Seaphoto^Talk 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the onslaught of vandalism on my user page and talk page last night. I appreciate it! Kevinmon•talk•trib 17:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for revert the changes of my page that this IP User has did it, please this user is annoying me I must to revert his changes everytime, can you block this ip user? Thankyou --EustaquioAsecas (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will request a semi-protect on your user page for you. Seaphoto^Talk 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. RashersTierney (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful with your accusations and then vandalism of innocent users please. Just because our reverts of vandalism clashed it does not mean you can scatter warnings on my page. Apologies from me for the edit of your user page rather than your talk page - an innocent mistake, I expect your apology by return. Boongie (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it appeared you introduced vandalism to the article. I will remove the warning from your page. Seaphoto^Talk 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Already reverted but now I am being plagued by some other clown connected to you. Good night for me eh. Boongie (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assure you it is nobody connected with me. I am patrolling recent changes which makes my account a bit high profile for vandalism. Seaphoto^Talk 01:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking you might have enough AV barnstars for the time being, and just say, "thanks for your work, Seaphoto." The Interior (Talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thanks, I appreciate that! Seaphoto^Talk 07:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deep reverted the above article - to avoid some distant vandalism. Thought you ought to know. Ian Cairns (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am just patrolling recent changes, the I.P.'s edits were flagged. Seaphoto^Talk 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It IS explained. Read the edit comments. 82.152.218.51 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea to include a summary whenever you edit, particularly when you are removing references or large chunks of data which triggers a flag on recent changes; there was none on the edit I reverted, which is why. Had you explained there, it would have stood. Seaphoto^Talk 18:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I did, twice. After that, I couldn't be bothered, as the other person decided to revert, apparently without reading, and offensively calling my edits "vandalism". 82.152.218.51 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.Seaphoto ^Talk 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

) Let some of the rest of us play with the vandals, too! Well done, you always seem to be one step ahead and I find myself watching you revert rather than helping! Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, that's what happens when my work is closed due to weather. Go for it, time for lunch anyhow! Seaphoto^Talk 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You made a "minor change" to Okemah, Oklahoma; while I agree that it should have been reverted, I do not think a change of over 2000 is minor. Can you explain to me the rules for minor changes?Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, It was a Huggle revert (an automated anti-vandalism tool that patrols recent changes), which are marked as minor as they don't generally add substance to the project. In this case the revert was for a lengthy attack that was completely unsourced and ended with a POV statement. Hope that helps. Seaphoto^Talk 06:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for steadfastly keeping Wikipedia free of vandals this evening. I know you have several of these, but I hope you don't mind another. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, they are always appreciated! Seaphoto^Talk 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; have an awesome evening! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You beat me out in several edits today. I managed to grab one vandalizing your talk page before you did! Well deserved! Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for that, and the Barnstar! Have a good day. Seaphoto^Talk 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to think about semi-protecting your talk page since you're getting a lot of vandalism lately. WayneSlam 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, I prefer to leave my talk page open when reverting; the silly comments don't bother me, and if someone has a legitimate concern I feel I should be accessible. I appreciate the concern! Seaphoto^Talk 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Seaphoto. It's your choice, though. It's been very busy out there with all that vandal fighting. WayneSlam 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my page.

Please take a look at the wiki page King's College School, Cambridge. I edited the page to remove the detailed description of a grudge by Kitty101423 against the school.

You reverted my edit.

I honestly think you are wrong in reverting my edit. Kitty101423 may or may not have a reasonable case against the school (I don't know, I am not acquainted with the details).

But it is simply asking for trouble to allow users to report their grudges in an online encyclopedia.

The material posted by kitty101423 should be examined by a solicitor. If she has a reasonable case, she should take the school to court. The material has no place on wikipedia

OK, let me examine the article in more detail and put the bare facts into the story. It was reported in the times so it is a notable assertion. My suggestion was made in the hope to break the chain of reverting. Seaphoto^Talk 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Seaphoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicsDoS (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I condensed the article down - let me know if you think any improvements should be made (or feel free to do so yourself) Seaphoto^Talk 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have done a great job. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicsDoS (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure as to why you completely removed the article link that was added years ago after I made an edit. I simply edited it to update to a new URL, as the old one no longer existed and was therefore invalid, which I am sure you agree is better than having a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruleo (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for self promotion; that edit was part of a series you did linking a particular website. For more information, please see WP:PROMOTION. Thank you Seaphoto^Talk 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but as I said, that particular link already existed as a broken link and actually still exists in several of the foreign language versions of the wikipedia pages; none of which I added. Fair enough if you want to remove them, but I would have thought it's better to update broken links than leave them as they are. Anyway, not really fussed.... there are quite a few that I know of, submitted ages ago by other people, but I'll just leave them as broken links as it seems to be more hassle than it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruleo (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt he read your reply. He removed my warning from his talk page. I suspect he's the same vandal that's been blocked. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, worth a try! Seaphoto^Talk 04:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but thank you for your help. I appreciate it. His edits did make me scratch my head, so like you I had visited the site before reverting. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

why, you're like a bill hicks for the internet age. so cutting! Kaini (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for not particularly clever vandalism. Seaphoto^Talk 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

oh crap, i'm really sorry! this was meant for the anon, not you! mea culpa. Kaini (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I was sorta shaking my head that an established editor would leave a comment like that, and wrote it off to having a bad night. Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*embarrassed* not a bad night - but definitely a late night. time for bed, i think! Kaini (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I explained the reason why I felt that the page 'All India Management Association' need not be deleted in its talk page. Since I'm new to this I'd also request you to check how that particular page violated copyrights. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.8.170 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the text of the page was copied, word for word, from the two cited sources, which have copy-written their content. My edit was for the removal of the AfD tags however, since it is disruptive to remove them until the issue is settled. Seaphoto^Talk 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont believe that it was anything rude, offensive or untruthful. Im not sure if you understood my intentions.

You placed an image of a communist statue on the page with a false caption. I am not sure what your intention was, but if it was a political statement of some kind it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any event. Seaphoto^Talk 08:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of the producer of the film. The movie has not been released or showcased anywhere. We only showcased a 8 min promo in Berlin which was very well received. Any controversy you might have heard of or read of is being created by the media to promote their readership. Our movie is based on promoting the message of world peace. It does not glorify Hitler or has any hate against anyone. He is not shown as being a supporter for Indian freedom. The movie showcases two different ideologies and brings out the message of world peace.

I would request you to consider the recent edits we made or delete this page as the information which is being provided is not completely true.

Best,

Gaurav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.114.92 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern was not that you were editing the article, but rather removing entire sections without explaining why, or using a summary that did not reflect the actual content of the edit. Once you did, you will note I ceased reverting. Since your are connected with the movie, I would urge you to read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest so your contributions have the best chance to stand. Good luck with the film. Seaphoto^Talk 18:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You may need to leave your notes on his talkpage, I doubt he returns to mine after leaving his notes. I reportoed him to AIV, 3RR is next. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am watching the page in question now, so will leave further comments there as needed. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Seaphoto. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:diannaa/tb}} template.

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your removal of Suhaib Webb's official twitter page (account? I have no idea what the terminology is... But I digress.) from the article on him. WP:ELNO#10 doesn't apply in this case because, as it is stated at the top of the section, links to official pages of the article's subject are an exception. If, however, you wish to revert my reversion, go ahead :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read it carefully, you will find that only applies if the subject has no official website and is using the twitter (or other social media site). Generally, the main website will have links to the other social media sites, so it is redundant. Twitter and those sites are not considered encyclopedic. For more information, please see this link Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 06:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, my bad. I have reverted myself accordingly :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I had to look it up myself again just to be sure nothing had changed! Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 06:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've only read the policies about external linking—I'm not an EL expert—so I've never read the essays that document common practice. My goof (insert embarrassed face here) Happy editing to you too! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to review the improvements made since you commented on the originally unsourced two-sentence stub that was nominated, and perhaps consider modifying your !vote in light of the work so far done. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree you did a very good job with that article, and I've changed my vote to keep. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be the first to grant that as originally nominated, the article did not seem to offer much hope. I was happy to improve it. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For fixing my own user page. Now get Oyashi77 out of my page! FRE YWA 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will watch your user and talk page for a while and revert any nonsense; would you like your page partially protected against vandalism? Seaphoto^Talk 07:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto,

I did not spam the Roger Friedman page. On the contrary, this page was the victim of vandalization. Information that was not worthy of an encyclopedia was constantly being added in a slanted fashion. I cleaned up the inappropriate information.

I understand your concern, but do know that I was previously an intern @ the Wikimedia Foundation and do properly understand how to use Wikipedia. Additionally, I currently work in the Entertainment Industry and understand the conflict being caused by 2 users attempting to disgrace Roger Friedman. Thank you very much for helping to keep Wikipedia safe :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the BBC source, and it is indeed a noteworthy and notable incident in the writer's career. It appears that you are trying to whitewash the article to remove it, and that just doesn't work. Additionally, there appears to be some sockpuppetry going on; I will look into that. Lastly, please sign your comments on talk pages so we know who we are talking to. Seaphoto^Talk 04:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't revert back far enough on this article. I think I've seen you not revert back far enough on another article the other day also. Might be useful to take a look at the history in future.

Otherwise, cheers, and thanks for your work. -danjel (talk to me) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the article in question, and don't see any obvious vandalism. When I am using Huggle, I generally revert and warn the last editor, to get a flag on their editing that day, and then scan the article for anything else that is obvious, and if necessary, revert to an earlier version. That is why you will often see two or more reversions within a short time from me. If I miss anything please let me know and I will fix it as soon as I can - thanks for checking! Seaphoto^Talk 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Appologies . I'm beging to appreciate how Wikipedia is able to - through voluteers keep everything clean. I really want to resolve this amicably.I've copied what we wrote on my talk board plus that I got from Jackfork below yours .. the two I received remarks from. I want to do this right. This is for real. I & my late step father are for real .. and all the blood sweat and tears & years that went into this - even ridiculed ( out of the box thinking ) many a time was for real... this real history the world needs to know. Like Edisen, our light Bulb moment has arrived. One way or another, if not on Wikipedia, I intend on telling it .. weather CNN or some documentary ... the world will here about it. Someone will give me a brake.) I just realised I should have used Sanbox or some other means of organising as all my changes must have created a real buz ..appologies. Though it appears conflicting, I'm pointing out facts. Facts that should be no problem to confirm are Reliable. I gave ie.. Launch date .... are you wanting my patent links ? ..what do you or anyone else who might see it different need. I've read information about Notability. Perhaps I shoulds have written an entirely new article ... (I'm new ). In the mean time I still fail to see how, when the idea is to inform, cause if I were someon looking for information on what a mudflap is I'd want to know what mudflap catagories, involving forms, shapes, applications ... including sizes and history. I've tried to posture as if someone else were writing ... admitedly, carried away in begining, please ... let me know what works for you ? Not being able to place this anywhere on wikpedia would be a diservice to them and all the years my father and I have now pour'd into this .. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote a product or service; please read Wikipedia policy on self promotion. In addition, these edits violate Conflcit of Interest policies, since you are connected with the company. SeaphotoTalk 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Seaphoto .. so a friend who's not connected to my company inputs the same information, information the readership want to know about the availablility of historical revolutionary technology and its OK ?Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't agree with the way Wikipedia is organized. I reverted your last edit without a warning as I don't want to see your account banned for spam. Please read the sections I linked before editing again. Thank you for your cooperation. SeaphotoTalk 05:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Really ?? It's late, I've been at this all day...it looks like, because theres no real rules ( all rules in a system like this are debatable) it seems, if not with you, someone else will come along and I'll be debating this stuff from here to eternity Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC). This is not a word I've invented or a dance move .. It's my life .. this is not spam .. I really need a brake here .. there can't be much more to cut out. If it were spam I have given up a long time ago .. Why don't you graciously let me know what I need to cut out ?... You're volunteering already for the beterment of humanity I hope... We're talking here about breaking news history dealing with green technology and peoples saftey the world wants to know about .. hope by some miracle the group change thier mind ... take careAvgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Mudflap. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jackfork, Just signed on today .. much to learn. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Appreciate the point you made. I shortened everything up ..removed the bold and Capital letters .. can't help but get excited though since this is litteraly history in the making .. I've been at this 10 fulltime years ...despite what it looks like.. I've have yet to see a nickel from it...God willing thats about to change. Niether did my late step father ever see a dime on any of his inventions ( 30 earlier years worth ) ... I'm proud to at least air history in the making on wikipedia. Really hope can agree on revised....Avgjoejohn316 PS sorry for total number of edits ... just couldn't shorten enought including the comments I made on your talk board .. sorry for inconvenience !Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I really do sympathize with you. The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a tool for publicity or promotion. On any given day I will pull dozens of commercial links - people trying to publicize their books, websites, tools, software programs, vitamin stores, you name it. Believe me they all think that their particular venture is unique and often question why an exception cannot be made for them. The problem is that it goes against the fundamental non-commercial nature of this project.

