User talk:Seaphoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

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 banned.

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!'

Good Job[edit]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png 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)

Schmidt Brewery Edit[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

An Jung-Geun[edit]

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 (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. SeaphotoTalk 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 (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 - [1]
Assassination - [2]
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 SeaphotoTalk 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. SeaphotoTalk 15:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Source for a story on Wikipedia vandalism prevention?[edit]

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 Thanks!

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

Email sent to you. SeaphotoTalk 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about vandalism[edit]

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 (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. SeaphotoTalk 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(Musson inquiry)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. SeaphotoTalk 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.


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)

Web link edit[edit]

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 (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. SeaphotoTalk 09:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles H. Baker Jr.[edit]

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 (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. SeaphotoTalk 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. (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, SeaphotoTalk 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Maxim Musson Violate Wikipedia Policy[edit]

(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.


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 SeaphotoTalk 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 SeaphotoTalk 03:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi There[edit]

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, SeaphotoTalk 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.

An edit you reverted[edit]

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. (talk

Unsourced content can be challenged and immediate removed. You did not provide a reliable source for your edit. SeaphotoTalk 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! SeaphotoTalk 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 SeaphotoTalk 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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, SeaphotoTalk 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 (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, SeaphotoTalk 17:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Original DYK Version of the Street Artists Program Article[edit]

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.
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. SeaphotoTalk 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion[edit]

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

Solenoid Valves[edit]

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 (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 (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)

Please advise me![edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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!

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, SeaphotoTalk 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)

Peter Frenette[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png 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[edit]

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)

Malcolm Allen[edit]

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 (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)