User talk:Seaphoto

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, until you get banned. Note that I am using automated tools, so the reversion will take one click and perhaps as many as 2 seconds to remove. It will also, alas, hasten your departure from Wikipedia. Instead, why not find an article and do something constructive with it?--Seaphoto^Talk 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!'

Cryptozoology

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)

Excuse me, seaphoto, but that was a genuine post!

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)

Water Cress Thing

Hey man, I'm not trying to vandalise - it just seemed more inaccurate to say that Gardencress could grow anywhere where if you look carefully in the photo it would appear that the keyboard was lined with soil. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.251.217 (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry if this appears as unconstructive material. I will try and find something to back up what i've added. Once again i'd like to apologize SeaPhoto. Also, I'm a pretty big fan of Naval Ships myself, just recently I got to explore USS Ronald Reagen the aircraft carrier, and boy was it an experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:205.250.78.196 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems, I encourage you to spend your time on Wikipedia adding good, verifiable information. It was pattern of those edits - multiple, and different nicknames for the same player without references - that caught my eye and triggered the reversion. When provided with references, they will be useful additions. I am sure you understand that we keep a close eye on that sort of thing. My experience on Wikipedia is about 5 - 10% of all edits are some sort of vandalism, and we get between 100 and 200 edits a minute, so it can be daunting to track them all.

The Reagan is quite a ship - a buddy of mine was one of her Quartermasters on her initial deployment and conned her around Cape Horn, quite an adventure. If you ever get a chance to visit one of the museum battleships that is a great experience too.

Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 02:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

why did you flag my page it was not non-sense

it was an informational page, i read over the rules and my post did not violate any of them

WTF!!!??!?!

I'm really sorry for this edit, I accidently change this page, please revert it back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:205.250.78.196 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it appeared that someone was vandalizing your profile, as generally comments go on talk pages. Go ahead and revert it, I will leave it there. In the future I will let any changes to your profile, by anyone, stand. Seaphoto^Talk 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ordeal by Innocence

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)

Thanks

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)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK

Ok i will no vadalize but please convice them this: in Batman Forever film 1995 Jack Napier (the Joker) appears in a flashback in the film and this persons don't accept this truth.

That is what the talk pages of articles are for. I encourage you to utilize them. Do remember, that origianl research is not allowed on Wikipedia, so you will need to be able to back up your assertion with a verfiable source. Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was used all sources known to man on the internet but the problem is the stubbornness and the whim of these people. by pure logic also everyone knows that Batman Forever is the continuation of Batman (1989) and Batman Returns, not a reboot. And is credited otherwise does not change that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.27.98 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability. Even though you may know something for absolute fact, if it cannot be verified it can be removed. If you think about this you can understand why - all sorts of information can be included simply because someone says it is true. This was decided very early in the Wikipedia process, and is one of the governing rules. There are plenty of forums where you can discuss these types of things, but here,on Wikipedia, facts must be proven. For more information, please see this guideline - Wikipedia:No original research. Seaphoto^Talk 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And just 2¢ - or a bit more:

• Wikipedia and mirrors of it are not acceptable sources.
• Other wikis are not acceptable sources
• iMDB and similar sites are not acceptable sources.
• Additions based on these have been repeatedly bounced.
• Coming back and immidiatly attacking editors is not a good way to garner good will. In fact, all evidence right now makes it look like the IP should be blocked as a returning disruptive editor.

- J Greb (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but sometimes I get a sense when reverting vandalism that we have someone who is new and doesn't know the rules, and it's worth taking a bit of time to see if we can guide them into productive edits. Doesn't always work, but what the heck, worth a few electrons at least LOL Seaphoto^Talk 02:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

JGreb look not meddle in what does not concern, this sources are acceptable because aren't more in the internet. As I said a while ago, by pure logic Batman Forever being the continuation of Batman and Batman Returns, Jack NApier is portrayed in a little cameo in a flashback in Batman Forever by David U. Hodges. Please give up and accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.10.18 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. As it says on the bottom of every page

“ Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources ”

If you put in information that is not verifiable. it may be challenged and removed. Getting into arguments over the matter is not productive, and criticizing other editors will not help; it just leads to getting banned. I really don't know how else to explain this to you. Seaphoto^Talk 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me my intervention but why IMDB are not (At least or only official) and check it is not reliable?. This page may not be comprehensive with respect to any information but is more or less complete at least there. Please defend me and/or help me demostrate that David U. Hodges are Jack Napier in Batman Forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantesutcliffe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the anti-vandalism Barnstar! N419BH 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you look again at an AfD?

