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!'

Classic Cars

The Mercedes-Benz Classic Center is the official Mercedes-Benz department for any classic car related questions, problems, and events. They supply Mercedes-Benz owners with 'High Mileage' awards in the U.S. - for free. It's not advertising to link to their page. Any owner would be happy to know that their car can get the official High Mileage badge after 155,000 miles. The Classic Center is also the primary address for owners to retrieve official documentation on their vehicle. It's how I got the history on my car. Why do you revert these links on articles that are about CLASSIC MERCEDES-BENZ vehicles???? The Classic Center is the official manufacturer address that takes care of them, that can validate whether or not a certain car has matching numbers, has the original color on it, and so on. Any W108, W111, W113, W198,.....owner or "soon to be" owner will be glad to know this. Their facebook page is the easiest way to connect with them and ask for advice and help. In the article on 300SL it says they are worth more than 700,000 USD. Which can be true but their is a lot of movement in that market, and the Classic Center is widely recognized as a source of information about this and helps people to get a better picture of the individual vehicle in question. So why do you consider it vandalism to add links on Mercedes-Benz Classics related articles?

I appreciate people taking care of wikipedia so that it can be enjoyed as a reliable source of information but how am I 'vandalizing' that? I'd be grateful if you could consider my arguments. Thank you.

Hi, when a new account's edits consist of adding the same link to multiple articles, that raises a concern, particularly when it is to a Facebook page and not the main website. When I checked the site, an invalid security certificate warning displayed, a very large red flag.

Specifically:

hostfb.com uses an invalid security certificate.

'The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate is only valid for sds.fastvps.ru

(Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)

Those combination of factors, the commercial nature of the link (promoting a discount on parts) and in particular the untrusted connection to a Russian domain name, led to my reversions. I would link to the main website of Mercedes, or, if needed, the Classic website in Germany or California directly and skip the Facebook link until they get a valid site certificate. Seaphoto^Talk 00:33, 25 April 2011 (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)

You are evil. I was trying to make someones day and you just ruined it. Are you happy?!?!?! :p :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.186.44 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 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 unencyclopedic. 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 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the BBC source, and it is indeed a noteworthy and notable incident in the writer's career. It appears that you are trying to whitewash the article to remove it, and that just doesn't work. Additionally, there appears to be some sockpuppetry going on; I will look into that. Lastly, please sign your comments on talk pages so we know who we are talking to. Seaphoto^Talk 04:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Still crawling .. needing help Despite your Revert I do Value your contribution

Appologies . I'm beging to appreciate how Wikipedia is able to - through voluteers keep everything clean. I really want to resolve this amicably.I've copied what we wrote on my talk board plus that I got from Jackfork below yours .. the two I received remarks from. I want to do this right. This is for real. I & my late step father are for real .. and all the blood sweat and tears & years that went into this - even ridiculed ( out of the box thinking ) many a time was for real... this real history the world needs to know. Like Edisen, our light Bulb moment has arrived. One way or another, if not on Wikipedia, I intend on telling it .. weather CNN or some documentary ... the world will here about it. Someone will give me a brake.) I just realised I should have used Sanbox or some other means of organising as all my changes must have created a real buz ..appologies. Though it appears conflicting, I'm pointing out facts. Facts that should be no problem to confirm are Reliable. I gave ie.. Launch date .... are you wanting my patent links ? ..what do you or anyone else who might see it different need. I've read information about Notability. Perhaps I shoulds have written an entirely new article ... (I'm new ). In the mean time I still fail to see how, when the idea is to inform, cause if I were someon looking for information on what a mudflap is I'd want to know what mudflap catagories, involving forms, shapes, applications ... including sizes and history. I've tried to posture as if someone else were writing ... admitedly, carried away in begining, please ... let me know what works for you ? Not being able to place this anywhere on wikpedia would be a diservice to them and all the years my father and I have now pour'd into this .. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote a product or service; please read Wikipedia policy on self promotion. In addition, these edits violate Conflcit of Interest policies, since you are connected with the company. SeaphotoTalk 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Seaphoto .. so a friend who's not connected to my company inputs the same information, information the readership want to know about the availablility of historical revolutionary technology and its OK ?Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't agree with the way Wikipedia is organized. I reverted your last edit without a warning as I don't want to see your account banned for spam. Please read the sections I linked before editing again. Thank you for your cooperation. SeaphotoTalk 05:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Really ?? It's late, I've been at this all day...it looks like, because theres no real rules ( all rules in a system like this are debatable) it seems, if not with you, someone else will come along and I'll be debating this stuff from here to eternity Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC). This is not a word I've invented or a dance move .. It's my life .. this is not spam .. I really need a brake here .. there can't be much more to cut out. If it were spam I have given up a long time ago .. Why don't you graciously let me know what I need to cut out ?... You're volunteering already for the beterment of humanity I hope... We're talking here about breaking news history dealing with green technology and peoples saftey the world wants to know about .. hope by some miracle the group change thier mind ... take careAvgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Mudflap. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jackfork, Just signed on today .. much to learn. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Appreciate the point you made. I shortened everything up ..removed the bold and Capital letters .. can't help but get excited though since this is litteraly history in the making .. I've been at this 10 fulltime years ...despite what it looks like.. I've have yet to see a nickel from it...God willing thats about to change. Niether did my late step father ever see a dime on any of his inventions ( 30 earlier years worth ) ... I'm proud to at least air history in the making on wikipedia. Really hope can agree on revised....Avgjoejohn316 PS sorry for total number of edits ... just couldn't shorten enought including the comments I made on your talk board .. sorry for inconvenience !Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I really do sympathize with you. The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a tool for publicity or promotion. On any given day I will pull dozens of commercial links - people trying to publicize their books, websites, tools, software programs, vitamin stores, you name it. Believe me they all think that their particular venture is unique and often question why an exception cannot be made for them. The problem is that it goes against the fundamental non-commercial nature of this project.

