Note to Vandals
The nature of Wikipedia is, yes, you can vandalize my talk page, at least a few times. Don't worry, I won't take anything you say personally; since I am using semi-automated tools each reversion will take one click and perhaps as many as 2 seconds to remove, and I am old enough to not care at all what you say or think about me. It will also, alas, hasten your departure from Wikipedia as after a few warnings you will be blocked.
Instead, why not find an article and do something constructive with it?--SeaphotoTalk 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: To leave a new comment, please do so at the Bottom of the page. Thank you for your cooperation!'
- 1 Good Job
- 2 Wil Wheaton photo discussion
- 3 Solenoid Valves
- 4 Please advise me!
- 5 Omthavertch
- 6 Peter Frenette
- 7 A barnstar for you!
- 8 File:Bkerensa.jpg listed for deletion
- 9 Malcolm Allen
- 10 Stop it im done with you
- 11 I do believe you made a mistake
- 12 Thanks
- 13 Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article
- 14 Vandalism in Cologne and other articles
- 15 Hey
- 16 Posner task
- 17 Vandal Alert
- 18 September 2014
- 19 Maronites
- 20 A barnstar for you!
- 21 Corona del Mar High School
- 22 Jonah David Mann
I'm impressed of how fast you reacted to my vandalism. There should be more people like you
Wil Wheaton photo discussion
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 22.214.171.124 (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. SeaphotoTalk 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 126.96.36.199 (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, SeaphotoTalk 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
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. SeaphotoTalk 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!
- 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, SeaphotoTalk 16:55, 17 May 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. SeaphotoTalk 05:07, 19 September 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. SeaphotoTalk 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|Great job on fixing my vandalism so rapidly and efficiently Meep876 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)|
File:Bkerensa.jpg listed for deletion
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 188.8.131.52 (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, SeaphotoTalk 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop it im done with you
I do believe you made a mistake
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! SeaphotoTalk 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! SeaphotoTalk 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime Article
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. SeaphotoTalk 14:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism in Cologne and other articles
- Will do! SeaphotoTalk 19:42, 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)
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:
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.).
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 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. SeaphotoTalk 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This IP: 184.108.40.206 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! SeaphotoTalk 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
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, SeaphotoTalk 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|For your prolific efforts in fighting vandalism. Thanks for all you do! — MusikAnimal talk 17:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)|
Corona del Mar High School
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.220.127.116.11 (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, SeaphotoTalk 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)