[1] I believe the sources have improved since when you saw it, but maybe not enough. I'd appreciate it if you looked at the article again. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs more work but I think we should keep it now. Seaphoto^Talk 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you . . .

for removing that vandalism from my userpage! Christina Silverman (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Seaphoto^Talk 03:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of a barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Quinxorin, hereby present this award to Seaphoto for great vandal-fighting with me. Quinxorin (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Band of Horses

Thanks for eliminating the vandalism, much appreciated. Iangurteen (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

William Howard Taft University's Proposed Edit

The section titled “Denial of authorization to operate in Illinois” should be permanently deleted for the following reasons.

The referenced PFD refers to an entity “William Howard Taft University of Illinois, Inc.” – not the institution that is the subject of the article.

The records of the Illinois Secretary of State that William Howard Taft University of Illinois, Inc. was incorporated on February 10, 1997 and voluntary dissolved on November 10, 1999.

Reference: http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController (Enter Key Word “Taft” and scroll to the bottom of the page.)

William Howard Taft University of Illinois, Inc. was never a divison of the institution that is the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taftuniversity (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this document [2], this was to be a division of the parent University, with the same President and sharing the same staff (see page 6 of the denied application); indeed the California Universities financial records were submitted with the application. Seaphoto^Talk 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. I searched the PDF looking for the word "division." I can't find anything that would indicate the report indicated William Howard Taft University of Illinois was a division of William Howard Taft University. But in any event, this is inaccurate. We provided you with documented evidence of the corporate history of William Howard Taft University of Illinois.

Even the facts posted in the article concerning William Howard Taft University of Illinois, Inc. are factually inaccurate. A careful reading of the PDF reference clearly states that this is merely a staff recommendation (Reference page 4 of 12 of the document.) In fact, the Illinois Board of Higher Education never acted on the recommendation of the single staff member that prepared the report.

In 1999 instruction via the Internet was a relatively new concept. It became clear that the Illinois Board of Higher Education was early in the process of developing review standards for distance learning institutions and the application process would be lengthy. After further consultant with the IBHE, William Howard Taft University of Illinois withdrew the Application to Operate a Degree-Granting Institution in Illinois.

William Howard Taft University of Illinois never advertised for nor enrolled any students. Taftuniversity (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that this was a venture by the parent university, setting up a company in Illinois which shared many of the same resources. If you feel "division" is inaccurate, I am open to alternative descriptions, but the bottom line is that Taft tried to open a campus there, and the application ran into some serious problems and was not going to be granted - that is what I get out of the .pdf file. If you don't have a connection with the university I would encourage you to edit the article as you see fit and see if a consensus develops supporting your edits. Wikipedia discourages edits by those closely connected to the subject as we seek a Neutral Point of View in the final product.

My main concern is that the entire section not be blanked, as I do believe some mention of the attempt to open a (satellite?) campus is relevant to the article. Seaphoto^Talk 06:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Thanks for reverting my talk page

Jamesooders has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

FYI

Hi, please see my response to you at my talk page, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Linuxmdb is Jeff Merkey, banned user. The articles that his is creating are puff pieces for his company. The articles that he is editing are BLPs of Novell executives that he has vandalized in the past. I have posted a note at AN/I. RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will check the block logs, what name did he use when editing? Seaphoto^Talk 02:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Innumerable. Gadugi, Waya Sahoni, JeffMerkey, on and on. There have been at least 10 ANI actions over the years and he personally was banned by Jimbo. Here's alink to the sordid affair at the end of his last attempt at wikipedia editing.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales_accused_of_editing_Wikipedia_for_donations

Here's an overall view of his weirdness at ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=jeff+merkey&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+all+administrators%27+noticeboards+and+archives&fulltext=Search RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear that the editor Jeff Merkey has an interesting history with Wikipedia...still, the edits made to the article, Drew Major seem helpful and valid, and not the type that should be reverted as vandalism. I would suggest discussing them on the talk page of the relevant article before wholesale blanking, which can trigger reversions from those of us trying to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. If in fact Linuxmdb is a sock puppet of a banner editor, then there are procedures in place to take care of that, and any harmful edits he may have done. I know I am stepping into an area where there is a lot of history, but I don't see the urgency of that one particular reversion.