There are all sorts of places on the Internet that publicize new inventions and tools - your time would be better spent contacting them with your product, rather than tilting at this windmill. One that I have read is Toolmonger (I am not endorsing the site, or am in any way connected with it, just trying to give you one helpful lead). There are of course many other forums and blogs that deal with truck products, and many have sections that welcome new products. Why not put your energy and time into those areas? Seaphoto^Talk 15:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will try Toolmonger. Have been and continuing to pour time into such forums and blogs that welcome new products with what limited time and resources I have left to post as descreatly as possible. At this juncture its about setting the facts straight on mudflaps on several platforms. 1) Historicly new mudflap technology - no small improvement ... monumental historical change ( More than any time in history people need to know that average joes like me and late step father can make contribution to society .. 2 ) Categoricly - ( ie. new category ?) Such revolutionary technology, now that you know it exists , needs to be added, in the name of keeping current. I haven't had time to figure out yet since I only learned how to input this stuff yesterday. If the conflict of interest can be saticfied simply by someone else ( arms length ) removed from my company I sincerly can't think of anyone who's as well informed, empowered, & sacrificialy motivated to contribute to the community ( society in general ) as seems you have evidently done. Afterall, with all due respect, sincerely, there could be no conflict of interest if recomended by someone like you because its evident from your response here you'd indeed be armslength. As a one many show - because others have tried to take advantage of me in the past ( Bullied so to speek for who knows .. a myriad of reasons ... from control mongers who tore me down so they could either attempt take over or simply just to look good at my expense (even supposed friends on powertrips - jeollousy is a terrible thing ... to be clear, no inference on you personaly as I sincerly beleive your last response is sincere, and that you have wikipedia's best interests at heart. I have exhausted all my resources including time . All that said, with the revisons I've made, before deleating all of it please let me know what I need to deleate or revise to make this work. If I'm the problem ( COI ) ...then please allow due recognition to my late step father who never earned a dime nore any societal recognition through such bullying himself. If you have to remove anything, please don't let the last part of the original mudflap defenition ( describing naked girls and waving hair & lengerie - if anything likely put there by the mudflap girl mudflap manufacturers ) trump my late step fathers global monumental historical contribution, including the aerodynamic application to the mudflap. In fact, as respourced as you are if you think his information could be placed anywhere else please take your liberty. Sincerly, Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seaphoto, can you check my update on the talk page for this article, and see what you think, revert/edit-wise? I didn't change the article again as I'd like to try to get some kind of consensus, as unlikely as that might be. Thanks. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The linux group application suite, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Feezo (Talk) 08:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I sympathize with your desire to publicize your late father's invention, as I have said before it is a clear conflict of interest for you to do so on Wikipedia. If you disagree with that you can seek the opinion of other Wikipedia editors through this page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I would strongly recommend you go through that process before restoring your edits. Seaphoto^Talk 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seaphoto, this is history. Tell me then where and how else this ought to be placed .. to get the point out that, in keeping with the times mudflaps are also aerodynamic. Appreciate the common ground in keeping " Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag " however just leaving it that way without expressing its patented opens up a can of worms for rest of world who think they can just add holes or perforate, as some have already attempted to do, thats caused undue hardship. We've sacrificed so much in the name of "innovation" ..( the only reason I hesitatingly included and still include the patent refrences was to confirm validity and ensure future violations don't occure) .I've now removed my name entirely out of the picture, incuding the refrences of the snow melter. Just seems like a disgrace to remove such History while keeping refrences like ... "Another is the mudflap girl, an attractive woman's silhouette, sitting with her hair being blown back in the wind... mudflap girl linked to promoting by Bill Zinda of Wiz Enterprises in Long Beach, California .. ( That's monumental history readers want to know about .....??? ) ... I've seen your wikipedia CV . Your a smart man, I can't image you'd let, mudflap girl & Yosamite same ( that promotes an entire industry of now really rich companies like Disney ) trump this. Please. This is not about winning .. its about facts and history. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not User:Stan_Shebs. As I said, have you considered using Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Like I have said a few times now, what we have is a situation of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view. Does your father have a valid claim? I don't know, because you have presented no reliable, third-party, published sources. The patent applications states that he had a patent on one type of aerodynamic mudflap, but a quick search shows 17,000 hits. Was he the first? I don't know, because there are no third party citations (books, newspaper or magazine article, that sort of thing) to verify that. Facts that aren't verifiable are subject to challenge and removal . Additionally, your conflict of interest makes those challenges highly likely, as you have a personal and financial stake in putting this information in.

I have said a few time I do understand your position, it's just that it is just not what is accepted by Wikipedia. If it makes you feel any better, I am a published author, run numerous websites, and own multiple businesses, not a single mention of which is on Wikipedia because they don't meet the standards of notability. I've had family members (one of whom is quite notable in his profession) ask me to include them on Wikipedia, and I have had to refuse for the same reasons, or in one case, pure conflict of interest.

As a last bit of advice, when editing pages, please use the "Show preview" button and carefully scan your edit before hitting the "Save page" button. It is more efficient to follow your changes. Thanks Seaphoto^Talk 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So now what? I'm too new at Wiki editing to fully understand the process, but the way the article is now can't be right. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Within the bounds of the Wikipedia Three Revert Rule you can edit the article. I have tried to guide User:Avgjoejohn316 in the Wikipedia process, but it looks like it's just not working. What the article needs is some reliable references and a well sourced section on the aerodynamic mudflap that illustrates the history. Care to give it a shot? Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You have recently removed an external link to a value at risk calculator. Please see discussion with Kuru on this with a moderator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru and the discussion topic on the topic's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Value_at_risk both at the end of the pages. Hope this will lead you to reconsider and let the link stay on the the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorworkbench (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, you should not add links to websites that you own or have a connection with, as this can lead to conflicts of interest. Seaphoto^Talk 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I am being completely honest here. If I wanted to evade you filter I could have registered under a different username and not disclosed that this is my work. In short: it is a conflict of interest, but a fully disclosed one where I believe the quality should be judged on the basis of merit and not on who has posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorworkbench (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For restoring my talk page (diff) within 1 minute after it was blanked! – Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You see vandalism friggin' fast. How do you DO that?!

It's automated. Seaphoto^Talk 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've more than earned this after a rough night out there in the recent changes trenches. Keep up the good fight! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto; given that page history, it may be a sockpuppet. Good work, 99.168.85.28 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what their goal is, but they made a mistake with this edit. Even if by some chance the website was wrong (and wrong about three key school officials?), claiming that "they never heard of this Millet person" is simply nonsense.Seaphoto ^Talk 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. My take is that it's one or two students inserting their own names...over and over. That's usually the case on school articles. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making edits to the Canterbury high school page as your information is not currently up to date. The information that was previously posted about Kenneth lo jr was correct and I would ask that you leave it in that state. I know that this information is correct because I am currently a student of this educational facility. If this continues I will be forced to contact an admin and have the page reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiminor (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, what are the odds that a brand new account would jump into this, and know the name of the previous editor?Seaphoto^Talk 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Geethgajan Keith Gauthum, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. CSD G7. Was not requested or blanked by author. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah,my mistake, did not go far enough back in the edit history. Seaphoto^Talk 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you are using Huggle, when applying any CSD template, it is always best to check both article history and creator contribs and logs (for possible earlier misdeeds and/or blocks). It may take longer, but speed is not of the essence - especially if it takes an admin 10 minutes to sort it out. Otherwise, keep up your excellent work :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I tried to revert the vandalism the IP put on Diannaa's talk page using the undo button and I thought I had that but you beat me. Keep up the good Huggling! WAYNESLAM 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, good to see you back! Seaphoto^Talk 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome and thanks, Seaphoto, and I've done new page patrolling. I'm trying to make an article for a DYK by using it in my user page before moving it to the public. I glad to see you're still Huggling. Huggle2 has been made now but I say you stay with Huggle. WAYNESLAM 02:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your excellent work in vandal fighting, I award you this barnstar. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never say that your anti-vandalism work went unnoticed today. Keep it up, you're doing a fine job. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it! Seaphoto^Talk 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You should be happy since you have three barnstars in a row! WAYNESLAM 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The recognition is always appreciated, you all are too kind. Seaphoto^Talk 02:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, you should be very proud of yourself. Hope you will continue this success in the future. WAYNESLAM 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the crud off my talk page this evening. It looks like your whole talk page is one giant thank-you so I did not bother to create a new section XD--Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, thanks for all you do too. Seaphoto^Talk 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a cookie!

Wayne Slam has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WAYNESLAM 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, just about dinner time anyway LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome, Seaphoto. I ate my meal. WAYNESLAM 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two barnstars, a thank-you, and a cookie in one day? Must be a pretty good day for you. ;) The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially when you consider I spent most of the day out in the workshop making sawdust! <grin> Seaphoto^Talk 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

All of your prizes (your two barnstars and the cookie) were awarded within minutes and all in this section. WAYNESLAM 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know, just saying a day out in the shop is a good day almost by definition LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, LOL. WAYNESLAM 02:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Never ever thought my talk page would be vandalised for a storyline being run by EastEnders haha, that's a first!--5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome - If you revert vandalism here, given enough time you see just about everything LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do revert vandalism, it's because I reverted that IPs vandalism and reported them to AIV, that's why they took the huff with me! They must think I'm related to the BBC, well I can guarantee I'm not as my userpage will back up as that has my employer details on it! I might get a bit of that vandalism now that they've got that controversial baby swap storyline that the IP was actually referring to going on and a supposed cast walk out as a result! Still cheered up my night lol!--5 albert square (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one reason I do this, I get a kick out of what they write -sometimes - LOL Seaphoto^Talk 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Excellent User Page Award
		Here's a barnstar for your vigilance. Grim²³ ★ 11:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Seaphoto^Talk 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page so quickly. I didn't even notice it had happened till I saw it show up in the IPs edit history. SQGibbon (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I was reverting vandalism when I saw that you got to it before I did. I saw that you used Huggle. How do you install it? 149AFK (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it is a program you download and run on your computer outside of your Internet browser. Here is the page where you can read the instructions and download the program. Happy Reverting! Seaphoto^Talk 08:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Seaphoto

I was just reviewing some of the dialog. I appreciate the genuine interest you, BK314159 and Pol430 have taken on reviewing the article. As you likely have discovered I'm new to Wikipedia. As you can imagine, I've spent a lot of time on this already and have made numerous adjustments . You BK314159,Pol430 and a number of others have likewise spent a lot of time in reviewing the article and I wanted you to know I value your time. I've come to realise "understandably" the adjustments have been necessary to ensure neutrality. I appologise to you and anyone else for any appearance of my initial lack of understanding and corresponding expression of frustration relating of the protocol set out by Wickipedia. Wondering if you or anyone else you know, might graciously consider either mentoring me along with this article or creating the article yourselves if necessary. It matters not at all to me it has my name on it. I'm convinced The aerodynamic mudflap and Albert Morin is indeed an essential revolutionary piece of history that needs to be told. I cant emphasis enough how much I value the dedication and time it takes to learn and administrate wikepedia protocol. Writing, evidently is not my best strength. It seems I'm at some kind of impass as it relates to neutrality. Though, when I look at Kenworth, Peterbilt & Volvo Trucks and even mudflap girl, all refrences ( just to name a few of the already approved articles by wikepedia )the only conclusion I seem to arive at is that those articles seem to pose a myriad more questionable neurtrality issues than the article I've proposed. I understand its possible its just me who has a hard time distinquishing the difference and if so, I humbly concede. That being the case, all the more reason I ask someone else who understands the system would consider authoring the article for the greater good. Please be assured the last thing I want to do is waste anyone elses time. Would be forever grateful. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your anti-vandalism edits are absolutely tip-top! The you-know-whats don't stand a chance when you're around on Huggle. Keep up the good work. --The Master of Mayhem 10:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I guess it's an occupational hazard for people like us! Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Seaphoto^Talk 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my Userpage. :) Kante4 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This guy vandalized another page, Errol Povah. Time to take away his toys. Prescottbush (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Seaphoto^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for reverting vandalism on my talkpage. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate vandalism i almost got banned for not doing long edits! --Raving Monster 2 RAHHH (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. if you want to talk find my username on the Eli Manning page

I just reverted some vandalism by User talk:159.53.78.140 to the article First Communion. This IP address has a huge rap sheet and has been given ample warning. I think it's time to block. Regards 69.151.51.120 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted that last edit was biased, and the revert was good,but looking over the rest of the edit history I don't see anything egregious. With IP's the vandalism should be recent and persistent to qualify for a block. Cordially Seaphoto^Talk 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On Charles Karel Bouley. My stomach dropped to my shoes. I don't want to go there. What is your opinion Esteemed Mentor? ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watch list - so far, so good. If that changes we can ask for another page protection. They tend to be granted conservatively, in keeping with the idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Take care Seaphoto^Talk 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

TY Dear Man. The real idea is that anyone can edit wiki BUT... LOL! I bow to your wisdom :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my userpage. E♴(talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting that pesky IP user on my userpage! Rsteilberg ✈ 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have a new fan! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 21:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, well it's always nice to be appreciated! Seaphoto^Talk 19:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you fixed my page after vandalism. Thank you and keep up the great work. Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like a nomination?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, and I can think of situations where those tools would be useful. There are some areas where I need to do more reading, particularly the criteria for Speedy Deletion. I'd like to take a few weeks and get some more expertise on that, and a few other areas where I consider myself weak. Could we revisit the matter in mid-May? Again, thank you kindly for your the support. Seaphoto^Talk 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi SeaPhoto, remind me when the time comes and I'll give you my support. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, , Once again, 89.243.223.206 is trying to vandalise The Pierre Lewis page, please would you block / warn them. Many thanks for your time and understanding on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It looks like that IP has a 24 hour block on it, so the problem is taken care of for now. Hopefully they will stop doing this and longer blocks won't be needed, but I will add the page to my watchlist and monitor it. Seaphoto^Talk 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Seaphoto, its greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, so I see you appear to be an admin, so I have a quick Q. I warned that IP guy, that you just warned (for the UConn thing), before and gave him a level 2 because I felt that his edit could easily be counted as homophobic (even though he was probably calling the ending "gay" in that colloquial sense, but of course that doesn't really matter given the context (not to mention it's the article itself of course). Here is my reversion with both edits captured: . Was I right to give him a level 2 warning or is it always just a level 1 (it seemed it deserved something severe)? Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an administrator, but do spend a lot of time patrolling recent changes. I always give progressive warnings, as that leaves a clear chain of edits in case a ban is in order. The hope is that editors will learn from them and contribute more constructively to the project. Of course, this doesn't always work, and that is why there is a blocking policy. Even then the goal is not punishment, but to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Sadly, there are a lot of people in the world with intolerant views of one kind or another, and that edit is far from the worse I have seen tonight. For myself, I try and dispassionately revert (listening to some good music helps); if I find myself getting upset that is a good indication that it's time to take the dog out for a walk LOL. Regards Seaphoto^Talk 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that I can use my main user page however I want, like he does. I'm preparing pages to be added to the main userspace when they are notable enough, because I know they will be. Why should he have some stuffy little essay that offers precious little to anything when my own subpage is at threat of deletion? Agadabagada (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you feel a page should be deleted, please use the Articles for Deletion process, rather than unilaterally blanking the content. If another editor blanked your page before the AfD was done, I would do the same for you. Seaphoto^Talk 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you please undo your own edit changing the photo that i put up from flickr, but reduce the size so it wont stretch the page? thanks. Fabregas 2001 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted that photo for you. Seaphoto^Talk 17:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

i am trying to add something about golf to grapevine high school golf. our golf team has been doing really good and we would like to share it with the world and readers of wikipedia like your self. there is no section and i want to add one. please stop deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie6155 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when you add nonsense to Wikipedia it makes your other edits suspect unless accompanied by a verifiable, third party source.Seaphoto ^Talk 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ok first of all you do not live in grapevine texas or probally in texas for that case. right now the golf team is in lubbock playing for regionals.... some thing you can only get to by being the best in the district — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie6155 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you didn't make untrue edits before, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. That is you may know something for an absolute fact, but if you cannot provide an independent, verifiable source it can be challenged and removed at any time by any editor. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - see WP:BURDEN for more information. I hope you will take some time and click on the threelinks I have provided which will increase the chances of your edits remaining. The most important thing to remember is to add reliable sourcse - here is a small section on what counts as a reliable source. If the golf team is doing well, you should be able to provide a link to an article in the local newspaper, for example, and cite that in the appropriate section. Seaphoto^Talk 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this vandalism, it's part of a longstanding orchestrated effort to promote a filmmaker named David Cote on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka/Archive for more background. —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As my resident and beloved expert, I come to you in supplication ;-) for a foreseeable problem. (Not Karel's name, that is for later ;-) Catholic priests are Always addressed as "Father" by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, never by just their surnames. It is considered very disrespectful. This has come up in Junipero Serra's article. WP guidelines are "clearly ambiguous" (do ya love it?) about this particular issue. How do we fix? Can we fix it? Where do we go? I would love to edit the guideline page, but I have an incredibly respectful fear of you and Tedder :-D Other than that, How ya been? Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joy,

As you can see, it's a tricky area. For article naming, it seems pretty clear via MOS:HONORIFIC#Honorifics. I know that in articles dealing with Islam special rules were formatted to prevent honorifics after Muhammad, among others (see WP:PBUH}. For an article on a fiction Father John Smith, I think that referencing to Father Smith would be acceptable, but Father John would be unencyclopedic. I notice that the article on Jesse Jackson does not feature "Reverend", so if the subject is "secularized" enough I imagine that is acceptable too. Noting,without judging the systematic bias of Wikipedia I suspect that if you push for a ruling, it might not turn out the way you want. Sometimes ambiguity is your friend!