There are all sorts of places on the Internet that publicize new inventions and tools - your time would be better spent contacting them with your product, rather than tilting at this windmill. One that I have read is Toolmonger (I am not endorsing the site, or am in any way connected with it, just trying to give you one helpful lead). There are of course many other forums and blogs that deal with truck products, and many have sections that welcome new products. Why not put your energy and time into those areas? Seaphoto^Talk 15:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will try Toolmonger. Have been and continuing to pour time into such forums and blogs that welcome new products with what limited time and resources I have left to post as descreatly as possible. At this juncture its about setting the facts straight on mudflaps on several platforms. 1) Historicly new mudflap technology - no small improvement ... monumental historical change ( More than any time in history people need to know that average joes like me and late step father can make contribution to society .. 2 ) Categoricly - ( ie. new category ?) Such revolutionary technology, now that you know it exists , needs to be added, in the name of keeping current. I haven't had time to figure out yet since I only learned how to input this stuff yesterday. If the conflict of interest can be saticfied simply by someone else ( arms length ) removed from my company I sincerly can't think of anyone who's as well informed, empowered, & sacrificialy motivated to contribute to the community ( society in general ) as seems you have evidently done. Afterall, with all due respect, sincerely, there could be no conflict of interest if recomended by someone like you because its evident from your response here you'd indeed be armslength. As a one many show - because others have tried to take advantage of me in the past ( Bullied so to speek for who knows .. a myriad of reasons ... from control mongers who tore me down so they could either attempt take over or simply just to look good at my expense (even supposed friends on powertrips - jeollousy is a terrible thing ... to be clear, no inference on you personaly as I sincerly beleive your last response is sincere, and that you have wikipedia's best interests at heart. I have exhausted all my resources including time . All that said, with the revisons I've made, before deleating all of it please let me know what I need to deleate or revise to make this work. If I'm the problem ( COI ) ...then please allow due recognition to my late step father who never earned a dime nore any societal recognition through such bullying himself. If you have to remove anything, please don't let the last part of the original mudflap defenition ( describing naked girls and waving hair & lengerie - if anything likely put there by the mudflap girl mudflap manufacturers ) trump my late step fathers global monumental historical contribution, including the aerodynamic application to the mudflap. In fact, as respourced as you are if you think his information could be placed anywhere else please take your liberty. Sincerly, Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seaphoto, can you check my update on the talk page for this article, and see what you think, revert/edit-wise? I didn't change the article again as I'd like to try to get some kind of consensus, as unlikely as that might be. Thanks. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the removal of your content from Mudflap

