User talk:Seewolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for letting me know. I've reprotected the page and blocked the user. Oh, and {{welcome}} to you!—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)



ich bewundere (keine Ironie!) Dein Stehvermögen. Diese ständigen Beleidigungen hätten mich längst zu einem neuen Pseudonym bewegt; aber dass wollen diese XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - (<- Schimpffworte gestrichen, auf diese Ebene gehe ich nicht) ja bloß. Ich jedenfalls finde Deine Edits und COntribs gut. Hang on in there! Lost Boy 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. "Fake" is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Perhaps try WP:IFD and explain your reasoning in more detail. Thank you for understanding. MECUtalk 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Guten Tag, wozu bedarf es, damit mein de.Konto wieder freigeschaltet wird? (Diese Frage ist ernst gemeint und erfüllbaren Belangen soll nachgekommen werden)--Vergelter (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


I've indeffed this user, and requested REVDEL of his edits. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


Du hast sicher eine Erklärung dafür, warum du eine völlig harmlose Bearbeitung zurückgesetzt und mich gesperrt hast.--DerTrolly (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

why it is not quotable?[edit]

Hi Seewolf, you removed the the Kish cypher book from the wiki page as not quotable. Can you explain it why do you think it is so? No books are peer reviewed. Only papers in professional journals and at some conferences are peer reviewed. Books are never, for example, I have a science book contract with Cambridge and the book will be published as soon as I complete it, without peer review. You can ask around. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply because the book consists of old wikipedia articles. Quote them, if you don't find something peer reviewed. --Seewolf (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is not an argument against quoting a book. The book is a special edition of relevant wikipedia articles, which is more than just the standalone wiki articles, due to synergism. According to the rules of Wikipedia the only arguments you could use against quoting a source are that the source is either not publicly accessible or not reliable. However, you have just pointed out that cited book is as reliable as wiki. Thus, please restore the citation or I must do that. Alternatively we can bring up this debate for arbitration by high-level wiki editors. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, its not a "special edition", its simply an automatic compilation without any editorial work. These books have fake authors and they are heavily over-priced. They are trash. And of course, Wikipedia itself ist not an reliable source. --Seewolf (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, it seems, the wiki rules prohibit this, see the opinions here: [1]. Even though, wiki says its basic rule is that rules can be changed, I have no interest and time to fight this. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi Seewolf,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Software in Wikipedia[edit]

Gibt es in Wikipedia eine Software, die individuell oder automatisch den Zugang verweigert, filtert, sperrt, löscht? Ich suche etwas in der Deutschen Wikipedia und es ist nicht auffindbar? Was passiert mit Sachen (z.B. Link), die früher funktionieren und heute nicht mehr funktionieren? (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nein, es gibt keine Lesesperren. Vielleicht suchst du einen gelöschten Artikel? --Seewolf (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)[edit]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets[edit]

Would you like your talk page to be semiprotected? I always regard that as something to be avoided if possible, but the persistent trolling has been going on so long that it might be a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets concentrate the trolling here, he would only put his junk on another page. --Seewolf (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You may well be right. Surprisingly often, though, I find that trolls don't move to another page, even when they easily could. However, it's your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

German Account[edit]

Hello, why can I not use this account in the German Wikipedia? Could you have the oppurunity, to give my acount free? --URSULA1347 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)