This does bring up an interesting question though. The summary referred to Jeff Merkey - before I reverted, I did a quick search for block logs and that type of thing and came up empty. Perhaps he has been purged a bit to thoroughly from the system, but that also influenced my reaction to the edit. If you see that pattern in the future, you might consider the background on your talk page prior to reverting the edits, and then include a pointer to that in the edit summary - something like "this is a sockpuppet of banned user XXXXX, see my talk page for more details". There you have more room to make your case, and other editors can judge the validity of the reversions with all the facts.

Because of what you have written,I am going to withdraw the warning I placed on your talk page, as I believe you were trying to help. Seaphoto^Talk 04:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful

When reviewing revisions, it's insufficient to just go through and look for vandalism and then accept it. This is especially true of BLPs. You accepted a revision on Algirdas Brazauskas which introduced incorrect biographical statistics about that individual (the death date). Since this is all over the news, it would have taken just a few seconds to look up. When reviewing, it is good to take a very brief look at other issues beyond obvious vandalism to help cut back on BLP violations. I deprecated your review and accepted the rolled back version (which the user did on his own, fortunately). Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, my understanding of the reviewing process was that it is to catch obvious violations and not subtle ones. I will take a closer look at the BLP articles in the future. Thanks for pointing this out. Seaphoto^Talk 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

whoops.

Meant to warn the IP... but you popped up. Sorry!  – Tommy [message] 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's what I call a Huggle Hiccup... :-) Seaphoto^Talk 02:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Speedy deletion declined: Daric Rawr

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daric Rawr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

None of those was actually an AfD, which is what speedy deletion criterion G4 is intended for. In any event, somebody else deleted the article under A7, so it's moot anyway. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I need to spend a bit more time familiarizing myself with those policies. Seaphoto^Talk 04:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		Hello there, just dropping by to say thanks for protecting my talkpage from IP attacks. Much appreciated :) Orphan Wiki 01:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just noticed your 4 year anniversary is today, in passing. Congrats! Beam 16:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After some time patrolling recent changes, your first thought was not completely out of line LOL. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, with all the vandalism going on at your user page why don't you ask for semi protection for awhile? Hopefully then the vandal will get bored. Just a suggestion, be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but it is really easy for me to revert it, and I since I am doing so many edits I don't want to exclude those IP editors with legitimate concerns from commenting on the changes. If it gets to be a problem I can always request it, but what the heck, haven't even got a death threat in a few weeks LOL. Seaphoto^Talk 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have a wonderful attitude about things. It's actually refreshing to see it too. Thanks, you made my day with what you said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're getting hit pretty hard with the vandalism which I find surprising since you're so easy going as an editor. Mine was too and I finally gave in to protection because apparently what was being said was very upsetting to those who got to read them. They got rev deleted so i can't see them. Anyways, I think your pup on your user page is adorable. It reminded me of a dog we used to have a long time ago. Now I have a cat. Much easier to take care of. :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's virtually all from when I use Huggle to monitor recent changes; there are a group of editors who try and keep the most egregious vandalism from showing up for more than a moment or two; the edits are usually juvenile obscenities or homophobic insults. A lot of them get upset then their graffiti goes away so quickly and they attack the editor who reverts it. Not the smartest move, as four or five clicks later they are banned. It is all a bit Darwinian, which appeals to me. Anyway, I will forward your compliments to Ralph; he is a pound puppy and loves praise! Take care. Seaphoto^Talk 21:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No

It wasn't vandalism, just a legitimate comment. Next time think before you wrongfully revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.208.152 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, page had been vandalized a number of times in the past few minutes, I reverted after a moment and changed the warning on your IP. Seaphoto^Talk 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My Barnstar

Thanks For the Barnstar :) Floul1^{Talk To me} 13:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stacia Pierce

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stacia Pierce, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you. SoWhy 06:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User page

Many thanks for removing the vandalism on my page Vrenator (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, glad to help. Seaphoto^Talk 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what the heck?