Although I sympathize with your desire to publicize your late father's invention, as I have said before it is a clear conflict of interest for you to do so on Wikipedia. If you disagree with that you can seek the opinion of other Wikipedia editors through this page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I would strongly recommend you go through that process before restoring your edits. Seaphoto^Talk 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seaphoto, this is history. Tell me then where and how else this ought to be placed .. to get the point out that, in keeping with the times mudflaps are also aerodynamic. Appreciate the common ground in keeping " Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag " however just leaving it that way without expressing its patented opens up a can of worms for rest of world who think they can just add holes or perforate, as some have already attempted to do, thats caused undue hardship. We've sacrificed so much in the name of "innovation" ..( the only reason I hesitatingly included and still include the patent refrences was to confirm validity and ensure future violations don't occure) .I've now removed my name entirely out of the picture, incuding the refrences of the snow melter. Just seems like a disgrace to remove such History while keeping refrences like ... "Another is the mudflap girl, an attractive woman's silhouette, sitting with her hair being blown back in the wind... mudflap girl linked to promoting by Bill Zinda of Wiz Enterprises in Long Beach, California [7] [8].. ( That's monumental history readers want to know about .....??? ) ... I've seen your wikipedia CV . Your a smart man, I can't image you'd let, mudflap girl & Yosamite same ( that promotes an entire industry of now really rich companies like Disney ) trump this. Please. This is not about winning .. its about facts and history. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not User:Stan_Shebs. As I said, have you considered using Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Like I have said a few times now, what we have is a situation of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view. Does your father have a valid claim? I don't know, because you have presented no reliable, third-party, published sources. The patent applications states that he had a patent on one type of aerodynamic mudflap, but a quick search[9] shows 17,000 hits. Was he the first? I don't know, because there are no third party citations (books, newspaper or magazine article, that sort of thing) to verify that. Facts that aren't verifiable are subject to challenge and removal . Additionally, your conflict of interest makes those challenges highly likely, as you have a personal and financial stake in putting this information in.

I have said a few time I do understand your position, it's just that it is just not what is accepted by Wikipedia. If it makes you feel any better, I am a published author, run numerous websites, and own multiple businesses, not a single mention of which is on Wikipedia because they don't meet the standards of notability. I've had family members (one of whom is quite notable in his profession) ask me to include them on Wikipedia, and I have had to refuse for the same reasons, or in one case, pure conflict of interest.

As a last bit of advice, when editing pages, please use the "Show preview" button and carefully scan your edit before hitting the "Save page" button. It is more efficient to follow your changes. Thanks Seaphoto^Talk 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So now what? I'm too new at Wiki editing to fully understand the process, but the way the article is now can't be right. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Within the bounds of the Wikipedia Three Revert Rule you can edit the article. I have tried to guide User:Avgjoejohn316 in the Wikipedia process, but it looks like it's just not working. What the article needs is some reliable references and a well sourced section on the aerodynamic mudflap that illustrates the history. Care to give it a shot? Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Aerodynamic Mudflap Article Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap

Dear Seaphoto

I was just reviewing some of the dialog. I appreciate the genuine interest you, BK314159 and Pol430 have taken on reviewing the article. As you likely have discovered I'm new to Wikipedia. As you can imagine, I've spent a lot of time on this already and have made numerous adjustments . You BK314159,Pol430 and a number of others have likewise spent a lot of time in reviewing the article and I wanted you to know I value your time. I've come to realise "understandably" the adjustments have been necessary to ensure neutrality. I appologise to you and anyone else for any appearance of my initial lack of understanding and corresponding expression of frustration relating of the protocol set out by Wickipedia. Wondering if you or anyone else you know, might graciously consider either mentoring me along with this article or creating the article yourselves if necessary. It matters not at all to me it has my name on it. I'm convinced The aerodynamic mudflap and Albert Morin is indeed an essential revolutionary piece of history that needs to be told. I cant emphasis enough how much I value the dedication and time it takes to learn and administrate wikepedia protocol. Writing, evidently is not my best strength. It seems I'm at some kind of impass as it relates to neutrality. Though, when I look at Kenworth, Peterbilt & Volvo Trucks and even mudflap girl, all refrences ( just to name a few of the already approved articles by wikepedia )the only conclusion I seem to arive at is that those articles seem to pose a myriad more questionable neurtrality issues than the article I've proposed. I understand its possible its just me who has a hard time distinquishing the difference and if so, I humbly concede. That being the case, all the more reason I ask someone else who understands the system would consider authoring the article for the greater good. Please be assured the last thing I want to do is waste anyone elses time. Would be forever grateful. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Serjeant-at-Arms

You didn't revert back far enough on this article. I think I've seen you not revert back far enough on another article the other day also. Might be useful to take a look at the history in future.

Otherwise, cheers, and thanks for your work. -danjel (talk to me) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the article in question, and don't see any obvious vandalism. When I am using Huggle, I generally revert and warn the last editor, to get a flag on their editing that day, and then scan the article for anything else that is obvious, and if necessary, revert to an earlier version. That is why you will often see two or more reversions within a short time from me. If I miss anything please let me know and I will fix it as soon as I can - thanks for checking! Seaphoto^Talk 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The linux group application suite

Hello Seaphoto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The linux group application suite, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Feezo (Talk) 08:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

King's College School, Cambridge

I think this page needs temporary protection. I have reverted it back to your version of 18th March, which I think is compact and a useful summary. Kitty101423 hs repeatedly vandalised it since then, with either me or you reverting.