I have been doing OK, since the weather is bad up here I have been back to reverting vandals a lot. Never a dull moment there! I hope all is well with you, take care. Seaphoto^Talk 03:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Damirgraffiti has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Well that's the only kind of cookie I can enjoy guilt free these days - thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You"re welcome.I felt hungry when seeing this cookie in real life.Esplically in this Wikipedia.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to please take your time and really read over articles when reverting vandalism; when you reverted Michal Neuvirth, each time you left in a very significant amount of vandalism. Specifically, a vandal before the one you reverted had changed all of the article's wikilinks to pipe to the cat article. While you removed the obvious vandalism, you restored problematic versions on each occasion.

I recognize that it was not your intention to restore vandalized versions; however, it's been my experience and observation that using tools (particularly Huggle) may increase speed but decrease accuracy. It's very important to be sure that you're restoring to a "good" version of an article, particularly a BLP. Please give a serious read to the version you revert to before hitting "save". If the tools prevent you from doing that, consider using a different tool; there are several others that are available.

Having just given you a hard time - let me take a moment to say thank you for working to keep the project ship-shape. Occasionally errors happen, but we should all know each other for our good work rather than our unintended mistakes. You do a lot of good work. :-) Risker (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. When an article is being vandalized by multiple editors in a short amount of time I used to revert/flag to ID those editors participating while waiting for an admin to lock the article down. All this did was generate a lot of back and forth which seemed to encourage the behavior. Once an admin locks down an article they will then revert to the last good version. I have seen these type of actions run into dozens of edits, so once I realized what is happening I moved on, figuring that it would be sorted out shortly. Seaphoto^Talk 07:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to revert "my truth" on the witherslack page. My truth IS THE truth because I got to WHS, I know what its like. I "board" there mate. So do you dare to come onto my talk page and challenge ME on whether what I say is "dubious, unsourced" etc. Do you go to that school, probably not but I GO THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.207.202 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth; it is one of the core values of Wikipedia. You cannot add facts or observations because you "know" they are true, but instead must source them so they can be verified. Facts added without citations can be challenged and removed at any time.Seaphoto ^Talk 17:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I posted something on my talk page, expressing a sincere apology for my actions, sorry okay.--90.219.207.202 (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If conditions are truly bad there you can ask for an investigation from the Independent Schools Inspectorate; I have been editing another article that indicates they take such things very seriously. Have a good school year. Seaphoto^Talk 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All right cheers --90.219.207.202 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is though, if i tell the ISI, then i might get into trouble with teh staff for it. --90.219.207.202 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course you have to way the pros and cons and decide what's in your best interest (and maybe talk with you parents). Here is the article I was speaking about: King's College School, Cambridge; in the references you will see links to sources that you can read. That will give you some help making the decision. Best of luck. Seaphoto^Talk 17:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm its a tough one... --90.219.207.202 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mercedes-Benz Classic Center is the official Mercedes-Benz department for any classic car related questions, problems, and events. They supply Mercedes-Benz owners with 'High Mileage' awards in the U.S. - for free. It's not advertising to link to their page. Any owner would be happy to know that their car can get the official High Mileage badge after 155,000 miles. The Classic Center is also the primary address for owners to retrieve official documentation on their vehicle. It's how I got the history on my car. Why do you revert these links on articles that are about CLASSIC MERCEDES-BENZ vehicles???? The Classic Center is the official manufacturer address that takes care of them, that can validate whether or not a certain car has matching numbers, has the original color on it, and so on. Any W108, W111, W113, W198,.....owner or "soon to be" owner will be glad to know this. Their facebook page is the easiest way to connect with them and ask for advice and help. In the article on 300SL it says they are worth more than 700,000 USD. Which can be true but their is a lot of movement in that market, and the Classic Center is widely recognized as a source of information about this and helps people to get a better picture of the individual vehicle in question. So why do you consider it vandalism to add links on Mercedes-Benz Classics related articles?

I appreciate people taking care of wikipedia so that it can be enjoyed as a reliable source of information but how am I 'vandalizing' that? I'd be grateful if you could consider my arguments. Thank you.

Hi, when a new account's edits consist of adding the same link to multiple articles, that raises a concern, particularly when it is to a Facebook page and not the main website. When I checked the site, an invalid security certificate warning displayed, a very large red flag.

Specifically:

hostfb.com uses an invalid security certificate.

'The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate is only valid for sds.fastvps.ru

(Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)

Those combination of factors, the commercial nature of the link (promoting a discount on parts) and in particular the untrusted connection to a Russian domain name, led to my reversions. I would link to the main website of Mercedes, or, if needed, the Classic website in Germany or California directly and skip the Facebook link until they get a valid site certificate. Seaphoto^Talk 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

does she look skinny to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.249.125 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no need to judge the models appearance in that particular edit. Seaphoto^Talk 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		This barn star is being awarded for your tireless work on reducing vandalism and protecting userrpages especially mine Burhan Ahmed \| Penny for your thoughts? 09:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You are evil. I was trying to make someones day and you just ruined it. Are you happy?!?!?! :p :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.186.44 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Just stopped by to say, I noticed we two seem to be patrolling vandalism these last two hours or so. It's fun! --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask, by the way, what should we do with this? Someone deleted it per CSD, now it's recreated again. --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage stalker CSD again... if it appears again, AFD for additional WP:SALT Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Catfish Jim (love that username!) answered your question, so I will simply say "Hi" and thanks for helping out! Seaphoto^Talk 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Catfish, and, also, it was in fact recreated twice, I put a CSD on it both times, finally it got salted (by CIreland). No more of that for a while (I don't remember if it was salted temporarily or indefinitely, I requested a temp salt. Also, working together is fun! --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you mis-aimed or edit-conflicted the cleanup, replacing "All three films were very well received by critics" with "This film has defied the law of gravity when it came to Pawan Kalyan's career graph" for example. Please check the edit-history, especially in relation to the slew of IP edits today to see if it's in a good form now. DMacks (talk) 20:12,

I was reverting, via Huggle, a version that added "ABCDEFG" to an internal link, but my reversion took out material that the editor added that would not be considered vandalism (although it needed to be removed for other reasons). Because of this I reverted my own edit, and jumped back to my browser to edit it more deeply. By that time, two other editors had taken care of the problems (with a period of four minutes). Nice job guys! Seaphoto^Talk 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto.

With respect, I would have expected more of a history graduate. You appear to have confused emendment with vandalism. As someone who has been entrusted (by whom?) with a level of authority with respect to Wikipedia, you bear also a responsibility to ensure that it is accurate.

The ignorance that has characterised the "debate" over the correct style and title of the new duchess has been most unedifying and I have sought to remove mistakes. (One of my virtual interlocutors suggested that the Duchess be known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge because she still has a Christian name!) I would be pleased to hear from you why you characterise this as vandalism; yes, I have read your "list".

May I direct you to what is, in effect, the primary source (a term that I trust you will recognise) in this matter: the Press Release issued by The Queen's Press Secretary, announcing the creation of the new dukedom, on 29 April 2011?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx

A further disappointment was your failure to provide a better source than the gossip columnist of a Canadian newspaper, however distinguished a masthead it might be thought in the New World.

You and others appear, with respect, to be confusing HRH's style and title with a LIST of her titles: if one were to follow your rule of thumb in referring, for example, to The Queen, one could describe her as Queen of Australia, Canada, all of her Caribbean islands and so on, Duke of Lancaster, Duchess of Edinburgh and, potentially, every other title that has reverted to the Crown since 1066! The Duke of Edinburgh, for example, is also Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, but is not referred to as such. Equally, the Duke of Devonshire is also Marquess of Hartington, Earl of Burlington, Lord Cavendish and the holder of several other titles. If you know your Spanish history, you will forgive me for not listing the Duchess of Alba's titles! I trust that you take my point.

If you disagree with me, by all means provide me with some evidence.

Finally, may I suggest that you review your own "edit" on her Royal Highness' Wikipedia "page" and emend it?

Yours sincerely,

Cato the Yr of That Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato the Younger (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You and a number of other editors where engaging in a series of unproductive back and forth reversions. Ironically, you had the correct fact (which makes is a bit puzzling why you seem cross, as I added a reference supporting your statement of title initially, adding the others mentioned in the reference later), but were also adding this non-encyclopedic comment in with it, "I imagine that the confusion in this area has arisen because of the occasional reference to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. In 1947, he was created Duke of Edinburgh with the style of Royal Highness by King George VI." That comment was the main reason I edited your contribution. Please consult the Wikipedia section on tone if you don't understand why that is not appropriate. Please note as well that I did not at any point accuse you of vandalism; I assumed your contribution was in good faith. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. Thanks for the clarification. Please see my "User talk" response to Tvoz and Yk Yk. Would you clear-up something for me, please? Why does my written signature not suffice: why the use of the tildes? It seems bizarre. With respect, the comments from a number of "editors" - if that's the correct term - about Wikip(a)edia conventions appears to this little, black L-plated duck to indicate a disporportionate interest in form over substance: Britmax got all hot and sweaty about the tildes! Regards, Cato the Yr (I'll try the icon and see if that works!) --Cato the Younger (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,Using the tildes for a signature identifies the writer in a positive manner and time stamps the comment. The open nature of Wikipedia lends itself to mischief; signing makes it more likely that we are indeed talking to you instead of someone simply typing your signature. The time stamp is helpful when viewing nested discussions. As for form over substance, I agree, but there are good reasons. The editing conventions of this encyclopedia has been hammered out through years of discussion. While they often seem a bit constraining the rules have evolved from the desire to produce a useful resource while allowing universal participation. The structure of the project provides a framework that keeps this participation relatively consistent. Seaphoto^Talk 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Was my use of the first person what you meant by "non-encyclpaedic" (though I don't concede that there is such a word!)? C the Y --Cato the Younger (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that is why your contributions were being reverted by a series of editors. Although it may be a neologism, "non-encyclopedic" describes content that is not consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style. There is a tool available to some editors that shows a real time stream of edits to Wikipedia. The purpose is to remove obvious vandalism, but some editors get a bit enthusiastic and use it in a broader manner. This can get frustrating to other users when their contributions are reverted without an explanation why; it would have been useful had someone ,simply recommended your edit be modified in tone, and supported by an inline reference. One of our goals is to not bite the newcomers, a goal we don't always achieve. Seaphoto^Talk 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...in my Wiki naivety it never occurred to me that someone would trouble themselves to nick another editor's moniker: clearly, there are far too many people with not enough to do. Is an "inline reference" the Wiki name for a footnote with a hyperlink to the source? As you observe, all of this could have much avoided if the first "reverter" had done me the courtesy of explaining why s/he was deleting my 'umble offerings. I take and accept your point about the need for consistency, but, a propos of any form over substance debate, to allow - in fact, to restore - an error of fact because the correction doesn't fit an editorial convention undermines the utility and, in fact, the raison d'etre of an encyclopaedia. Now, I'm wondering if it's responsible for the substantial number of errors that I've noticed over the years that I've been reading WP. I find the idea of errors in an encyclopaedia really unsettling, particularly because experience suggests that there is at least one generation (two, probably) that relies on electronic sources of information without checking its facts, elsewhere. For when I have some time to address the issue, generally, can you point me to a discussion page or some such creature (I don't mean for Kate Cambridge)? I had a look at Contact Wikipedia: that didn't seem to be the appropriate avenue. Anyway, thanks for your further responses: a very helpful discussion. Cato the Yr --Cato the Younger (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the inline reference question you are correct - in print it would be footnote. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to link to electronic sources, when available. Short term errors in the project are almost inevitable given the open nature, but most pages have "watchers", editors that can see easily when an article has been changed, and check the quality of that edit. In the long run this works well - we attract more and more people with expertise in various fields, and they help keep the encyclopedia accurate. The system can be problematic when a high profile event takes place, such as the Royal Wedding or more recently, the death of Osama Bin Laden. One thing to remember is that there is no rush; once the general public loses it's enthusiasm for a subject there will be plenty of time to get it right. To be fair, that is something I have to remind myself of from time to time.