Did you seriously just respond to a death threat with a test warning? He got blocked anyway, but still, we have the higher-level warnings for a reason. --erachima talk 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the auto warning level on the revert from Huggle. In general I just remove and let the program issue the appropriate level of warning; in this case level 1 as there was no history of prior warnings has showed up. The Huggle system isn't perfect, but usually by the time they get to the various notice boards vandals have a history of bad edits and therefore are just about to be booted anyway. The history is there is you would like to run down and notify the ISP about a threat of violence. Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 23:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that makes more sense. Have a good day. --erachima talk 23:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit of fun

So--we shouldn't believe our government because we can change them at the next election? Drmies (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Seaphoto's Day!

User:Seaphoto has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Seaphoto's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Seaphoto! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Seaphoto^Talk 03:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Well Deserved! TY! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! I am appreciating all the wikilove LOL Seaphoto^Talk 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your removal

I read your guidelines...and you reverted something that is infact relevant...perhaps not the most popular public opinion, but infact true and relevant. I did not add a link to advertise, it does me no good, I only used it as a reference. But later I removed the link and just stated the information...and that was removed too? What is up with that? My information is accurate and is relevant to the topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.102.164 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links or unsubstantiated statements. The threshold for verifiability is very high, particularly for these kind of products. You would need a source independent of the company's website - for example, a study conducted by an independent medical journal - to back up these claims. Seaphoto^Talk 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The studies were done by this independent laboratory (http://www.vediclifesciences.com/) Is that not good enough to be used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.102.164 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are published in an independent journal, yes. If on a company's website, no. We are trying to present impartial facts, not to give weight to claims by companies. There is a very high standard for medical claims, I am sure you can understand why. Seaphoto^Talk 07:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

-_-

Did you even read what I wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.179.102 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is unsourced, personal opinion. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts. If you want to discuss the article (and not the merits of the drug) the place to do so is on the talk page for the article. If you want to discuss the drug or make your opinions known, there are any number of Internet forums for that purpose. Please see What Wikipedia Is Not for more information. Thanks!

User:David K Brown and MuseumPlanet

Not quite sure why I was banned from adding links to MuseumPlanet.. I thought I was doign readers a favor. MuseumPlanet's narrated slide tours offer far more info the wikipedia. Hello. But what do I know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor a place to promote your business or personal website. I put a link to the relevant policy on your talk page. Any website that allows public interaction must have rules and guidelines or it will soon become inundated with spam, pornography and self promotion of other kinds. You may well be utterly convinced of the value of your website, but it is up to others to judge it and see if it passes the test of time. A couple of final points - vandalizing a user page is not the way to get your point across (though that might have been inadvertent), and Wikipedia has a strong position against sockpuppets should your rethink your user name and try and place those links again using another account or IP. Cordially Seaphoto^Talk 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

David K. Brown should also uderstand that every Wikipedia editor has the ability to monitor specific pages on a watchlist, which means that further attempts to add MuseumPlanet links to articles on New York City and Venice under other usernames will inevitably be noticed by someone, which will result in all the links being deleted as spam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What most interests me is how Wikipedia has been taken over by a narrow faction of self-annointed editors. Why do I think: editors by day- postal clerks by night (Present company of course excluded) is the rule here. However if anoyone shoud read Beyond My Kens background they would I'm sure concur. Somehow I see too many wiki editors as failed drunks conversing over the net, 5 gins to the wind. I don't want to make this personal but wikipedia if it is to become a standard for information should clear upt the conflicts clause...example: why do people post google maps on your pages. Is google a non-profit company? Does anyone thing google links don't have conflicts? OK the maps are fine (Google Maps that is) but to allow them and not other conflicts - anyone with a business plan - is an idea only a drunkard postal clerk with a BA in Fine Arts could think is proper. Losers are always bitter (present company excepted), but if wiki is to progress maybe it should rethink what it thinks is a conflict..For sure there is a serious problem here. Way serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It gladdens my heart that you don't want to make it personal, though Beyond My Ken might disagree... If it makes you feel better, I pulled my own website (which was a gallery and forum concerning my hobby of ship modeling) off early in my editing once I read and understood the editing guidelines. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but the general prohibition against self promotion goes a long way to keeping it as neutral as any living document can be. It can be frustrating when you simply want to get the word out on a project you clearly have put a tremendous amount of effort into, but the rules have evolved out of consensus, born of experience, and formed over the years. I would be remiss if I didn't point you to the appeals process: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, where you can make your case to other editors who have yet to weigh in on this matter. Oh, and please sign your remarks on talk pages with four tildes; this lets us know who is making a comment. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@David K Brown: You'd be well advised to spend less time thinking up new ways to insult me, and more time understanding the culture, byways and policies of Wikipedia. But suit yourself, your way leads to eventually being blocked, my way leads to being able to contribute -- your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