Could you take a look when you have some time? ClassicsDoS (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried a note on the talk page of the article, to which Kitty has not responded. Today I left one her her talk page, to see if we can work out a compromise. I would not call what she is doing vandalism, nor do I agree when she uses the term to describe her reverts. What we have is tenacious, non-neutral editing. We, as editors, are expected to work that out amongst ourselves before taking it to the next level (which would be a request for comment). I think we have a way to go before a request for page protection is justified, but the first step will be trying to hear Kitty's side of the story. Seaphoto^Talk 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a private grievance that kitty has against the school. Many people have private grievances. There is a proper recourse --- normally through the courts --- for people to air their private grievances, and, if justified, obtain compensation. Private vendattas really should not be carried out on the pages of wikipedia.

If you read the innumerable links, it seems that what happened is that [1] Kitty complained about a teacher at the school, [2] the headmaster sided with the teacher, [3] Kitty kept on complaining and was finally asked to take her children from the school, [4] Kitty complained to the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and they made a surprise visit, [5] they found some minor infringements (e.g., the school had not carried out an independent CRB check on one teacher but had relied on a verbal assurance).

Do you really think this is of general interest  ? ClassicsDoS (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you the content should go, it's just the procedure on how to go about it. Is there some way of verifying that it is indeed Kitty who made the complaints - to be honest, unlike you, I didn't take the time to slog through all the references, as they appear credible. If she is personally involved that will make it easier to revert those additions. We try and live up to the goal of Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but of course if they are pushing content for their own personal vendetta that is quite another thing. Seaphoto^Talk 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just reverted the page back to your version of 18th March again. Again, I think this page needs temporary protection ClassicsDoS (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I started the request for comment process via the talk page; follow the link to join in on the discussion. Seaphoto^Talk 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the discussion page, but so far there has been no reciprocation from kitty, who has been restoring her edits ClassicsDoS (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On her user talk page she has indicated that she is willing to discuss the matter, and I have drawn up a suggested paragraph for the incident. She later came back and basically indicated she felt that it was the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as a means of punishment for the school administration. I left one last note trying to persuade her that this is not role of Wikipedia, after that it looks like we will need to seek administrator support. Seaphoto^Talk 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your anti-vandalism edits are absolutely tip-top! The you-know-whats don't stand a chance when you're around on Huggle. Keep up the good work. --The Master of Mayhem 10:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

var online tool

You have recently removed an external link to a value at risk calculator. Please see discussion with Kuru on this with a moderator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru and the discussion topic on the topic's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Value_at_risk both at the end of the pages. Hope this will lead you to reconsider and let the link stay on the the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorworkbench (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, you should not add links to websites that you own or have a connection with, as this can lead to conflicts of interest. Seaphoto^Talk 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I am being completely honest here. If I wanted to evade you filter I could have registered under a different username and not disclosed that this is my work. In short: it is a conflict of interest, but a fully disclosed one where I believe the quality should be judged on the basis of merit and not on who has posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorworkbench (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks

For restoring my talk page (diff) within 1 minute after it was blanked! – Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Seaphoto^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you're efficient.

You see vandalism friggin' fast. How do you DO that?!

It's automated. Seaphoto^Talk 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers!

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've more than earned this after a rough night out there in the recent changes trenches. Keep up the good fight! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Seaphoto, Thanks for catching our unnamed IP vandalizer so quick (The Waltons, Rodan, The Brady Bunch). They pulled that same crap about 24hrs ago too and I reverted. I see a ban/block in someones future. lol. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (Forever fearless fighter of vandalism)

No problem, one of the edits was actually kind of funny, one of the reasons I enjoy doing this is the rare glimpse of actual wit. Have a good one! Seaphoto^Talk 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I guess it's an occupational hazard for people like us! Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Seaphoto^Talk 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

BackHo

Hi Seaphoto; given that page history, it may be a sockpuppet. Good work, 99.168.85.28 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what their goal is, but they made a mistake with this edit[10]. Even if by some chance the website was wrong (and wrong about three key school officials?), claiming that "they never heard of this Millet person" is simply nonsense.Seaphoto^Talk 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. My take is that it's one or two students inserting their own names...over and over. That's usually the case on school articles. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalisum

Please stop making edits to the Canterbury high school page as your information is not currently up to date. The information that was previously posted about Kenneth lo jr was correct and I would ask that you leave it in that state. I know that this information is correct because I am currently a student of this educational facility. If this continues I will be forced to contact an admin and have the page reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiminor (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, what are the odds that a brand new account would jump into this, and know the name of the previous editor?Seaphoto^Talk 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my Userpage. :) Kante4 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Hi Seaphoto. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Geethgajan Keith Gauthum, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. CSD G7. Was not requested or blanked by author. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah,my mistake, did not go far enough back in the edit history. Seaphoto^Talk 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you are using Huggle, when applying any CSD template, it is always best to check both article history and creator contribs and logs (for possible earlier misdeeds and/or blocks). It may take longer, but speed is not of the essence - especially if it takes an admin 10 minutes to sort it out. Otherwise, keep up your excellent work :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

142.157.197.26

This guy vandalized another page, Errol Povah. Time to take away his toys. Prescottbush (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Seaphoto^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My talkpage

Thank-you for reverting vandalism on my talkpage. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate vandalism i almost got banned for not doing long edits! --Raving Monster 2 RAHHH (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. if you want to talk find my username on the Eli Manning page

Block Request

I just reverted some vandalism by User talk:159.53.78.140 to the article First Communion. This IP address has a huge rap sheet and has been given ample warning. I think it's time to block. Regards 69.151.51.120 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted that last edit was biased, and the revert was good,but looking over the rest of the edit history I don't see anything egregious. With IP's the vandalism should be recent and persistent to qualify for a block. Cordially Seaphoto^Talk 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Block expired

On Charles Karel Bouley. My stomach dropped to my shoes. I don't want to go there. What is your opinion Esteemed Mentor? ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watch list - so far, so good. If that changes we can ask for another page protection. They tend to be granted conservatively, in keeping with the idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Take care Seaphoto^Talk 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

TY Dear Man. The real idea is that anyone can edit wiki BUT... LOL! I bow to your wisdom :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my userpage. E♴(talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you- barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting that pesky IP user on my userpage! Rsteilberg ✈ 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

congats

Congratulations! You have a new fan! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 21:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, well it's always nice to be appreciated! Seaphoto^Talk 19:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

Once again you fixed my page after vandalism. Thank you and keep up the great work. Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you like a nomination?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, and I can think of situations where those tools would be useful. There are some areas where I need to do more reading, particularly the criteria for Speedy Deletion. I'd like to take a few weeks and get some more expertise on that, and a few other areas where I consider myself weak. Could we revisit the matter in mid-May? Again, thank you kindly for your the support. Seaphoto^Talk 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi SeaPhoto, remind me when the time comes and I'll give you my support. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

89.243.223.206

Hi Seaphoto, , Once again, 89.243.223.206 is trying to vandalise The Pierre Lewis page, please would you block / warn them. Many thanks for your time and understanding on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It looks like that IP has a 24 hour block on it, so the problem is taken care of for now. Hopefully they will stop doing this and longer blocks won't be needed, but I will add the page to my watchlist and monitor it. Seaphoto^Talk 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Seaphoto, its greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.191.246 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: That 137 IP

Hiya, so I see you appear to be an admin, so I have a quick Q. I warned that IP guy, that you just warned (for the UConn thing), before and gave him a level 2 because I felt that his edit could easily be counted as homophobic (even though he was probably calling the ending "gay" in that colloquial sense, but of course that doesn't really matter given the context (not to mention it's the article itself of course). Here is my reversion with both edits captured: [11]. Was I right to give him a level 2 warning or is it always just a level 1 (it seemed it deserved something severe)? Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an administrator, but do spend a lot of time patrolling recent changes. I always give progressive warnings, as that leaves a clear chain of edits in case a ban is in order. The hope is that editors will learn from them and contribute more constructively to the project. Of course, this doesn't always work, and that is why there is a blocking policy. Even then the goal is not punishment, but to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Sadly, there are a lot of people in the world with intolerant views of one kind or another, and that edit is far from the worse I have seen tonight. For myself, I try and dispassionately revert (listening to some good music helps); if I find myself getting upset that is a good indication that it's time to take the dog out for a walk LOL. Regards Seaphoto^Talk 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I feel that I can use my main user page however I want, like he does. I'm preparing pages to be added to the main userspace when they are notable enough, because I know they will be. Why should he have some stuffy little essay that offers precious little to anything when my own subpage is at threat of deletion? Agadabagada (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you feel a page should be deleted, please use the Articles for Deletion process, rather than unilaterally blanking the content. If another editor blanked your page before the AfD was done, I would do the same for you. Seaphoto^Talk 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wilshere

Hi, can you please undo your own edit changing the photo that i put up from flickr, but reduce the size so it wont stretch the page? thanks. Fabregas 2001 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted that photo for you. Seaphoto^Talk 17:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Witherslack Hall School