On general improvements to the project, any article's talk page is always a good place to start a discussion on improving the quality of a specific entry. If you see something that is clearly inaccurate, and can correct it (preferably with a citation, lest it be reverted), we have a tenant: Be Bold; go ahead and make the change. If someone reverts it, rather than going back and forth, post a short note explaining the edit on talk page of either the reverting editor or the article. Most of the time, the matter will end right there. The very best way to settle any issue here involves the parties to discussing the matter in good faith and civilly. If that fails, there are areas where you can request comment from other editors (useful when a few editors are monopolizing an article. There are also areas where you can ask for assistance from an administrator. If you have any questions, I am online quite often and will do my best to help. I look forward to your contributions to Wikipedia! Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 04:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All useful, thanks, Seaphoto - and you'll be delighted to know that I know very little about the late Mr. Bin Laden, other than what I've always thought must be an urban myth: that he was a member of White's. I've planted that seed on the discussion page of OBL's eponymous article. Cheers. Cato, Yr --Cato the Younger (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aswer, please--217.118.81.18 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to this edit by the IP above, it has been reverted. If not, please let me know. Seaphoto^Talk 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I said somethingi n a wiki about the high school in melba, ID and I said that it ain't named after the toast. Cause it aint! I be wonderin' why you be taking it out. I dont think it be something like vandilism?!?! I was just trying to add some info to an entry that was pretty thin gruel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of building an encyclopedia is maintaining a serious and scholarly tone. If a reasonable person would not make an assumption that a school or other institution was not named for a baked product, there is no reason to include that information; an anlogy would be saying in the lead of the article about Monterey, California that is was not named after the cheese.. A better edit would be to say who or what it was named after, instead of everything it isn't. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Seaphoto^Talk 04:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Mister. I think i no what you is saying. I dont no who that Melba school was named after. It is in a way far out place in Idaho and is prolly named after some ranchers cow. Melba sounding like a bovine name anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question - I looked it up and it turned out to be named for the town founder's daughter. Seaphoto^Talk 04:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

COol, I ain't going to make no comment about Idaho girls and cows! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as well, the founder and his family was from California LOL. By the way, it is helpful if you sign and date your comments by typing four tildes, it's always nice to know who we are talking to Seaphoto^Talk 05:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you check out the Bruce Vilanch article and tell me everything I am doing wrong. And the answer to your question is yeah, sorta, not really. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the last 40 or so edits and think that between the two of you, a good balance is being achieved. You know from my previous editing that ~~I like to suck all the life and fun out of articles~~ maintain a neutral tone LOL. Seriously though I am a fan of simply presenting the facts without hyperbole. Your edits, as well as User:Lhb1239 are improving the article, and since I know you are reasonable and the the other editor seems so too I have every faith you will craft a consensus that won't look like it came from a committee ;-). If a specific point comes up and you need input I would be glad to help. I wasn't aware of this fellow or his influence before tonight, so thanks for some interesting reading. Seaphoto^Talk 07:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You made my day. I almost fell of my chair laughing! Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look, i think it's time to Block Mr. Bouley's article again. Glad you enJoyed Vilanch article, he is quite prolific and other effusive terms. I am disturbed by the latest edits, see Vilanch talk page etc. I have been gone two days and...well I'll let you decide. Input please. I hope all is well with you and other effusive stuff ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On Karel's article, this is the work of one editor. While I think this is more POV pushing that outright vandalism, it appears the editor is well on his way to getting blocked, which will settle the matter. I find that administrators are reluctant (for good reason) to lock an article when it is just one editor causing problems - the best approach is to persuade the editor to seek consensus for the change, or if they cross the line, blocking them. Regaring Bruce Vianch, I see a general improvement, even over the past few days. The talk page is a bit sporty, but I think that is everyone is slowly getting to know one another LOL. Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, gotcha on Karel. When this other editor finds his sense of humor, if he has one, we will be fine. "Sporty", I like that! BBB said I am "passionate" (ya think?) and who said I was hardheaded? HMMM, someone who loves me! I think I am covered. Am working on Snarky, LOL Best to you :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

U mad bro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.75.74 (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Seaphoto! I would like you to express your opinion over here. Thanks! WayneSlam 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto, I am seeking your advice on an issue you commented on. I was unable to find reputable references to substantiate the actual criticism of the Moose River Outpost trip; however, the fact that the state school engaged in an official trip to a Christian camp still remains. Therefore, I believe that "This has deeply...some Christian students" should be expunged but the aforementioned fact should be retained (cf. references 1, 2) and explained more appropriately (e.g., HBHS transgressed its secularity as a state school). What are your thoughts? Anonymous-hbhs-student (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

The facts should stay, but unsourced interpretation of them shouldn't, as it would be considered original research (or opinion). To give you some examples: Had the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the students involved, and it was reported by the media, that would be a good source for the claim of controversy. If the local newspaper reported on it, or wrote an editorial about student or parent reactions, that too would be sufficient. On the other hand, a letter from a parent to the school board would not be considered a reliable source for the statement. These standards might seem overly restrictive, but they have been built by consensus by editors like you and I over the years. Without them Wikipedia would quickly become a forum for anyone with a grievance, real or not (imagine if you will, the chaos that could be caused by accusations against school staff in the thousands of school articles if this requirement was not in place,just as one example). I hope this helps you a bit, but would be glad to answer any questions to the best of my ability. Seaphoto^Talk 18:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I modified the section, removing the unsubstantiated claim, but I suggested that the action "...may be interpreted as transgressing the school's secular status." I am unsure how one would only state the fact without providing this hypothetical interpretation, since it might not bear significance to some readers. Perhaps this hypothetical interpretation should be removed and the school's secular status be emphasized? (e.g., "In 2010, Hollis/Brookline High School, a state school of secular affiliation, organized...") Anonymous-hbhs-student (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the controversy section gives undue weight by it's very existence. For example, the statement about the computers is unsourced and it's not clear just who thinks that the purchase of one device over another (probably due to cost) is controversial; without a verifiable source, it can be challenged and removed. The part about the trip, if it is indeed notable at all (remembering that this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or forum) is best presented in a section marked "activities". A flat statement that the students went on a trip at a Christian camp (which is what the citing article says) is enough; readers can be trusted to draw their own conclusions from that. Without a source that says that this was controversial it should not be called such. Have a look at this section Wikipedia is not a Soapbox for more information; we are here to present information in as neutral a manner as possible. I hope this explains the policy a bit better. Regards, Seaphoto^Talk 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey - as a recent(ish) contributer to the Adam Hollioake article I'm letting you know that I've requested comments regarding some of the issues surrounding the subject at WP:BLPN. Cheers Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Captain Edward Smith of the Titanic but I have worked on the Titanic film article. Today I noticed that the section on Smith in the film article mixes fact and fiction in a way that makes it difficult to tell which is which. On the chance that you have an idea of the facts, I'm contacting you. To the extent that Cameron included fictional elements, I'd like to edit the film article in a way that reflects this. Can you help out or can you refer me to someone who can? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is is not as clear as it could be. I would use the paragraph above, on Thomas Andrews, as a model for the changes, and remove the excess detail about his fate and the possible decision regarding speed. Seaphoto^Talk 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. My problem is that I don't know the two sets of data: A) the facts B) what the movie shows. The rest would be relatively easy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. The movie shows Captain Smith, largely in shock, retreating to the bridge where he perishes when the windows fail. In real life, Captain Smith's fate is unknown, but witness accounts from one boat said he was in the water near the boat deck, while others place him elsewhere, including the bridge. There was an article for the Titanic Commutator, which is journal of the Titanic Historical Society that covered this subject in great depth. I don't have a copy on hand, but that was the gist of it. Since there is no definitive evidence, I would remove the speculation from the paragraph. Seaphoto^Talk 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed a warning about vandalism due to an edit done in April from this IP address. I just want to state for the record that I was not in possesion of this pc at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the Monk (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, since you are registered it will not affect your account. Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 21:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for chiming in at Larry Hama. I have to admit that the 'established users' hostility I encountered there is a bit off-putting - and the fact that no one who's not already deeply involved with the comics pages, or particularly Midtown Comics (the user who put up the old pic of Hama and is defending it has put up a gallery there of "pictures of famous people at Midtown Comics", which may or not be against policy. I'm not sure how to interpret it here . I'm not convinced that these pictures are not there to promote the institution, as they are frequently also in articles with wiki links to the instiution's wiki page). Anyway, thanks again, but I feel like this is far too much of an uphill battle and they have too much of a vested interest - and since one is an admin, even more so. Is it often like this here? (you can reply here on your page) PermanentVacay (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Conoria to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, thank you for your help previously with the page for Pierre Lewis, it seems that once again, the individual is again trying to maliciously vandalise the page from various IP Addresses, I've once again reverted and corrected the page. Please could you warn them or give protective status to the page once again. Many thanks once again for your time and help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.149.145 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember editing this page: Marcus Stergiopoulos I don't even like soccer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.92.205 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the note at the botton of your talk page concerning IP addresses - the comment does not necessarily reflect your personal editing. Seaphoto^Talk 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, Thanks for catching our unnamed IP vandalizer so quick (The Waltons, Rodan, The Brady Bunch). They pulled that same crap about 24hrs ago too and I reverted. I see a ban/block in someones future. lol. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (Forever fearless fighter of vandalism)

No problem, one of the edits was actually kind of funny, one of the reasons I enjoy doing this is the rare glimpse of actual wit. Have a good one! Seaphoto^Talk 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this page needs temporary protection. I have reverted it back to your version of 18th March, which I think is compact and a useful summary. Kitty101423 hs repeatedly vandalised it since then, with either me or you reverting.

Could you take a look when you have some time? ClassicsDoS (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried a note on the talk page of the article, to which Kitty has not responded. Today I left one her her talk page, to see if we can work out a compromise. I would not call what she is doing vandalism, nor do I agree when she uses the term to describe her reverts. What we have is tenacious, non-neutral editing. We, as editors, are expected to work that out amongst ourselves before taking it to the next level (which would be a request for comment). I think we have a way to go before a request for page protection is justified, but the first step will be trying to hear Kitty's side of the story. Seaphoto^Talk 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a private grievance that kitty has against the school. Many people have private grievances. There is a proper recourse --- normally through the courts --- for people to air their private grievances, and, if justified, obtain compensation. Private vendattas really should not be carried out on the pages of wikipedia.

If you read the innumerable links, it seems that what happened is that [1] Kitty complained about a teacher at the school, [2] the headmaster sided with the teacher, [3] Kitty kept on complaining and was finally asked to take her children from the school, [4] Kitty complained to the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and they made a surprise visit, [5] they found some minor infringements (e.g., the school had not carried out an independent CRB check on one teacher but had relied on a verbal assurance).

Do you really think this is of general interest ? ClassicsDoS (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you the content should go, it's just the procedure on how to go about it. Is there some way of verifying that it is indeed Kitty who made the complaints - to be honest, unlike you, I didn't take the time to slog through all the references, as they appear credible. If she is personally involved that will make it easier to revert those additions. We try and live up to the goal of Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but of course if they are pushing content for their own personal vendetta that is quite another thing. Seaphoto^Talk 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just reverted the page back to your version of 18th March again. Again, I think this page needs temporary protection ClassicsDoS (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I started the request for comment process via the talk page; follow the link to join in on the discussion. Seaphoto^Talk 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the discussion page, but so far there has been no reciprocation from kitty, who has been restoring her edits ClassicsDoS (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On her user talk page she has indicated that she is willing to discuss the matter, and I have drawn up a suggested paragraph for the incident. She later came back and basically indicated she felt that it was the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as a means of punishment for the school administration. I left one last note trying to persuade her that this is not role of Wikipedia, after that it looks like we will need to seek administrator support. Seaphoto^Talk 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Seaphoto! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For beating me to the revert button on multiple occasions. Thank you and happy editing! pluma Ø 03:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not much on TV tonight LOL - thanks for that! Seaphoto^Talk 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

Hello Seaphoto! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 02:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpageRyan Vesey (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. Thanks! Huon (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want, I can nominate you for adminship. If you feel that you are not ready for the mop that's fine, but I personally don't think you will abuse the tools if you are given them; just look at all those vandalism reverts. Yet, one area that the community will want to see you improve is XfD; it would help if you could spend a bit more time there.

And with that I wish the very best of luck.--The Master of Mayhem 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words and advice. Another editor suggested that last week. At the time I asked for a few weeks to do some reading, especially on the Speedy delete process as I had incorrectly applied on a couple of occasions - I feel I understand the policy now. I have done a bit of commenting on XfD in the past, and agree that it is an area where more participation is needed; too many have to be re-listed for further discussion. If you feel the time is right to nominate me I would accept - and appreciate the consideration. Seaphoto^Talk 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you would do a good job as well... CSD can be a bit of a nightmare, particularly when there are people using NPP to boost their edit count and pouncing on every single article before you have a chance to tag them correctly. My current approach (and I'm not saying it is right) is to assume there is a chance that the subject in every article may be notable unless the article spells out that it isn't.

Give me a shout when your RFA comes up.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was only after I posted this message that I discovered it had been discussed only five days before posting.--The Master of Mayhem 10:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this again, and my opinion hasn't changed, but having been exposed to it I fear you might have a tough time at RfA right now and would suggest that you start doing some reading so you can prepare for one in a few months time...

First, the obvious one:

Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

Then have a look at RfAs for the last year or so, both successful and unsuccessful:

Look at how people answer the mandatory questions, particularly the one about which areas you intend to work in... make sure you are able to back up that you actually have an interest in that area of adminship by demonstrating that you are already involved in it (people who say they want to work at WP:AIV generally fail if they've never even been near it!)

Some of the !voting patterns can be confusing, and there's no published guidelines as to what people should look for in an admin, but Kudpung and WereSpielChequers' criteria are fairly balanced

Here are some more:

Other essays

There's a lot of bean-counting at RfA, and people look at things like number of edits (obviously no problem), time as registered user (no problem) and consistency of editing over a period of time (need to work on this a little). Some people also have an issue with high percentages of automated edits, opposing high percentages of automated edits on sight (this is a potential issue as you have around 88% right now according to )

I think you might want to focus a little on content creation and also get a bit more involved in NPP, making sure you understand the CSD criteria before using them... have a look at the daily AFD log as well and comment on a few, demonstrating knowledge of relevant policy (particularly the alternate notability guidelines at WP:N.

Hope this helps. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice! I am on really on the fence about becoming an administrator, as the tools would be very useful for fighting vandalism (which has been my focus for a year or so) and yet there seems to be a bias in the RfA process against those who do so, particularly using Huggle. One of the questions asked as part of the process is about stress on Wikipedia; I have a feeling that the RfA process might just be my one example LOL. Although the claim is that administrator access is not a big deal, it has become a referendum on how well rounded a Wikipedia you are, rather than if you can be trusted to do the right thing with the tools. As part of that process I have seen some very decisive arguments that stray very far from that central issue. I will certainly read those essays your recommended. and have been doing more AfD work, but ultimately, unless I stop using Huggle, my percentage of automated edits will always be too high in the eyes of some editors. The RfA process does send a confusing message, doesn't it? Thanks again for your insights. Seaphoto^Talk 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Do I really need to explain why you deserve this? The copyeditor's corner 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok Newt's new wife, only stays with him because he has money. Seriously she's 23 years his junior. please stop with your b.s. im gonna edit, so if you don't like then bugger off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrick217 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can it please be removed? It has brought me nothing but grief.Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wikipedia's policy on any defamatory content is to immediately delete it. However, no-one, including the article's subject, has the right to act as if they own the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Jasper has the right of it; the content of Wikipedia articles cannot be controlled by the subject of the article - you could see how it could be twisted by people, organizations and companies if that policy was not in place. That said, I don't see that the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards at first glance. Let me take a deeper look at it and see if it should be deleted on that basis. If it is nominated, there will be a discussion on it's merits which will be linked at the top of the page. For what it's worth, based on my experience with other articles for deletion debates, bringing up the impact of the article on your personally will probably not sway the discussion towards deletion. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 06:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Seaphoto, for nominating the page for deletion. I understand the guidelines and won't comment further.Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please visit the discussion, Seaphoto, and give us some guidance on how to create a new category and whether you think it's a valid idea? Josiewarvelle (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I need help and no one will talk to me. Please? I am confused.

