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!'

Digimon Masters Blanking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error

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

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

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)

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)

Thanks

For the anti-vandalism Barnstar! N419BH 02:10, 18 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)

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.242 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank You

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

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

I feel you earned this....

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a cookie!

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

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

WAYNESLAM 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankyou

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Wrong Message

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

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

Trail Bologna

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

2nd opinion

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

Onboard Assembler

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

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

Happy Tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

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

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

WAYNESLAM 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

List of 1000 Ways to Die episodes

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

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

British Cuisine & Elizabeth David

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

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

unsubstantiated allegations

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

Because you are not registered, your contributions are coming from an IP address. There have been previous contributions from that address that constitute vandalism. See [1]. You may have not been the person who did that vandalism, but it did happen from the address you are using. Before attacking an editor you may wish to get your facts straight first. Seaphoto^Talk 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

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

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

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

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

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

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

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

Minturn, Colorado

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Thanks for saving my userpages

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

Thanks!

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

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

User:84.121.209.15

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

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

False Accusation

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

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

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

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

Cleanup wizard

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

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

Standard Model

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

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

Maldives Scuba Diving

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

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

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

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

Don't be so greedy!

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

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

Minor Changes

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

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

You deserve it!

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

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

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

A Barnstar for you!

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

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

Talk page protection

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

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

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

King's College School, Cambridge

Thanks for the note on my page.

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

You reverted my edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

River Thames

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

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

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

Re: Armchair Administration

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

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

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

thank you for the sparklingly cynical addition and subsequent reversion to the dubstep article.

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

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

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

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

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

All India Management Association page

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

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

Why was my edit reverted?

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

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

Huggle

Hello,

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

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

Dear Friend Hitler movie

Dear Sir,

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

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

Best,

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

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

BackHo

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

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

You have new messages

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

Titles

As my resident and beloved expert, I come to you in supplication ;-) for a foreseeable problem. (Not Karel's name, that is for later ;-) Catholic priests are Always addressed as "Father" by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, never by just their surnames. It is considered very disrespectful. This has come up in Junipero Serra's article. WP guidelines are "clearly ambiguous" (do ya love it?) about this particular issue. How do we fix? Can we fix it? Where do we go? I would love to edit the guideline page, [2] but I have an incredibly respectful fear of you and Tedder :-D Other than that, How ya been? Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joy,

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

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

Suhaib Webb

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

If you read it carefully, you will find that only applies if the subject has no official website and is using the twitter (or other social media site). Generally, the main website will have links to the other social media sites, so it is redundant. Twitter and those sites are not considered encyclopedic. For more information, please see this link[3] Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 06:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Freeze (film)

I'd like you to review the improvements made since you commented on the originally unsourced two-sentence stub that was nominated,[4] and perhaps consider modifying your !vote in light of the work so far done.[5] Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I'll be the first to grant that as originally nominated,[6] the article did not seem to offer much hope. I was happy to improve it. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Barnstar

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

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

Roger Friedman page

Hi Seaphoto,

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

I understand your concern, but do know that I was previously an intern @ the Wikimedia Foundation and do properly understand how to use Wikipedia. Additionally, I currently work in the Entertainment Industry and understand the conflict being caused by 2 users attempting to disgrace Roger Friedman. Thank you very much for helping to keep Wikipedia safe :)