Why do you keep trying to revert "my truth" on the witherslack page. My truth IS THE truth because I got to WHS, I know what its like. I "board" there mate. So do you dare to come onto my talk page and challenge ME on whether what I say is "dubious, unsourced" etc. Do you go to that school, probably not but I GO THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.207.202 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth; it is one of the core values of Wikipedia. You cannot add facts or observations because you "know" they are true, but instead must source them so they can be verified. Facts added without citations can be challenged and removed at any time.Seaphoto^Talk 17:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I posted something on my talk page, expressing a sincere apology for my actions, sorry okay.--90.219.207.202 (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If conditions are truly bad there you can ask for an investigation from the Independent Schools Inspectorate; I have been editing another article that indicates they take such things very seriously. Have a good school year. Seaphoto^Talk 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All right cheers --90.219.207.202 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is though, if i tell the ISI, then i might get into trouble with teh staff for it. --90.219.207.202 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course you have to way the pros and cons and decide what's in your best interest (and maybe talk with you parents). Here is the article I was speaking about: King's College School, Cambridge; in the references you will see links to sources that you can read. That will give you some help making the decision. Best of luck. Seaphoto^Talk 17:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm its a tough one... --90.219.207.202 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpageRyan Vesey (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. Thanks! Huon (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

please read

i am trying to add something about golf to grapevine high school golf. our golf team has been doing really good and we would like to share it with the world and readers of wikipedia like your self. there is no section and i want to add one. please stop deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie6155 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when you add nonsense[12] to Wikipedia it makes your other edits suspect unless accompanied by a verifiable, third party source.Seaphoto^Talk 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ok first of all you do not live in grapevine texas or probally in texas for that case. right now the golf team is in lubbock playing for regionals.... some thing you can only get to by being the best in the district — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie6155 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you didn't make untrue edits before, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. That is you may know something for an absolute fact, but if you cannot provide an independent, verifiable source it can be challenged and removed at any time by any editor. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - see WP:BURDEN for more information. I hope you will take some time and click on the threelinks I have provided which will increase the chances of your edits remaining. The most important thing to remember is to add reliable sourcse - here is a small section on what counts as a reliable source. If the golf team is doing well, you should be able to provide a link to an article in the local newspaper, for example, and cite that in the appropriate section. Seaphoto^Talk 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Cote

Thanks for catching this vandalism, it's part of a longstanding orchestrated effort to promote a filmmaker named David Cote on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka/Archive for more background. —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

If you want, I can nominate you for adminship. If you feel that you are not ready for the mop that's fine, but I personally don't think you will abuse the tools if you are given them; just look at all those vandalism reverts. Yet, one area that the community will want to see you improve is XfD; it would help if you could spend a bit more time there.

And with that I wish the very best of luck.--The Master of Mayhem 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words and advice. Another editor[13] suggested that last week. At the time I asked for a few weeks to do some reading, especially on the Speedy delete process as I had incorrectly applied on a couple of occasions - I feel I understand the policy now. I have done a bit of commenting on XfD in the past, and agree that it is an area where more participation is needed; too many have to be re-listed for further discussion. If you feel the time is right to nominate me I would accept - and appreciate the consideration. Seaphoto^Talk 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you would do a good job as well... CSD can be a bit of a nightmare, particularly when there are people using NPP to boost their edit count and pouncing on every single article before you have a chance to tag them correctly. My current approach (and I'm not saying it is right) is to assume there is a chance that the subject in every article may be notable unless the article spells out that it isn't.

Give me a shout when your RFA comes up.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was only after I posted this message that I discovered it had been discussed only five days before posting.--The Master of Mayhem 10:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A cookie!

Damirgraffiti 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}}!

Well that's the only kind of cookie I can enjoy guilt free these days - thank you! Seaphoto^Talk 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You"re welcome.I felt hungry when seeing this cookie in real life.Esplically in this Wikipedia.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reversions to the Michal Neuvirth article

I'd like to ask you to please take your time and really read over articles when reverting vandalism; when you reverted Michal Neuvirth, each time you left in a very significant amount of vandalism. Specifically, a vandal before the one you reverted had changed all of the article's wikilinks to pipe to the cat article. While you removed the obvious vandalism, you restored problematic versions on each occasion.

I recognize that it was not your intention to restore vandalized versions; however, it's been my experience and observation that using tools (particularly Huggle) may increase speed but decrease accuracy. It's very important to be sure that you're restoring to a "good" version of an article, particularly a BLP. Please give a serious read to the version you revert to before hitting "save". If the tools prevent you from doing that, consider using a different tool; there are several others that are available.