What do you need help with? Seaphoto^Talk 03:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

People delete when I try to help write the articles. I also want to know how someone like me can help. I am not smart because of condition I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.114 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the nature of Wikipedia, all contributions are subject to reverting or revision based on their quality. I am sure you are good at something, perhaps focus your efforts there. If the thought of someone changing what you wrote bothers you, a collaborative Wiki is not the place to spend your free time. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes in a row after your text. I hope this helps a bit. Seaphoto^Talk 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Conoria to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have tagged it G3 as a blatant hoax; this is clearly made up by a schoolchild. Well, the PROD should take care of it, but if not, then it is off to AFD. No big thing. Seaphoto^Talk 15:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit, out of interest? 144.32.128.51 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I just want to thank you for being so prompt to deal with Captain Dipshit over here. A vandal who goes to the talk page of the person reverting their edits is probably common. Pathetically insulting the vandal-fighter on a page he or she is obviously interested in afterward is something I don't think I have seen before. I know you're using Huggle, (I'm desperately waiting for a Mac version) but you're hell of a lot faster at reverting vandals than I am. Whenever I click revert within Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and get that little notice alerting me that it has all been taken care of, I can't help but smile. So, I just want to take the time to let you know that your work is appreciated. Your dog must be proud. TheArguer _{say hi!} 03:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We spent a couple hours at the dog park today, so he is both proud and tired LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 03:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For cleaning up the mess on my talk page Shriram (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick thanks for the quick revert of my first ever vandalism attack on me user page. Makes me almost feel like an admin now :) --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the front line LOL; you're welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 03:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. I expanded the above which was a stub gradually. It was deleted/reverted. The information that is currently there now also comes from the same sources that you and your other bot editors claimed to be poor quality and copy-pasted. So going by your definitions, even this material should not be there. Really, its hard dealing with know-it-alls! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetiaShiundu (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't engage in name calling. I merely pointed out that you do not own either the article in question, or your contributions to Wikipedia - please see the disclaimer at the bottom of every page:

"By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.".

That was the reason behind my last reversion. Prior to that, I selected portions of the text, googled them, and found them to be word for word copies of other sources. That too is forbidden under Wikipedia rules, which is why I reverted those. I don't make any claims of expertise about the subject in question. Instead of complaining about the process, it might be more useful use of your time to find verifiable sources for your additions and improve the article in a neutral, factual manner. Seaphoto^Talk 06:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And again I point out that you should also Google the current material and see that its also from other sources, so why are you insisting on retaining it? Bring it down as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetiaShiundu (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you ever followed up on this, but a while back you reported an IP for vandalism. As I stated at the time, it seems unlikely that those edits were malicious. (I'm not familiar with procedure on WP:AIV, but it appears that charges were dismissed so to speak, as the report was later deleted.)

Was I wrong in assuming that the awards were, in fact, notable? Or would you have not objected to my proposed course of action had anyone bothered to inform us of the outcome of that report? --Xoid 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a while ago, but in reviewing the edits it looked like a pattern I had seen before - an editor puts up multiple links to a host of articles in a short period of time promoting a website or company. The article on Samesame.au is just a stub, so it could be interpreted as an attempt to boost the credibility of that site through association with notable people. For example, I run a website about model ships, and if I were to try and promote that through Wikipedia, I might create a similar list of notable people who also have an interest in ship modeling, and then go to their articles and say they have been recognized by my website. I'd have the best of intentions, but it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia.

It appears these edits were not vandalism, but just a good faith attempt to spread the word. The Wikipedia article on the website doesn't establish the notability of the awards themselves, so as an everyday editor I might still remove the mentions, but just in the general course of editing.

I do differentiate between vandalism and misunderstanding of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Occasionally I will drop out of the semi-automated software (Huggle) that I use to manually edit an article, when I see a change that, while not vandalism, doesn't improve the article in my judgement. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I am entitled to my wrongheaded opinions too LOL. Take care, and Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Think nothing of it, identifying it as vandalism was entirely understandable—I did too at first. I was bored at the time and decided to troll Wikipedia's recent changes. The edits that IP made set off alarm bells but there was just something… off about it that got me to investigate further.

So I decided to waste a few minutes digging deeper. Probably helped somewhat that, as an Australian, I instantly recognised all the newspapers listed when I looked at the citations in Samesame's article; well-established and respected newspapers that I've come to associate with journalistic integrity.

RE: notability of the awards—that was also a concern to me. The awards were notable enough to warrant inclusion on Samesame's page (indeed, it would appear they're at least half of Samesame's notability), but did they warrant mention elsewhere? My patrolling of recent changes, commenting on (and investigation of) the issue was very much a spur of the moment deal—overall I'm neither invested enough in the topic nor familiar enough with Wikipedia's manual of style and regulations to fiddle much with most BLPs.

Anyway, take care. –Xoid 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling my talk page. Mt king ^(edits) 05:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For reverting vandalism on my user page - thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As you have "recently" contributed to Consett Academy, this is a message to inform you that I've started a discussion at Talk:Consett Academy to try and solve a content dispute about recent additions to the article. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism on my talk page. Vacation^nine 04:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Freelancer.com page

Hi Seaphoto! Thanks for flagging my edits on the Freelancer.com page. I checked the footnotes the editor before me placed and noticed that they were dubious and unsubstantiated, with the intent of creating rumors which are defamatory by nature. Part of terms of using Wikipedia include refraining from "engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate; Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and Engaging in fraud."

Thanks! Carlosyrastorza (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your work. Pine^✉ 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

in reference to op red wings, the sources are there. Ed Darack his name is I believe. Luttrell's book is written by a fiction writer who exaggerated the numbers of enemy greatly, why don't you include source. You delete the true numbers of enemy and yet do not delete the source for it that is written in the same line, then you also included no source of y05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.181.40 (talk)

I reverted because the numbers in the source disagree with the number you changed it to. Cites need to agree with facts, or need to be changed and/or deleted. I take no position on the matter otherwise. Seaphoto^Talk 05:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to warn 88.104.0.102 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC) regarding their legitimate edir to Plainview, New York, you may be blocked from editing.

Refer to WP:V. WP:BITE, and just basically, WP:5. Happy Xmas, 88.104.0.102 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You removed sourced census data, amongst other things. I stand by my edit, and warning. Seaphoto^Talk 22:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

YOU CAN'T ADD CRAP LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, "The Mid Island Y JCC has many activities for youths as well as seniors. " WITHOUT A REF. GET IT? 88.104.0.102 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, I don't object to the removal of unsourced material, just the sourced - the Census data, for example. Feel free to remove the unsourced. Seaphoto^Talk 23:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected a link that you removed...my first time be gentle please. Seaphoto thank you for the message about removal of an external link I added to the Canine Degenerative Myleopothy page recently. As I didn't know any other way of contacting you regarding the update for the link, and to request it be put back, I am writing you here. It seems weird, so let me know if there's a better way to do this sort of thing. Cheers. WikiNightRighter (formerly 66.235.69.209)

Hello, Wikipedia is not to be used for commercial promotion, and the link you inserted, and particularly the way you inserted it (as an inline citation) is considered spamming. You can read our guidelines at WP SPAM. Although I understand the desire to promote a company you are connected with, if we allowed it Wikipedia would soon be overrun with advertisements and lose what credibility it has. I hope this helps a bit. Oh, and on a side note, you can use the talk page of the article if you want to comment on additions to it, but contacting me directly with a question about my reversion is perfectly acceptable as well. Seaphoto^Talk 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi seaphoto,

That section on vandalism is not justified. Some person keeps ignoring the issue that the references do not support that Djokovic is one of the greatest. The next section is what should be talked about which is why I deleted the one on vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.82.15 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason that I can see to be removing other editors comments. If you disagree, feel free to comment there, but please don't censor others. Thank you. Seaphoto^Talk 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand. That 2nd last section is pointless. It is out of context and I can't contribute because of the filter. Can you please not censor that section and allow others to contribute? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.82.15 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This ip is a sockpuppet of blocked editor 70.31.183.185. He appears to have multiple proxies that he edits under such as 129.97.124.85 and now this anon ip. Just a heads up that he is block-evading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, the pattern of the editing speaks for itself. Thanks. Seaphoto^Talk 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that Fyunck is one of the editors who keeps ignoring the facts and keeps vandalizing the talk page and the Djokovic page. Knock it off Fyunck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.82.15 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mart_Laar&diff=530646999&oldid=530641282 is unclear. Journalist is from known big newspaper, cleared for government briefings. Minister Mart Laar is talking. All is documented in video http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/video-mart-laar-acta-kirjed-kadusid-sest-mul-sai-facebooki-ruum-otsa.d?id=63831002 and this was included in page. What you mean with "Notability of this reporter not established with independent, verifiable source."? Kelli Seiton who asked question on press conference is journalist for Eesti Päevaleht (big or biggest newspaper in Estonia). Random article from Google: http://www.epl.ee/news/eesti/pentuse-maadevahetust-puudutav-plaan-voib-olla-pohiseadusvastane.d?id=64433508 Henrik Roonemaa whose questions were deleted is even in Wikipedia http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Roonemaa Tõnu Samuel (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then that statement should have been sourced at it's inclusion. Go ahead and add it back with the reference this time.Seaphoto ^Talk 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Source was there in form of link to video. Just all sort of extra ballast of course removed. I think when politician is telling something, it is least important who asked question? Tried to make it better, please advice if see more problems. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The video just has the voice of the reporter, outside of Estonia, it is unlikely that anyone will recognize it. I don't agree that in all cases, the name of a reporter who asks a question is relevant, or that working for a notable newspaper automatically establishes notability for a journalist. I do note however that there is an article on Estonian Wikipedia for this journalist, which is why I remove my objection to it's inclusion in this case; I would link to that page to establish the name of the reporter as being relevant. Cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering why you think that I vandalized the article on Alex Smith because it is true that he is a useless backup quarterback, and that Colin Kaepernick is way better.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:SOAP for more information. Additions without independent, verifiable sources may be removed at any time. Seaphoto^Talk 04:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi ya! Asking for your help. User "Japandroids" is editing the above article intent on giving it an outdated and negative slant. As he can't edit war by himself( some wise man said that to me ;) I have stopped, hoping you can intervene. This article has been protected in the past but this probably isn't enough to do it again. I am not sure SHE isn't back because of the persistence, but I don't know, old woulds still hurt. TY in advance for whatever you can do, Regards — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc, Happy New Year! I agree that the four year old reference is not good, but then again, neither is the four year old press release in the lead. I would re-write it to make it more neutral, which will be more defensible in the long run. The current lead invites this sort of thing. For example, I think he is still best known as a talk show host, so why not leave it at that, and discuss ratings in the body of the article. Anyway, I will keep an eye on it and re-write the lead if there appears to be a lot of back and forth on it. Cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 03:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not an admin, never went up for it. Maybe one of these days LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Babe, in my book, you da Boss!! LOL

And should be! Fondly — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are the man! Thanks broski!!! <3 #YOUROCK #SEXYMAN #HASHTAG Yomynameisbob364 (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Chris, and I have a question about Wikipedia: Why do people who work for Wikipedia always have to ruin a guy's fun by taking away my funny edits and the blocking me for like, six fucking months?!!? Come on.

Hi Chris. We don't work for Wikipedia, we volunteer our time because we think that a project to make accurate information freely available to the World is worthwhile. To keep the project reliable, we quickly remove information that is not correct, and try to persuade the editor to contribute in a positive way. Why not spend some time genuinely improving articles that interest you? Or, if that's not your thing, write a funny blog, come up with something for YouTube or in general spend your time making something that will last. Why waste your time? Best wishes Seaphoto^Talk 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Seaphoto, I just wanted to let you know that you've been mistakenly reverting deletion tags at this page. The edit summary you're using says that you're reverting removals of AfD tags, but the tags you're replacing are G7 speedy deletion tags. G7 is "author request" tags, and of course if the author of an article makes a deletion request, they're also allowed to retract the request by removing the tag. Usually, it's not cool for page authors to remove speedy deletion tags from their own pages, either, (although the edit summary would still be a bit misleading, since ~~CSD~~AfD tags are not the same as speedy deletion tags), but this is an exception. It's not a big deal, really, since the page should be deleted anyway for promotional reasons, but keep it in mind for the future. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for that, the original tag was G11, somewhere in the process it got changed to G7. As you say, Hugggle doesn't have a specific warning for removing speedy deletion tags, probably something we should work on as effectively it is the same type of action. I appreciate your letting me know this however, I will type a better rational in the future for these types of edits. Cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 18:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, SDPatrolBot automatically puts up a G7 tag if the author blanks their article, regardless of any CSD tags that were on it before. A weird way of doing things, but SDPatrolBot does seem to have its quirks. Anyway, no worries; not that big a deal, and like I said, I ended up deleting the article per the original G11 tag anyway. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made any types of external reference links to Coit Tower. If there was some grammar to be corrected, I was just doing so, that's all.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, you only modified the link and didn't add it. I ended up removing it in the next edit on Coit Tower, but you shouldn't have received a warning for that. I have removed it from your talk page - my apologies. Seaphoto^Talk 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies accepted.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you quick response in order to give me more clarification about editing an article in here, keep up the good work. i hope you will success in what you are doing rite now by contribute help for WiKi, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.89.60 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto, how are you today? i have also added replies to Sirkablaam regarding editing an article here without knowing the actual rules, i hope Seaphoto and Sirkablaam will be appointed or nominated as a good helper+contributor in order to help WiKi keep growth+secured+protected+genuinely information. Personally i will vote both of you with full ratings 10/10 = 100% i hope in future i will learn more from both of you guys about WiKi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.89.60 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed bragging rights turning it into a soft redirect to the wikitionary entry on bragging rights. You reverted my changes and claimed that you personally felt they weren't constructive. I disagree. The page is not an article it is a definition. It's been listed as a definition since September 2011. Can you explain to me what you think would be a more constructive way to remove this as an article and redirect people to the proper place? Ceaseless (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I restored the edit and removed the warning. My apologies, was a bit too quick on the draw there. Seaphoto^Talk 01:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added 52 is the favroute number of mathematician josh hill and you deleted it. I know that my statement is true because I am mathematician josh hill!

And I could post under Pesto that it is my favorite pasta sauce. Neither would matter because we do not meed the Notability standards of Wikipedia. Seaphoto^Talk 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism by Angela Criss on Mountain Dew ImhotepBallZ (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, I was visiting a wikipage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Forde a few days ago and noticed an inconsistency; he was stated to be both the 15th and the 19th PM of Australia. Using my powers of investigation and deduction, I determined that the reference to 19th was wrong, and decided to do the right thing and fix it. Which I did. After which you sent me a message saying my fix was incorrect and would be reverted. I'm guessing that maybe there's been a mixup in my identity with someone elses, due to me making the edit anonymously (and having it recorded against my IP address, which is probably shared with a lot of people). I notice that you didn't actually revert my edit anyway, and I've now created a wikipedia account (plantron) anyway. Regards -- David Planktron (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, another user, Timeshift, sent you that message. The message I left was about an edit to Emergenza, in which the festival was described as a Scam. That sort of assertion, without substantial documentation, is going to be quickly reverted. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 02:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this minor but welcome edit. As I look at your list of recent contributions I see that it's the kind of edit that you like to do. Well, each to his or her taste. However, if you'd like some variety from time to time, I warmly recommend "adopting" the articles on one or two towns, villages or universities in India. Why? Well, conceivably I have been unlucky in my own small selection, but however representative "my" articles are, they've been repeatedly stuffed with:

civic boosterism
commercial and personal promotion
waffle
unsourced assertions
plagiarized text

The results can verge on the blackly funny. See this and this for two recent minor eruptions of one person's long-lasting campaign to advertise his own excellence. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. As a Huggle user, when I encounter such edits in the stream I will delete them, and time permitting, examine the article further for other instances of self aggrandizement, commercial promotion and similar attempts at puffery. I also have a few dozen articles on my personal watchlist that relate to fields I have a deeper interest in, or articles subject to subtle vandalism that others using automated tools might not catch. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, good. Oh, my list above was incomplete. Add:

sourcing to crap sources (personal blogs, etc)
"sourcing" to sources that conspicuously fail to say what they're claimed to say
repetition (often misrepetition and thus contradiction)

Actually my own favorite among unwittingly humorous touches is elsewhere. It isn't something that's unusually pronounced in articles on India. It's instead endemic in WP articles on anywhere, and exemplified by:

[According to the 2001 census] The literate population of Azamgarh district was 2,860,821, of which male and female were 1,606,696 and 1,254,125 respectively.