May 19 /Expect Us vandalism

For what it's worth, this is nonsense that's being organized on 4chan. If you see any addition like that - to May 19, to 2013, or adding "5/19/13 Expect Us" in any other article, it should be reverted with extreme prejudice. In other news, thanks a bunch for reverting that within a minute of the original addition. It needs to stay out of the article regardless, so please keep watching. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, it had the look of some sort of campaign. Seaphoto^Talk 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the nice predictable thing about 4chan crap is that it can't help looking like 4chan crap. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep changing the page with my name on it

Having just one person monopolize a page is not fair. Please stop deleting content that is legitimate and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirkca (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for self promotion. It is an encyclopedia, consisting of notable and verifiable information. Deleting existing content and replacing it with your own biography is vandalism. I urge you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before editing so that you don't get banned. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 05:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tonyboy bautista

FYI, while I cannot comment on any of this editor's other edits, please note that his/her actions with regard to the 2010/2019 series pages were not actually vandalism, although the confusion is understandable. The IP that was reverted is a repeat vandal who (through a series of rotating IPs) regularly adds false information, typically regarding soap operas and 2020. Please feel free to ask if you would like additional information about this. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I left a note on the user page to ignore the warning as it was indeed a legitimate edit. Seaphoto^Talk 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You flagged my page

Please note....

1. (cur | prev) 20:36, 30 July 2010 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) (6,333 bytes) (OTRS permission verified - removing copyvio blanking; removing speedy delete tag - professor is a credible claim of importance) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleenelson (talk • contribs)

Hi, I flagged it because it reads like a resume, your are the subject of the article and a contributor. Those are all warning flags. The article doesn't establish your notability; there are no inline citations to back up the hyperbole. If you read Wikipedia:Notability (academics), you will note that being a professor does not automatically make you notable; other factors are taken into consideration. As an academic, you surely understand the importance of facts presented in a dispassionate, verifiable manner; that is what we are trying to achieve on Wikipedia as well. Seaphoto^Talk 04:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Fan of your work

Keep fighting the good fight to revert vandalism. You're doing a good job. Thanks. I hope you never feel under-appreciated.--174.56.192.153 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

She's back

Within a couple days of "the" article being unprotected. Need I say more? DocOfSoc (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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)

¿Qué?

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)

Huggle

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

No. SH6 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

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)

Vandalism reverts

		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

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

Scott Bakula

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)

Nice job!

		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)

Kenya Air Force

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)

Rikhav-Infotech

Nomination of Rikhav-Infotech for deletion

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)

Help Needed

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)

Merger of symbolic computation with computer algebra system

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

Thank you

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)

bkerensa

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)

Thanks...

...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)

Quit Removing My Stuff

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)

Apologies for Glenn Beck article

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)

Thanks

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)

Steve Keene

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)

Thank you!

		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)

Acetone award

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)

Speedy deletion declined: Brian Nolan

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. ϢereSpielChequers 10:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

eBay Vandalism

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)

Xmas

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)

Christmas Day Vigilance

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)

Asking for apology

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)

Thanks

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)

Molar Mass

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)

Teena Marie

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^rdtalk 01:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Teena Marie

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^rdtalk 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)

Thank you

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)

Thanks

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)

Hey, wait!

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)

Merry Christmas!

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)

Arrogance!

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)

68.11.77.254

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)

Jack Kopstein

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)

SPLC

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)

Go_Daddy

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?