Having just given you a hard time - let me take a moment to say thank you for working to keep the project ship-shape. Occasionally errors happen, but we should all know each other for our good work rather than our unintended mistakes. You do a lot of good work. :-) Risker (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. When an article is being vandalized by multiple editors in a short amount of time I used to revert/flag to ID those editors participating while waiting for an admin to lock the article down. All this did was generate a lot of back and forth which seemed to encourage the behavior. Once an admin locks down an article they will then revert to the last good version. I have seen these type of actions run into dozens of edits, so once I realized what is happening I moved on, figuring that it would be sorted out shortly. Seaphoto^Talk 07:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

skinny ass than?

does she look skinny to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.249.125 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no need to judge the models appearance in that particular edit[14]. Seaphoto^Talk 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Do I really need to explain why you deserve this? The copyeditor's corner 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A greeting from a fellow Wikipedian...

Hello! Just stopped by to say, I noticed we two seem to be patrolling vandalism these last two hours or so. It's fun! --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask, by the way, what should we do with this? Someone deleted it per CSD, now it's recreated again. --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage stalker CSD again... if it appears again, AFD for additional WP:SALT Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Catfish Jim (love that username!) answered your question, so I will simply say "Hi" and thanks for helping out! Seaphoto^Talk 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Catfish, and, also, it was in fact recreated twice, I put a CSD on it both times, finally it got salted (by CIreland). No more of that for a while (I don't remember if it was salted temporarily or indefinitely, I requested a temp salt. Also, working together is fun! --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

Hello, Seaphoto.

With respect, I would have expected more of a history graduate. You appear to have confused emendment with vandalism. As someone who has been entrusted (by whom?) with a level of authority with respect to Wikipedia, you bear also a responsibility to ensure that it is accurate.

The ignorance that has characterised the "debate" over the correct style and title of the new duchess has been most unedifying and I have sought to remove mistakes. (One of my virtual interlocutors suggested that the Duchess be known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge because she still has a Christian name!) I would be pleased to hear from you why you characterise this as vandalism; yes, I have read your "list".

May I direct you to what is, in effect, the primary source (a term that I trust you will recognise) in this matter: the Press Release issued by The Queen's Press Secretary, announcing the creation of the new dukedom, on 29 April 2011?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/Announcementoftitles29April2011.aspx

A further disappointment was your failure to provide a better source than the gossip columnist of a Canadian newspaper, however distinguished a masthead it might be thought in the New World.

You and others appear, with respect, to be confusing HRH's style and title with a LIST of her titles: if one were to follow your rule of thumb in referring, for example, to The Queen, one could describe her as Queen of Australia, Canada, all of her Caribbean islands and so on, Duke of Lancaster, Duchess of Edinburgh and, potentially, every other title that has reverted to the Crown since 1066! The Duke of Edinburgh, for example, is also Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, but is not referred to as such. Equally, the Duke of Devonshire is also Marquess of Hartington, Earl of Burlington, Lord Cavendish and the holder of several other titles. If you know your Spanish history, you will forgive me for not listing the Duchess of Alba's titles! I trust that you take my point.

If you disagree with me, by all means provide me with some evidence.

Finally, may I suggest that you review your own "edit" on her Royal Highness' Wikipedia "page" and emend it?