FFS, specification to seven significant figures is almost always meaningless. And here it's particularly obvious that the precision is completely bogus. No census nets everybody. And even if it were able do so, you'd have to specify the day, and somehow factor in the number of people dying during the day or (through maturation) gaining literacy (whatever literacy is defined as meaning) or (through senility, death, etc) losing literacy during the day. Unsurprisingly, these factoids on literacy for Azamgarh district -- strangely placed in the article on the municipality of Azamgarh -- are not sourced. But I'm pretty sure that they are sourceable. Even if an apparently authoritative source were adduced for them, I'd dismiss them as poppycock (unless perhaps carefully explained and qualified). But I'd be stoutly opposed. ("It's a government statistic, from a reliable source! Who are you to apply 'original research' to the denigration of such neutral and credible information?") -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is no doubt that articles concerning India require a cadre of good editors willing to increase the quality up to the standards elsewhere in Wikipedia. You could spent a lot of time simply removing the "etc." that seems appended to so many lists of names, places and things, for example. Still, I try to apply the WP:NOBITE principal as much as possible, realizing that the nature of Wikipedia is that it will always be a bit messy. Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to my edit to the halo page, sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.165.172 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Huggle and copied my huggle.css source code from User:Seaphoto/huggle.css. Could you please explain me what does the parameter "prod-log:False" mean? --PlanetEditor (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, as I use the tool but did not have a hand in developing it. As a general rule, PROD on Wikipedia refers to Proposed Deletion, so perhaps it disables displaying a list of those. Just a guess though. Happy Reverting! Seaphoto^Talk 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --PlanetEditor (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

They trying to put down g** and f** in titles and says those are the actual titles and says that his edits are "sourced by reality". Should've been blocked on the spot. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No good comes from engaging in a dialog with someone like that IP editor. By the time I got your message he already had a 48 hour ban, and if he starts up again it will be extended from there. Cordially Seaphoto^Talk 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted a link I added to "Quality Time" because you says "does not seem appropiate for an encyclopedia". The external link is a think tank start-up that works to develop solutions to help people use technology to spend ore quality time together, and the company name is Quality Time lab. I believe is relevant, and was not meant as any kind of vandalism or advertising. It is a valid reference with lots of research in its pages. Please allow me to place the link back. I believe it is very relevant and fits in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not here to promote other websites,help start ups,sell apps and software, nor is it a directory or collection of links. Links that go to sales sites are quickly removed less we be inundated with them. Seaphoto^Talk 17:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say thank you for reverting that bit of vandalism on my talk page the other day. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You messaged me about removing an edit I made. You'll need to tell me what it was because, frankly, I've slept since then and I have no idea what it was anymore. If you can tell me what it was I can verify the information because I work here and I'm pretty sure anything I had to say about it is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.144.106 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It was regarding this edit from you IP address indicating that "Students are required to participate in orgies and human sacrifice.". Perhaps more than one person is using this address at your office. Seaphoto^Talk 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you reversed my changes on the Michael Berry page. I've listened to him and I know he has flip-flopped on Libya as well as supported Santorum and Romney while claiming to oppose Karl Rove right now. I also heard him on radio when he made the claim that he could not accept a Hindu or a Buddhist as the POTUS. His wife being a Regent of the University of Houston and Berry himself making money off the government are well known. Berry being caught in a gay bar when he was involved in a hit-and-run case was in the news. I agree I could have provided citations, but why not allow me to do incremental changes and keep improving over a day or two before deleting it? That would be the most convenient method for me. My style is to first add the points from my memory and then dig out the best citations and add them later. In fact, I will delete those points for which my search for citations yields no results. Please restore the edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.36.22 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, that may be your process, but it is counter to the explicit policies of Wikipedia regarding biographies of living people. You can read the guidelines here at Wikipedia Guidelines for Biography of Living People. In short, edits must be neutral and verifiably sourced. We have a great responsibility to get it right, particularly when dealing with articles about people - you can see that while you personally might act ethically and carefully, without these policies all manner of unsourced nonsense would quickly choke the pages with libelous and potentially harmful material. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You messaged me about my apparent vandalism on the Kevin Durant page and i would like to let you know that I was trying to add his most popular nickname to his page. If you believe that it is vandalism I would at least like an explanation as to why it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanomck (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem when you begin your editing with vandalism; when you do have something positive to contribute you will need to prove yourself by adding references or suffer the quite reasonable assumption that your are just doing more of the same. I will remove the warning I placed on your talk page, but realize you have two legitimate strikes already. Seaphoto^Talk 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanomck (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this - much appreciated. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey dude why are you taking out my alumni from my high school? I linked it to the guy and sourced it, and I really doubt you know anything about my school.

Please see WP:NOTABILITY for guidelines pertaining to sports figures. Seaphoto^Talk 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

don't block me

Tomrocksocks (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You have the power to prevent that if you wish. Hope you decide to contribute to the project. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 05:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the comment on the report you made. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 07:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I went back and looked at the edit trail, as I was using Huggle, which automatically assigns warnings based on previous actions. Take a look at this , and let me know what you think. If you look at my other edits, you will see I don't jump warning levels and often will revert without any warning at all if there is a chance of it being a good faith edit. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to jump warning levels, I was expecting you to have ensured that the editor (or any editor) had been warned that they may be blocked if they continue to vandalise, and for them to have continued to vandalise subsequent to receiving that warning before you report them to AIV. In this case, the editor had made a single newbie edit. Was warned once (at the time) and had not (and still has not) made any further edits after their first edit (they have no deleted contributions either). It was inappropriate to report them to AIV, which is for clear, ongoing vandalism, despite clear warnings to stop. This editor fits none of those description. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 07:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the way I do it. I am not sure what happened in this case - are you a Huggle user? If so, then you know that the four warning levels, followed by the AIV are automatically assigned when you hit the revert and warn button. I have been using this tool for a few years and many thousands of edits, and this is the first time this particular circumstance has happened. I note that evidently there are at least two similar accounts for this user (see the link I posted above), so perhaps that is where the confusion lies. I will investigate further and see what exactly happened, but I do understand and fully agree with the policy of multiple levels of warning prior to AIV. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Seaphoto^Talk 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why wasnt the user who insulted me banned? please answer instead of making threats! I rest my case... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was abusive to the user. Feel free to restore it in a civil manner, without the personal attack. If you want to let me know which user insulted you, I can look into that. Oh, and please sign your talk page comments with four tildes so I know who I am talking to. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 02:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF MAKING EXCUSES! WHY WAS NO ACTION TAKEN TO THE USER WHO WROTE THIS: I'll take that one. "Blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer propagandists blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer bullshit." Poor little, tiny conspiracy theorist. Mommy doesn't love him enough to give him attention. Feel free to "silence" (conspiracy theorist talk for "rightly make fun of") this latchkey kid as needed. 68.0.236.131 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk)

I have left a comment on the User's talk page asking them to be more civil in the future. Banning is a multiple step process, requiring more than one warning. The hope is that an editor can be persuaded to behave in a way that will advance our enyclopedia, rather to engage in punitive action alone. Some people can be diverted with a warning or two, while others find that the give and take of a collaborative process such as this is not for them. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

He gets a comment, i get warnings and bans... different rules?! i rest my case! (all started when i did try to improve the moon hoax article but i even got my posts in the talk session deleted but peoples opinion is allowed in the ARTICLE itself(!) which is not accetable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I generally don't give a formal warning on my first contact with a user. Looking over your talk page, it appears you have been warned multiple times by multiple users, and you continue commenting in an uncivil manner. When your block expires, consider making your case dispassionately with facts, and you may persuade people to see your point of view. Throwing insults around just causes them to dig in and close their minds to what you are saying. That would be my best advice to you. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 02:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it it that when I contribute hours of content, days, and weeks of contributions, it is ALL deleted? Then if I do the same to other's content, it is I who am the vandal? What the fuck is wrong with this site?

And this is the second time I am explaining this. I should not have to. You should learn to read. added at 05:33, 23 February 2013‎ by User:Unggoydiyos

Already dealt with. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors, but I reverted your edit where you blanked an entire talk page, evidently in a petulant fit. Just because others do things you don't agree with doesn't give you license to do what you please. Seaphoto^Talk 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting your page, I was searching up things and I accidentally deleted your page, thanks

-Xtaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtaw4 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, I'm Hrattink and would like to respond to your edit of the Security Awareness Training page. The link to the site i've added is in fact an online manifest/training for security awareness and is not commercial. Unlike the other links, for example phsime.com (very interesting, but it looks commercial to me) or www.wombatsecurity.com. These are fine links, but i think mine is the only one that has a sincere educational character. Why do you see this differently? Kind regards, Hans Rattink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrattink (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm or for the promotion of websites, especially by the people who run them. If there are other questionable sites in the article we should remove them, not add to them. I have applied that standard to websites that I run, as well as those by family members. If we give in to the desire for promotion, Wikipedia would become overrun with worthless links. Please see WP:ELNO for more information. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, I guess you do your job well. I just think Stza and the band are a joke and felt like vandalizing the page. I did so at the bottom of the Hellcat Records page as well. this guy promotes the killing of other people then cries like a baby when he perceives some tiny bit of sexism or what have you to occur. he's an idiot and I just took out my frustration on him. I won't do it again. You are clearly diligent in your work. more power to you, and again, I won't cause any more trouble. cheerio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.95.36 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

NO I will not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ummmmm are you stalking me or something? If you are then please stop, it's creepy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.33.138 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just reverting vandalism in general using WP:Huggle Seaphoto^Talk 18:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you block me for one hour? (for testing purposes) 121.7.54.103 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your IP is not currently blocked. Seaphoto^Talk 18:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wesley College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Women's College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Women's College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah bro never edited this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCCP_(disambiguation)i don't come to wikipedia to edit only to learn please leave me be from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:28FF:EF0:0:0:0:3D (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. If you go to your user contributions page you will find it there. If you share an IP with other people you may want to consider registering a user name, which will eliminate warnings for actions not your own from a common IP, such as a school or company. Seaphoto^Talk 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You messaged me about a removal of an edit. i made no such edit, i think you might have messaged the wrong person. i never wrote anything about ferrari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.10.48 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the note about IP addresses at the bottom of your talk page. The warning was not addressed to you, but whoever was using that particular IP address at that time. Seaphoto^Talk 00:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Do you mean to tell me that the external link on How to Resolve a Damaged Reputation was not helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.10.182 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I examined the page and found it to be for the promotion of a services. Please see Wikipedia guidelines for external links to be avoided for more information. Seaphoto^Talk 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop sending me messages then, please ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) SherryNave says: you reverted my change on hominy Oklahoma but the actual page contains false info concerning professional sports hominy never had a professional team in the NFL my source comes from a list of all NFL AFL teams ever it mentions Hominy never so please don't revert it again, Thank you

Hello dear Seaphoto, all members of Kravtzov family today lives in countries with Latin (West Europe, Anglo-Saxone), not Cyrillic system. Sometimes this surname transliterated as Krawtzow or Kravtzoff (dep. on country of living). And this family of Polish origin. Transcription of surname for members of this Family not in modern Russian style. Thank You for Your understanding. Kravtz (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have explained removal of content on Talk for Kravtzov family.

OK. It's good to explain on the edit summary of a page why you are blanking it, as this is usually vandalism. I won't revert future edits to the page now that I know what is happening. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. Cheers, Seaphoto^Talk 01:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank You for reminding. Sure I will for the next time. Best regards, Kravtz (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, can I ask You if now page Kravtsov family have to move back to page Kravtzov family or have to be deleted? Kravtz (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Now its fine, Im redirected both articles back to the inception version. Best regards, sorry for disturbing. Kravtz (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

	Im not the only one.......................
	Others will do it wont anymore but others will........... doma has to go........ i understand what you did................ Xpcyoungx (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but an encyclopedia is not the place to pursue an agenda. Cheers Seaphoto^Talk 05:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

	Sorry
	Just tired of the stuff so i was trying to get some attention on it..... sorry Xpcyoungx (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Next time when a vandal targets my userpage, can you warn after every revert so we can perhaps kick out of Wikipedia sooner? Thanks. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Seaphoto. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Ummah, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Seaphoto^Talk 04:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You weren't paying attention. As noted in WP:MOS, lower case is required in section headings except when there is a particular reason to capitalize a letter. Valid reasons are (1) The first letter in the section heading is capital except when there is a special reason to use lower case, and (2) Proper names and the like, such as "John Smith". 174.53.163.119 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit changed the words "usage" to "wsage". That is why I reverted. Seaphoto^Talk 04:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pleased to help - thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that your server has violated my company and the staff placing animals in danger and has also attacked my dead brother, slandered, defamafed and will now be met unless you remove the offending link an immediate legal notice and request thats listed here http://wiki.globalanimalwelfare.org/index.php?title=International_Animal_Rescue_Foundation

This is a complete and disgraceful disrespect of our work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr J C Dimetri (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just left you a note on your talk page here, Dr. Dimetri; please read it. In short, the website you're linking to is not part of Wikipedia, and we have no authority or control over it. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I would urge you to read, and understand WP:No Legal Threats; in short if you threaten legal action your account can be suspended. Seaphoto^Talk 02:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that your server has violated my company and the staff placing animals in danger and has also attacked my dead brother, slandered, defamafed and will now be met unless you remove the offending link an immediate legal notice and request thats listed here http://wiki.globalanimalwelfare.org/index.php?title=International_Animal_Rescue_Foundation

This is a complete and disgraceful disrespect of our work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr J C Dimetri (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just left you a note on your talk page here, Dr. Dimetri; please read it. In short, the website you're linking to is not part of Wikipedia, and we have no authority or control over it. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I would urge you to read, and understand WP:No Legal Threats; in short if you threaten legal action your account can be suspended. Seaphoto^Talk 02:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding an Infobox photo here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!

Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

hi Gina is my godmother, mentor and close friend, i am with her and have her permission to put my website on her page, if in doubt read my webpage or contact her gina.fratini@btinternet.com

thanks, Philip

Hello, the subject of an article does not own the article, and cannot give waivers for exclusions from Wikipedia guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for information on self promotion. In general, you should never add your own website or business to Wikipedia as it would be a conflict of interest. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, you should probably remove Gina's personal email address from this, and make sure the edit history is hidden. Mabalu (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your great reverts as of late! We've met a few times, each one of us reverting to clean copies of the article the other last reverted. Keep up the great work mate! All the best. Cheers! T.I.M^(Contact) 03:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - thanks for your work too! Seaphoto^Talk 03:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, and your persistent fight against vandalism on Wikipedia! Arctic Kangaroo 04:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 04:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I, Jeff G., award you this Barnstar for your heroic efforts in fighting vandalism, including a personal attack on my user talk page. Keep up the good work! — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank You Seaphoto, I strive to be like you! BenTheElectionMan (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts in fighting vandalism - you beat me thrice today! hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 08:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Seaphoto^Talk 18:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your great work on dealing with vandalism. Keep up the great work. Tolly 4 bolly 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That was an incredible amount of vandalism on Like Minds! Hue Sat Lum 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, probably a 4chan or facebook group post. Not sure what they get out of it, it is quickly reverted and the article locked. Seaphoto^Talk 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

dont u jus love em

Prettygirl9 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi my my recent edits to victor ortiz were correct and I would like you to restore them. You can check oscars official twitter account as evidence he really did tweet that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacbradley2 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

He is known primarily as a Boxer, not a dancer. If you contend otherwise, you will need plenty of verifiable sources to prove it. Seaphoto^Talk 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colleen Fitzpatrick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not linking to any websites or any products I am just showing a video of me climbing the pyramid, how dose this have a negative impact on the page? For people wanting to know what its like to climb this video will help a lot more than pictures ever will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adairtrainer (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your user name and the fact that the video refers to personal training in the title leads me to conclude that this is an attempt to promote your business. Controversial edits should be discussed on the articles talk page rather than engaging in a lot of back and forth edits. In fact, we have a rule for that, called the 3 Revert rule - you can read more about at WP:3RR, but in a nutshell editors should not engage in edit wars, and, after 3 reverts in a 24 hour period (not including vandalism) an editor should step back and encourage comment instead. The fact that several different editors came to the same conclusion about your link is an indicator that, at the very least, discussion is in order. BTW, it is an impressive feat! Cheers Seaphoto^Talk 02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The post I added did include citation from http://insideschools.org/high/browse/school/1724 The post also contained primary content from a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.238 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous comments on a website are not a reliable source of criticism. Please see WP:UGC for more information - thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was deleting the contents of the page "Schmidt brewery" in an attempt to redirect it to the page "Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company" I created both pages and they are the same thing. Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company is the more developed of the two pages with links and corrections "Schmidt Brewery" was made by mistake and I was just trying to clean it up. If you know how to merge the two pages please do. Just leave everything the same on "Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company" "Schmidt Brewery" is pretty much a rough draft. I just want it to redirect to "Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazias88 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, leaving edit summaries when you do this will be helpful - thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you are and what you know about An Jung Geun. You seem to side with Jim, or whoever the person behind the computer is.

The current page on An Jung-Geun promotes the Japanese view of the incident with the word, "assassination" while the Chinese and Korean view of the incident is "prosecution." People and Wikipedia should be banning you two for undoing my edits, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.175 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not about point of view, it's about language. Your edit does not use the word prosecution correctly. That is why you are being reverted. I don't have an opinion one way or another about the article itself. Hope that helps a bit. Seaphoto^Talk 05:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "prosecution" is indeed used correctly in the sense that An Jung-Geun killed Ito Hirobumi with the Korean public's interest in mind and Korea and China were on the verge of annexation. The underground Korean government, of which An Jung-Geun and many others seeking independence were part, identified Ito Hirobumi as a war criminal and key figure of Japanese annexation of Korea and An Jung-Geun "prosecuted" Ito Hirobumi per the "order" or plans discussed and laid out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.175 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but any English speaking person would label the events, even exactly as you presented them, as an assassination. A justifiable assassination? Perhaps, and there you can make a case one way or the other, but grammatically incorrect. Again, this is not about the politics of the event, you simply are not using the proper word to convey your thoughts. To help, here are a couple of dictionary links:

Prosecution -

Assassination -

Anyway, please consider my advice to discuss the change on the article's talk page, because you are in violation of Wikipedia's 3 Revert Rule. Thanks Seaphoto^Talk 05:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not even Korean, and was born and raised in the US and Canada, two of the English-speaking countries. I happen to know a lot more about and thus am unbiased towards East Asian history than an average Joe. And An Jung-Geun's act is indeed "prosecution" in that the Korean government identified Ito Hirobumi as a war criminal and authorized him to do so. I unfortunately am running out of time to take this further but will come back when I am more or less free. And, please cite proper English dictionary resources, rather than wiki-anything.

Then perhaps you mean "execution". Well anyway, discuss it on the article's talk page, as this will be a fundamental change to the article. A compromise might be to include a section balancing the point of view with the Korean/Chinese perspective if it can be sourced. Seaphoto^Talk 15:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto,

I'm a features writer at The Verge working on a story about vandalism prevention on Wikipedia. I thought you, as a dedicated vandalism fighter, might be interested in talking to me. If so, my email address is jesse@theverge.com. Thanks!

WellingtonHotdog (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Email sent to you. Seaphoto^Talk 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, you have removed the insertion I have made and the external link I have created, claiming that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it what way do the insertions I have made differ in principle from the bulk of the content on that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Musson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Max, Max, Max. You can't simply insert your own review into an encyclopedia article. And your web site is nothing but a group blog with no scholarly value. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, contributions to Wikipedia can be challenged and removed unless they are supported by a reliable source (see WP: RS for more information). In particular, self published sources are considered, in most cases, not reliable. You can read more about that at WP:SPS. I hope that helps. Seaphoto^Talk 01:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The repeated edits by Maxim Musson, where he has repeatedly inserted a review WRITTEN BY HIMSELF for his neo-Nazi website into the text of the Wikipedia page Generation War, violate basic Wikipedia policy WP:SPS which prohibits self-publishing. This review expresses HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BULLETIN BOARD FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

The issue is not that he is expressing a neo-Nazi viewpoint, which is what his 'Western Spring' website represents. The issue is that Wikipedia pages ARE NOT A PLACE FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

I believe that Maxim Musson needs to be blocked. Prospero10 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, I removed the website link for Sex and the City, as well as many other tv series website links, because those pages no longer exist. I even stated that in the edit summary each time I made an edit. I don't understand how much clearer I can be. Next time read my edit summary before you give me any warnings. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.209.88 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, both HBO websites worked fine for me tonight when I checked them. Perhaps you are having a problem with your browser or Internet connection, but I stand behind the edit. Seaphoto^Talk 09:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, I should have put this - already entered above - AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. So here it is, again)

The repeated edits by Maxim Musson, where he has repeatedly inserted a review WRITTEN BY HIMSELF for his neo-Nazi website into the text of the Wikipedia page Generation War, violate basic Wikipedia policy WP:SPS which prohibits self-publishing. The review expresses HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BULLETIN BOARD FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

The issue is not that he is expressing a neo-Nazi viewpoint, which is what his 'Western Spring' website represents. The issue is that Wikipedia pages ARE NOT A PLACE FOR POSTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

I believe that Maxim Musson should be blocked. Prospero10 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to shout, I get the message 8-). We issued warnings based on his edits, and he did stop after the final warning. If he continues to add his own website, he will be blocked. Cheers Seaphoto^Talk 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to see Binksternet's talk page and you will see it is sourced,not dubious.--Victorkkd（留言） 2014年2月15日 (二) 01:25 (UTC)

I want to make good edits now, but how? (What edit do to sandbox)2602:306:3649:E200:10AC:C2FE:D92C:7392 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You can practice all you want at WP:Sandbox Seaphoto^Talk 03:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How can asking for the truth be vandalism when one can cite a website that can either support or is against the truth? Vandalism is NOT telling the truth. Wikipedia itself is asking for verifiability. What then should you suggest if one asks for information be verified. Soemtimes you would then ask why some teachers don't consider wikipedia as a reliable source of information for research because data is not necessarily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.66 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need good verifiable information on Wikipedia. As I pointed out twice before I sent you the warning, you have two choices to improve an article. 1) - Be bold and make the changes yourself, or 2) Put your concerns on the article talk page. I have no problem with either course, but please don't put commentary in the article itself. I hope this clears things up a bit. Seaphoto^Talk 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I keep running into both you and Cluebot every time I try to revert.

Just leave some for me, okay? (I jest)

Good job tho'. Abce2 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I see you already have a lot of barnstars on your talk page. Well, I'll tell you this right up front - NOT ENOUGH. This barnstar will take you one step closer to the point where one can say, "You have enough barnstars." K6ka (talk \| contribs) 18:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

just i want to delete TV Azteca Because is a stupid network and it will be cancelled this year so Please delete the article of TV Azteca from wikipedia because is a low network of Mexico and it is stupid to had this shit and i like to delete and i don't want to be anymore.

Hello, I see you are almost at the point where you will be banned. Why not contribute in a positive way instead? There are a lot of great articles that could use work. Please reconsider your actions. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 20:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

i like some spanish like Televisa, Univision and Telemundo But TV Azteca is a Piece of Shit that we had in Mexico most of Coahuila That i Like to Change By The Most of Local Channels like Univision Only for Coahuila to help improve of poblace of Coahuila to keep better that.

Why was my edit to New York State Route 79 vandalism? All I did was add a true fact about New York State Route 79. 173.50.59.12 (talk

Unsourced content can be challenged and immediate removed. You did not provide a reliable source for your edit. Seaphoto^Talk 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

what evidence u want

Have you seen that this article mentions you? – Connormah (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

facepalm* Just saw that you gave some quotes to the article (so you should know! ;) ), but I found it really neat nonetheless! Keep up the good work! – Connormah (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I found it interesting, while I have worked on the Huggle side of things for quite some time, I learned a lot about Cluebot and how it works. Thanks for the kind words! Seaphoto^Talk 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto. Please see this. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I have the ability to do that, just tried it on a page I made and the undo only affected the change, not the edit summary. An admin should be able to take care of this for you. Cordially Seaphoto^Talk 05:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to disable the automatic edit-summary of rollback by adding a custom edit-summary java script to your vector.js like I did here. You will then get an additional field on rollback called [sum] for edit-summary, so that you can add your own before reverting using rollback as I did here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Seaphoto, I keep trying to add Charles H. Baker Jr. to notable residents of Coconut Grove (linking it to his Wikipedia entry) but it keeps getting removed. The removal is attributed to you. Baker was a noted author whose books are highly collectible and his former Coconut Grove home {Java Head) is listed on the DuPont Registry. His name belongs on the list. Professor C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.81.244 (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Entries that lack an independent, verifiable source or a Wikipedia article are routinely removed from Notable lists, lest Wikipedia become choked with line after line of people who may or may not be truly notable. If the gentleman has an existing Wikipedia article,link his name to it and that will establish it. To link, add double brackets around his name, and if it comes up in blue during the preview you are set. If it comes up red there is no article and you will need to cite a source. I hope this helps you a bit. Cordially. Seaphoto^Talk 07:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Seaphoto, that is exactly what I did. The entry was indeed linked to Charles H. Baker Jr's Wikipedia page (link showed up in blue); it was removed despite this. I would appreciate it if you restored his name to the list. It belongs there, Baker's articled and books are sought-after collectors items and his home in the Grove, Java Head, is world famous. Cordially, Professor C.69.58.109.102 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it was added in by another editor to the Coconut Grove article on on February 17. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto. The source for adding Laura Ferrin, Attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah on the "Laura (given name)" page is myself. I am Laura Ferrin. What type of source are you referring to? I am listed on the Utah bar website's directory as an attorney in Salt Lake City, but if I link to that someone else I don't know on here might remove it. When I linked it to my webpage as the source, that didn't work either. Someone else had a problem with that. What should I do? The best source for knowing my name, that I am a lawyer, and where I practice is myself. It is not printed in a book, but it 100% true and fact. What kind of source do you want? Why cannot I add that information to Wikipedia? What better source than myself? How do I put myself as the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsslc (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Laura, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not a universal directory of everyone who has ever lived or practiced a profession. To be included a subject must meet the standards of Notability established by the community. Additionally we do not permit original research, including first person accounts, to establish anything. The reason is that all content must be verifiable through an independent, reliable sources. Without these policies, we would become choked with promotional articles for anyone selling goods or services.

The founding principles of Wikipedia are the Five Pillars. Most policy flows from these basic tenets which are the core of the project. Have a look at the page (It's short and to the point), and I think you will see where we are coming from as a community. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask anytime. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It was definitely not promotional. I see other entire pages about attorneys whose main references/citations are to their law firm's website for their information. It is notable. I should not have to be an artist like an actress or author for you to consider the fact that I work in my profession to be notable. I am known in my profession and in my community as a bankruptcy lawyer. Who are you anyway? And why do you have so much time on your hands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.173.173 (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It fails the test of Notability as far as Wikipedia goes; if you tale the time to read that section it should clarify things for you. That said, a good test is that if a person does not merit their own Wikipedia article they probably will not meet the standard of inclusion in more general list. Another test is that if you are adding yourself to Wikipedia you are probably not notable. If you see other articles who also fail to meet that standard, feel free to remove them as well; the fact that someone else missed it is not a justification include your entry. Don't feel bad, I have accomplished quite a bit on my fields but I don't meet the standard either. It is not a test of your personal success, but rather if you noteworthy enough for an international encyclopedia. If you feel I am wrong you can always discuss it on the talk page for the article in question and get input from other Wikipedia editors. As for me, I am only one of many volunteers for the project who devotes some of their spare time toward keeping Wikipedia a useful resource. Have a peek at WP:CIVILITY as well which will give you some community guidelines on how to interact with your fellow editors in a positive manner. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 17:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent efforts in battling the bizarre edits of William Clark and his possible sock puppet, User:Inquiringmindswanttoknow in the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. The article was originally written with many primary sources from San Francisco's main newspaper, The Chronicle, and later went through a major rewrite by veteran DYK editor User:Yoninah. If you open the below link you can see the article when it was in it's DYK form. Please read that version as it seems like we should revert back to that state of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=596854766

Since the time of DYK release, the article has been infested with a multitude of questionable, self-aggrandizing, and disorganized edits by the ever-persistent William Clark and Inquiringmindswanttoknow -- neither of which has even bothered to become a registered Wikipedia User or to even familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s procedures and rules.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable that we need to apply some page protection, and a revert the article to its earlier state DYK state.James Carroll (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I take no position on the material, just that anything added to the article be neutral and verifiable. Cordially. Seaphoto^Talk 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I submitted a reference page that's content speaks in depth about the solenoid valve topic page. It should be a valuable resource but you removed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.36.71 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm, and the blog is a newish (one year old) unsourced sales link, probably, based on past experience, one you write or are otherwise connected with. I see and remove many such links from Wikipedia, less it become a repository of spam links. You will note that another editor made the same decision the first time you added the link. You are welcome to discuss the link on the article's talk page, but you should disclose any connection you have to it. Seaphoto^Talk 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Seaphoto for actually reviewing the site to make your decision. Yes, I am the owner of the site and it was a project I created for my engineering program last year. It is not a sales site as you may think because there is nothing for sale. The domain name probably isn't appropriate for the content but it is an informational site. I would like to keep up with the site adding content about the topic and would appreciate any reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.36.71 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but the rule of thumb is that if the subject or website is notable, it will be added by someone not connected with it. We have this rule to prevent self-promotion and ensure that the encyclopedia is as accurate as possible. Have a look at WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:OR for more information. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed of how fast you reacted to my vandalism. There should be more people like you

I do not understand. Why were you thinking in the promotion? It is not promotion, the study. Please try to judge that rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy choi (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you wrote the study, and are including it in an article you are writing, citing yourself. This is Original Research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Because you insist on using it(you have been asked not to twice already, and explained why) , rather than find other sources, it appears you are using the article for self promotion. Seaphoto^Talk 15:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I was still difficult to understand. It is just the sharing of research. But, I will delete my name and link of data from the source. So, be satisfactory? Is it just trust me? Other sources? It's just same cases.

