User talk:Seabrook.Ellis

Welcome!

Hello, Seabrook.Ellis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Joshua Issac (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/London Mayors Association.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Peter Seabrook, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ukexpat (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Seabrook.Ellis. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seabrook

I just added material back that you had deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Penny Garner (August 6)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penny Garner.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Rankersbo (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Seabrook.Ellis, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Seabrook may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

survey-missing-sun-team/ Peter Seabrook defends his use of peat despite the concerns of the RSPB ]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bauldie

I have reverted your edits again. If you wish to re-add please ensure you have independent reliable references. A read through some WP polices would not go amiss. WP:BLP, WP:V for a start. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seabrook - again

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Peter Seabrook . Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjayay (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. ES &L 10:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username implies a connection with Peter Seabrook, a person with whom you appear to be obsessed (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Seabrook.Ellis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Seabrook.Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

These are MY family names don't tell me I can't use my own name !!!

Decline reason:

While I think your disruptive editing alone justifies the block (and frankly should have been used as the reason for the block), you are indeed correct that (as my own example demonstrates) we let people edit under their own names. But only their own given name. You said those were your "family names", which seems to suggest that your real name is not, quite, "Seabrook Ellis." — Daniel Case (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem intent on telling lies and allowing celebrities to use wikipedia as a free advert in conflict with your own rules. You seem more like a group of over-rated pseudo-academics than anything else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabrook.Ellis (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penny Garner concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penny Garner, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penny Garner

Hello Seabrook.Ellis. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Penny Garner".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penny Garner}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]