Yours sincerely,

Cato the Yr of That Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato the Younger (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You and a number of other editors where engaging in a series[15] of unproductive back and forth reversions. Ironically, you had the correct fact (which makes is a bit puzzling why you seem cross, as I added a reference supporting your statement of title initially, adding the others mentioned in the reference later), but were also adding this non-encyclopedic comment in with it, "I imagine that the confusion in this area has arisen because of the occasional reference to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. In 1947, he was created Duke of Edinburgh with the style of Royal Highness by King George VI." That comment was the main reason I edited your contribution. Please consult the Wikipedia section on tone if you don't understand why that is not appropriate. Please note as well that I did not at any point accuse you of vandalism; I assumed your contribution was in good faith. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. Thanks for the clarification. Please see my "User talk" response to Tvoz and Yk Yk. Would you clear-up something for me, please? Why does my written signature not suffice: why the use of the tildes? It seems bizarre. With respect, the comments from a number of "editors" - if that's the correct term - about Wikip(a)edia conventions appears to this little, black L-plated duck to indicate a disporportionate interest in form over substance: Britmax got all hot and sweaty about the tildes! Regards, Cato the Yr (I'll try the icon and see if that works!) --Cato the Younger (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,Using the tildes for a signature identifies the writer in a positive manner and time stamps the comment. The open nature of Wikipedia lends itself to mischief; signing makes it more likely that we are indeed talking to you instead of someone simply typing your signature. The time stamp is helpful when viewing nested discussions. As for form over substance, I agree, but there are good reasons. The editing conventions of this encyclopedia has been hammered out through years of discussion. While they often seem a bit constraining the rules have evolved from the desire to produce a useful resource while allowing universal participation. The structure of the project provides a framework that keeps this participation relatively consistent. Seaphoto^Talk 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Was my use of the first person what you meant by "non-encyclpaedic" (though I don't concede that there is such a word!)? C the Y --Cato the Younger (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that is why your contributions were being reverted by a series of editors. Although it may be a neologism, "non-encyclopedic" describes content that is not consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style. There is a tool available to some editors that shows a real time stream of edits to Wikipedia. The purpose is to remove obvious vandalism, but some editors get a bit enthusiastic and use it in a broader manner. This can get frustrating to other users when their contributions are reverted without an explanation why; it would have been useful had someone ,simply recommended your edit be modified in tone, and supported by an inline reference. One of our goals is to not bite the newcomers, a goal we don't always achieve. Seaphoto^Talk 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...in my Wiki naivety it never occurred to me that someone would trouble themselves to nick another editor's moniker: clearly, there are far too many people with not enough to do. Is an "inline reference" the Wiki name for a footnote with a hyperlink to the source? As you observe, all of this could have much avoided if the first "reverter" had done me the courtesy of explaining why s/he was deleting my 'umble offerings. I take and accept your point about the need for consistency, but, a propos of any form over substance debate, to allow - in fact, to restore - an error of fact because the correction doesn't fit an editorial convention undermines the utility and, in fact, the raison d'etre of an encyclopaedia. Now, I'm wondering if it's responsible for the substantial number of errors that I've noticed over the years that I've been reading WP. I find the idea of errors in an encyclopaedia really unsettling, particularly because experience suggests that there is at least one generation (two, probably) that relies on electronic sources of information without checking its facts, elsewhere. For when I have some time to address the issue, generally, can you point me to a discussion page or some such creature (I don't mean for Kate Cambridge)? I had a look at Contact Wikipedia: that didn't seem to be the appropriate avenue. Anyway, thanks for your further responses: a very helpful discussion. Cato the Yr --Cato the Younger (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the inline reference question you are correct - in print it would be footnote. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to link to electronic sources, when available. Short term errors in the project are almost inevitable given the open nature, but most pages have "watchers", editors that can see easily when an article has been changed, and check the quality of that edit. In the long run this works well - we attract more and more people with expertise in various fields, and they help keep the encyclopedia accurate. The system can be problematic when a high profile event takes place, such as the Royal Wedding or more recently, the death of Osama Bin Laden. One thing to remember is that there is no rush; once the general public loses it's enthusiasm for a subject there will be plenty of time to get it right. To be fair, that is something I have to remind myself of from time to time.

On general improvements to the project, any article's talk page is always a good place to start a discussion on improving the quality of a specific entry. If you see something that is clearly inaccurate, and can correct it (preferably with a citation, lest it be reverted), we have a tenant: Be Bold; go ahead and make the change. If someone reverts it, rather than going back and forth, post a short note explaining the edit on talk page of either the reverting editor or the article. Most of the time, the matter will end right there. The very best way to settle any issue here involves the parties to discussing the matter in good faith and civilly. If that fails, there are areas where you can request comment from other editors (useful when a few editors are monopolizing an article. There are also areas where you can ask for assistance from an administrator. If you have any questions, I am online quite often and will do my best to help. I look forward to your contributions to Wikipedia! Cordially, Seaphoto^Talk 04:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All useful, thanks, Seaphoto - and you'll be delighted to know that I know very little about the late Mr. Bin Laden, other than what I've always thought must be an urban myth: that he was a member of White's. I've planted that seed on the discussion page of OBL's eponymous article. Cheers. Cato, Yr --Cato the Younger (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pawan Kalyan

I think you mis-aimed or edit-conflicted the cleanup, replacing "All three films were very well received by critics" with "This film has defied the law of gravity when it came to Pawan Kalyan's career graph" for example. Please check the edit-history, especially in relation to the slew of IP edits today to see if it's in a good form now. DMacks (talk) 20:12,

I was reverting, via Huggle, a version that added "ABCDEFG" to an internal link, but my reversion took out material that the editor added that would not be considered vandalism (although it needed to be removed for other reasons). Because of this I reverted my own edit, and jumped back to my browser to edit it more deeply. By that time, two other editors had taken care of the problems (with a period of four minutes). Nice job guys! Seaphoto^Talk 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)2 May 2011 (UTC)

12.151.252.140≠Cocos islands

Aswer, please--217.118.81.18 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)