I have changed the page. So, I will continue to complement. Please advise me!

What can I do about it? Billy choi (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there are criteria for articles to make sure they are neutral and as accurate as possible, To do this, we require sources that are of good quality, a policy that is explained in Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. Also please look at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia that explain the core philosophies of our project. It is from these principles that everything flows, so an understanding of them will be very helpful in your future editing. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! But, I have a command to the modification of pages from the another person. I guess I really wanted to continue. My hopes are gone. Billy choi (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of my information on The Page Peter Frenette is not okay because I am his sister and it is all true information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annieryder (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to know that- anyone can pose as anybody on Wikipedia, which is why we require verifiable sources, especially in the biographies of living people. If you think about it a bit you can understand why - what is someone wanted to post something libelous and hurtful, and claimed to have first hand knowledge of it. Even if you were who you say you are the addition is not a useful addition to an encyclopedia. Seaphoto^Talk 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bkerensa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen dick head if you wish wikipedia to be less accurate go a fucking head tit. I'll extrapolate you superior oaf. Malcolm Allen regularly co-commentates on Sgorio hence my first change. He also commentates on radio Cymru, i.e. in a different media, for a different organisation on a different programme, hence the change of title to media work. The last change was to delete John Hartson's name as he no longer contributes to Sgorio due to his contract with BBC Radio Five Live. Hope this explains - you utter useless turd. ... added at 22:27, 29 August 2014 by 86.190.196.79 (talk)

Well, since I didn't revert any edits you made to Malcolm Allen you may want to reconsider all of this LOL. If you look at the date of the message I left on your IP, it was over a year ago, and for obvious vandalism to a different article. Remember that IP's often rotate and someone else may have edited Wikipedia from that IP back then. So take a deep breath and enhance your calm. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Great job on fixing my vandalism so rapidly and efficiently Meep876 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

people like you keep talking bad things about me i dont want 50 people harrassing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee999 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

hey i want to know how to add category in the article in the wiki and the appropriate links for and encyclopedia please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omthavertch (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a great place to start to learn how to edit WP:Contributing to Wikipedia. To answer your question about links, a link should add significant value to the subject with a depth greater than possible in the article itself. It should never be a site you are connected with. Blogs are discouraged, particularly those with advertising. The are more guidelines available at WP:External Links. I hope this helps a bit. Seaphoto^Talk 05:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort to keep wikipedia free of vandalism, sometimes it is hard to provide a valid citation on certain topics especially when they are based off social media controversies. The topic of my edit will be in Australian news within the week so I'll wait until then to re-edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcraff (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube stuff is almost always going to be reverted anyway, unless the subject is particularly notable. In an encyclopedia, we are looking for verifiable information from trusted sources. Please see WP:Sources for more information. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 04:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page. I had already given Minecraft 2727 four warnings, although I had repeated template 3. The user blanked those warnings so now he/she has had six warnings. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well no harm in a few extra; if he or she keeps up the pattern they will be banned soon enough. Cheers! Seaphoto^Talk 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if you are the Wikipedia Administrator who had this article removed twice, but the Wikipedia administrators have collectively been censoring this topic.

The topic and the conclusion it was a hate crime has not only been reported in "fringe" papers (which I guess is code for "gay" by the Wikipedia administrators) but by mainstream papers and television stations (NBC, ABC, Fox) in Philadelphia The Archdiocese of Philadelphia shares this viewpoint as evidenced by its comments on the crime.

Wikipedia should contain articles on hate crimes, which reflect on both American society and human nature.

I would be fine with edits and improvements to this article, but am very disappointed with the Wikipedia censorship machine that removed the article in its entirety twice. Please note that in the brief times the article was posted other people added substantially to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the deletion or the discussion of the article, but if I had I would have recommended deleting it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and therefore the goal is to get things right as opposed to getting information out quickly. If the story is notable and can be reliably sourced it will be included eventually. There is no rush. Seaphoto^Talk 14:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey buddy, are you available to provide some comments at the Sleeping Dogs FAC? I nominated it alongside Tezero and Czar some days ago, and so far the nomination has made a lot of progress. The problem is none of the users who gave comments have been active for the past two days, and even though we (the nominators) have adressed almost all of their concerns, they still haven't responded. It will be awesome if you can take a look at the article and see if there's anything that could have some improvement. Thank you, URDNEXT (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please have an eye on User:Claradlepore, too. Continues the vandalism of the recently blocked IP. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Seaphoto^Talk 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

destany= no star wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.137.72 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, maybe it could be argued that the add of line was not required, but the distinction that the Posner Task assesses spatial attention is a crucial one.

Friendly link for you here: http://www.gocognitive.net/video/marlene-behrmann-spatial-vs-object-based-attention

A book that speficially mentions posner task is assessing spatial attention:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AoWD2S8759kC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=posner+task+spatial+attention&source=bl&ots=EWtpgxe_52&sig=n8V4PoQYVQBkYMp1qpd6J7gSzK0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q74lVLaiJoLgOOu0gLAP&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=posner%20task%20spatial%20attention&f=false

A paper here that mentions it as the posner spatial cueing task: http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/vecera/lab/papers/vecera%26rizzo_neuroclinics.pdf

I can get you more links, but basically there are different forms of attention - spatial, temporal, feature, object, and this task investigates spatial attention (e.g. a location in space.).

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.64 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

opps - see you changed foveate back to looking at it. Well perhaps we could agree to saying looking at it, and then in brackets write (also referred to as foveate in brackets as thats the correct scientific term when you attend to something without looking at it.

Please see use/introduction of this standard term here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gItoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330&dq=without+foveating+it+attention&source=bl&ots=B-HKHPIrSD&sig=7Zzq97HnQKbmHNqaF6B3Pf85mg8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TMMlVKr7GMn2O6i8gbAP&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=without%20foveating%20it%20attention&f=false

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.64 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding with the links. I agree, it is a better term. One thing to help when editing is to include a summary of the changes you make which helps in identifying constructive edits vs. nonconstructive. I will change the edit on your talk page to remove the warning. Thanks for letting me know! Cordially. Seaphoto^Talk 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This IP: 103.14.60.77 is causing a lot of harm towards a lot of pages especially the one's I'm maintaining. Please look at his contributions and then ban him on site, he's getting annoying!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have requested page protection for some of the articles in question, so an Admin (which I am not, I do recent changes patrol) can make that determination. It looks like a lot of the changes the IP is making are pretty subtle, so the best defense is to regularly check your watchlist. Best wishes! Seaphoto^Talk 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto. You have new messages at Ducknish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I do not like the fact that you are telling me that MY HISTORY, the history of the Maronites cannot be trusted by a page that is by the people who are associated to Maronites, and know them best. The Maronites are not ARABS, they are an Ethnoreligious group that have had struggles to maintain their identity over time. They have successfully resisted their invaders, and now when we have the sources to display this you tell me that because it is Syriac Studies, it doesn't count?

Who else is going to care about doing studies about this people, other than the people themselves, or the people with agendas to seperate the nations of Assyria from their rightful heritage? We already speak Syriac, what more do you want?

Who is the leader in black studies, white people?

You have no idea who the Maronites are, and are only notified by wikipedia whenever someone edits the page, I am trying to unify the people in the Levant, and you are being a douche.

Again, ever heard of Black Studies, Ukranian Studies, Women Studies, Jewish Studies, or Italian Studies?

If you have someone else doing the study for you it is ethnocentric at its base, bias at its core.

Hello, I made the edit because, after viewing the site, I do not see any information that substantiates that is is a good, reliable source. I did a search on the group that runs it, and found little on the Internet to support it's notability. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that the information we include is both verifiable and reliable. There is no way to evaluate the information on the anonymous website to see if it is indeed reliable. Just because a website exists does not automatically make it reliable.

I have no bias one way or another on the subject, and would support any properly sourced edit you care to make. Are there established and published works that you can use? Any standard text on the history of Maronites? You can find out more about the kind of sources allowed on Wikipedia by view the page at WP:SOURCES.

While I applaud your desire to unify your people, Wikipedia is not here to advocate a particular position, or to be a vehicle to push a point of view. We are building an encyclopedia, not providing a forum for advocacy. You can read more about that policy at WP:SOAPBOX.

Lastly, there is no reason to assume I have any agenda other than trying to help craft the best, most reliable encyclopedia I can. Try to assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors; a calm discussion will be far more likely to end in achieving a good consensus than a contentious one. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I quoted your comment regarding Corona del Mar High School on Dougweller's talk page: "I think the inclusion of these controversies right at the start of the article is not encyclopedic". A prickly editor misinterpreted a comment I made and now seeks to silence me by using an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, claiming a legal threat was made. Untrue. The editor misunderstood what constitutes a legal threat, which was not surprising because he/she also thought you can say a school has "serious social problems" without attacking it.72.194.125.162 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have two different issues. One is the lead of the article, which I still believe gives undue weight to the quoted incidents. The other is the legal threat. Wikipedia is very sensitive to legal matters, and as a matter of policy once someone even mentions the possibility of libel and grounds for legal action there will be a lot of editors calling for an immediate block, as you have seen. I would urge you to refrain from such language, and concentrate your efforts on building consensus in articles you edit.

Here is the page addressing Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. I think you will find it will help you from inadvertently getting a block.

I know it can be frustrating when you see something that you believe is unfair, and I sympathize with that, but Wikipedia is a project built on give and take. There is also a social element in that you are dealing with people, so often the best action is to state your case and then step back and give others to a chance to comment and consider your arguments. It's also good to remember that we are not engaged in a contest, so there is no winning or losing, just a process to build the best encyclopedia possible. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The original Jonah David Mann article is fake if you check the links. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I Googled the name and he is indeed published in that field, so it appears you are not being honest - see Seaphoto^Talk 02:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Seaphoto, Thank you for checking into my page. You asked me to leave you a message if I had any questions but I don't right now. I'm just cruising along, trying to get the facts into this school page. Since I'm pretty new to this, any suggestions you have would be appreciated. I did read the ones you left and thank you. The page was a disaster before I started cleaning things up a bit. :-) C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That comment was from 2013 and concerned an edit to another page. Due to the nature of IP addresses it may not have been you it was directed to. Seaphoto^Talk 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your prolific efforts in fighting vandalism. Thanks for all you do! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you had done an edit for this page, and since you are a master editor, I'm hoping you might be able to help with this issue. From what I have seen on the edit page, there is no reason why Alaska's airport information shouldn't show up, but it isn't. I've tried to correct it myself, but like I said, I can't see what the possible issue might be. 72.239.74.182 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that at least a couple of Alaska's airports meet the 10,000 passenger enplanement guideline, so I don't know why they are not up there. It looks like the page hasn't been edited in a month or so - did you try and do this, and the edit was rejected, or not sure how to edit a table? If the former, be bold and just go ahead and do it. Cheers! 20:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of at a loss as to what's going on concerning the Louis Jolliet page; I have no clue who that is nor did I edit anything. Nor, for that matter, do I have any idea who Kelsey Pontzer is or why they said they were there. To the best of my recollection, the only edits I have ever made on wiki were minor grammatical errors and it's been quite a while since I've done that. I'm not a computer guy so I don't really know how that got tied to my IP address, but I had nothing to do with that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.27.190 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. In the past you've offered your opinion in choosing photos for the Infobox. Can you offer your neutral opinion in this discussion on a related topic? It may go toward a precedent regarding captions. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringo eots.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringo callyswar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringo the hero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringo sistertime.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringo hotc.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick Facts Ten years! ...

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I know you haven't been active for the past few months, but my attempts to get others to help regarding an editor blanking content from the Nathan Edmondson article, and refusing to discuss the matter, have only been slightly successful. I've contacted three other admins, and put messages on the WikiComics Project talk page, and only two other editors have so far responded. Since you've participated in disputes regarding comics articles before, can you offer your views in the discussions? My analysis of the blanking, which I did at the request of another editor who alerted me to the problem, is here. The subsequent RfC began here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Digimon Masters Blanking

Error

Cryptozoology

Excuse me, seaphoto, but that was a genuine post!

Ordeal by Innocence

Thanks

Thanks

Barnstar

Barnstar

Thanks

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

¿Qué?

Huggle

No

Protection

Vandalism reverts

Thanks

Scott Bakula

Nice job!

Kenya Air Force

Rikhav-Infotech

Nomination of Rikhav-Infotech for deletion

Help Needed

Merger of symbolic computation with computer algebra system

Thank you

bkerensa

Thanks...

Quit Removing My Stuff

Apologies for Glenn Beck article

Thanks

Steve Keene

Thank you!

Acetone award

Speedy deletion declined: Brian Nolan

eBay Vandalism

Xmas

Christmas Day Vigilance

Asking for apology

Thanks

Molar Mass

Teena Marie

Teena Marie

Thank you

Thanks

Hey, wait!

Merry Christmas!

Arrogance!

68.11.77.254

Jack Kopstein

SPLC

Go_Daddy

Thank You

I feel you earned this....

Wrong Message

Trail Bologna

2nd opinion

Onboard Assembler

List of 1000 Ways to Die episodes

Happy Tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

British Cuisine &amp; Elizabeth David

unsubstantiated allegations

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Minturn, Colorado

Thanks for saving my userpages

User:84.121.209.15

Thanks!

False Accusation

Cleanup wizard

Standard Model

Maldives Scuba Diving

Don't be so greedy!

Minor Changes

You deserve it!

A Barnstar for you!

Talk page protection

King's College School, Cambridge

River Thames

Re: Armchair Administration

thank you for the sparklingly cynical addition and subsequent reversion to the dubstep article.

British Cuisine & Elizabeth David

?