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)

Apologies

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

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

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

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

WTF!!!??!?!

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

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

Not Fair: Double Standards?

Hello. Just dropping by to why my recent edit on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_licence_in_Canada was removed, keeping a link to the similar page with driving tests. The link I left contains useful information helping Ontario drivers pass their driving test. If you don't allow such links, what's the point of having the external URL box at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.180.186 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus over the years that has developed is against making Wikipedia a collection of links, particularly those with commercial motivations, regardless of how useful they are otherwise. If it makes you feel any better, my own websites which are far less commercial don't meet this standard either, which is why they are not on Wikipedia. Seaphoto^Talk 05:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamaal Wilkes Page Edit

What's wrong with my editing Jamaal Wilkes' "Career highlights and awards" to account for his All-Star and All-Defensive selections?

Thanks, zoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoax (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you should practice in your user space or in the sandbox before editing articles, it is not the place to test edits. Since it was in good faith, I will revert your warning.Seaphoto^Talk 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

February 2010

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. iBen^talk/_contribs 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability rule

Hi, you have tagged Swami Atmajnananda for "non-notability". However an article on him is necessary, given his significant role in the Kali's Child controversy.

More generally, be warned that the "notability" requirement is only a minority opinion, in spite of what its supporters may say; and so are the specific definitions of what "notable" means.

Moreover, the insertion of editorial comments in articles (as opposed to talk pages) is a destructive and uncivil act that goes against the basic rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please reconsider and refrain from such actions in the future.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Notability is a generally accepted guideline, not a "minority opinion". You can read more about it at WP:NOTABILITY if you are not familiar with those guidelines, and debate them there if you disagree. Specifically, if the subject is best known for his role in one controversy, then his information should be merged into that article. On the subject of uncivil behavior, I was following normal Wikipedia procedures to identify articles that don't meet accepted standards. No editorial comments were inserted into the article at all. If you feel that these types of articles should not be tagged, feel free to tilt at that particular windmill, but attacking your fellow editors is probably not the best way to achieve your goal. --Seaphoto^Talk 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal aid

Salutations! Just stopping by to let you know that Legal Helpers, an article you proposed for deletion, has been restored after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Feel free to pursue the article's deletion at AfD if you feel it is appropriate. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on the List of unusual deaths! Verkhovensky (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Case Modding?

Hi mate,

Im just a little confused about the removal of the link-age - while i agree some of those sites should have been removed. The majority on there were valid, free, educational sites? The Best Case Scenario, www.case-mod.com, Battle of the geeks, toms hardware and so on.

By removing all, and holding the opinion that they are not valid external links, is, in esscense a form of cencorship, no? =)

Cheers for the case modding support though, just dont want to limit peoples ability to find good resources.

Cheers

I don't entirely disagree, but these are the guidelines that have been developed over the years through the consensus of many editors. There is an appeals process, however, so you can take any of them there. I found out early on that my site on model warship building fails the test because there is advertising on the home page, so that site, which I feel is very helpful, is not listed on the relevant WP articles either. As they say, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Of the two final links I removed from case modding, one was a forum, and the other was just a placeholder for a future site. I think the very nature of the subject is going to make it hard to find links that are completely non commercial, and are not forums, but if you have any please post them.--Seaphoto^Talk 15:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, i can see where you're coming from now! =) I revisited the sites i listed earlier, the only one i see that meets criteria (non-commercial, non-profile, non-forum, non-advertising) is Battle Of The Geeks - im still looking for other resources! Perhaps we could re-add that in the interim?

WP:ROLLBACK

Hi Seaphoto - I've added the rollback flag for you. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Most welcome. Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) --5 albert square (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, seems the least I could do :-).--Seaphoto^Talk 04:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow such awesome speed!

Hey Seaphoto, I can see from your efforts today that you are extremely dedicated to countering vandalism (Huggle is way too good...). But anyway, I thought you'd like to have this as recognition from me. You can choose another userbox from WP:FTA. Deagle_AP (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FTAThis user is persistent in the fight against vandalism. Hence, the user has been entrusted with membership into Wikipedia's Fire Team Alpha.

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism on my userpage. That's the third time that IP's vandalized my page in the past 5 mins. --N419BH (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for your efforts fighting vandalism too.--Seaphoto^Talk 06:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks. At least they will have to use different IP addresses for their next raid!!! Pinethicket (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, it shows that vandals are not the only teams here! --Seaphoto^Talk 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Satpanth

Thanks for helping stem the flood. I have blocked that IP for 31 hours, and semi-protected the article for six in case they find another IP. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FF7 revert

My last edit was not an unconstructive "sandbox" edit. If you look at the summary, you will see that I actively engaged the last editor to revert, namely user Atlan, in dialogue on his discussion page, in an attempt to reach a resolution. I don't have many edits, but I am familair with Wikipedia's policies. For instance, I would appreciate if you could join the discussion on Atlan's page and see my comments there before reverting again, so that edit wars and 3RR do not become an issue. Furthermore, if you have a problem with my edit I'm definitely willing to listen, but I would need to know specifically what the problem is and not a copy and paste of Wiki policy boilerplate that accuses me of making unconstructive edits and tells me to go play in the Sanbox.  :) Thanks, and if it becomes a big enough issue I'll just address it on the discussion page for FF7. TempDog (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring

Dear Seaphoto, I hope this finds you well. I am sorry to bother you but it appear someone is attempting to start an edit war on the "Margaret Clark" page and I would like your always objective help. Please see notes on article talk page. Thank you for all your help in the past. Sincerely, DocOfSoc (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc has given you a Guinness! Beer promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Guinness! Happy drinking! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see new comments on Margaret Clark's Talk page. TY DocOfSoc (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just responding to them there when I got this message LOL. Time for me to get some sleep, have a nice eveningSeaphoto^Talk 07:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rest well. As always, looking forward to your response. Have a great weekend. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ishmael Reed

Why did you leave a vandalism warning on User talk:75.24.111.181 about edits to Ishmael Reed? Those were obviously good-faith edits. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right, I jumped the gun on that one, it looked like vandalism at first. My apologies, I have removed the warning--Seaphoto^Talk 00:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hi Seaphoto. Just to make sure you are aware of what is happening at Led Zeppelin Talk Page. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

== Why is the correction to Ordeal by Innocence regarded as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordeal by Innocence

Why are you vandalising the correction to Ordeal by Innocence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read your talk page, it take a few moments to make corrections...Seaphoto^Talk 07:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

townsville queensland

why did you undo my edit to townsville queensland. Townsville IS a redneck city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.30.158 (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What would Jesus do

I don't understand how my addition to the WWJD discussion page was 'not constructive'. I literally posted the answer to the question that the article was about, directly from the source material for the entire mythos. It was probably not necessary for me to use colorful metaphor, "beat the sh-- out of" though given that it is a discussion page I was unaware that there was a need to maintain encyclopedic tone. Surely you could have edited out whatever phrase offended the guidelines without resorting to wholesale deletion?

The information in my post was non-intuitive, verifiable, and relevant to the subject matter. So again, I don't understand why you deleted it. Thanks, 96.225.220.86 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, talk pages are for discussing the article, and not a forum for general discussion of the subject. They are used to form consensus about how the data should be presented to the Wikipedia reader. With the massive amount of edits typically done on Wikipedia each day (typically I find between 100 -250 per minute) not all of these will catch an editors eye for deletion. Two aspects of your comment did, the use of an obscenity, coupled with an anonymous IP, and thus I read it and rolled back the edit. Since you don't have a history of vandalism I will remove the warning from your talk page. Happy Editing! Seaphoto^Talk 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bud. I will correct the obscenity. 96.225.220.86 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching a vandal!

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page.  :) ElationAviation(talk) 04:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, we all do what we can!Seaphoto^Talk 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's time

Hello, Seaphoto. You have new messages at DocOfSoc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DocOfSoc (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It may well be...but for what? LOL Seaphoto^Talk 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK, checking my watchlist, we are dealing with Margaret Clark, I will comment on that page. Seaphoto^Talk 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sea! You are a gem! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Dear Seaphoto, Thank you very much for the help and support you have given, past, present & future. Love, DocOfSoc (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc (talk) 12:09, 05 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates

Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TY!

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

Combining diffs

It's pretty simple. When you look at the history of a page and want to check the difference between one edit and the edit that immediately preceded it, you would normally "choose" those two edits (by clicking their circular "buttons") and then click the "compare selected revisions" button. To instead see the difference resulting from multiple consecutive edits, you would "choose" the first edit, then choose the last edit, while skipping over the intermediate ones -- then click the "compare" button as usual. You'll then see all the changes made in all the intermediate edits combined into one diff.

I don't know if I've said this as clearly as possible so let me know if you still need anything clarified. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much,that helps a bunch. Right in front of my face all the time, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Seaphoto^Talk 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the same note, I literally just spent three hours editing a messy article, all in one edit. When I went to save, someone else was editing, and tho I copied what I *thought* were all my edits, I lost several, which cost me more time. Better to edit in smaller pieces, IMHO. Shalom DocOfSoc (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

When someone was given a "final warning" this month, aren't you supposed to report them instead of starting a new cycle of warnings? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. For the most part, I am using Huggle to do these reversions, and the level of warning is automatic (and usually accurate). Can you give me the example you are talking about? Thanks Seaphoto^Talk 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:213.243.11.34. I haven't used Huggle so I don't know, but doesn't it show you the talk page before you post a warning to it? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it comes up in a command line with the prior warning, if any. Most of the time, Vandalism, especially from IP's is very rapid (a matter of minutes), so I believe Huggle uses a time strategy shorter than the period for the user in question. When I am using this tool, which is a separate software program that runs independent of my browser, we are getting between 100 to 200 edits per minute, and about 10% of these are vandalism. Because of this volume, once a warning is issued I don't check out the user page itself, just the command line log at the bottom that indicates the warning was written. In the end, as was the case with this user, vandals and spammers get blocked. The system isn't perfect - I suspect no anti-vandalism scheme on Wikipedia will ever be - but it is a useful tool to combat the flood of vandals. Seaphoto^Talk 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

They got blocked because I reported them. But, k, point taken. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 17:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Evaline (band)

I noticed that you reverted and warned Spencerrinkus (talk · contribs) about blanking this article. He blanked the article he started, so you should tag the article as {{db-author}} instead of reverting and warning him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I issued the warning because the editor removed not only the text, but also the Speedy Deletion template as well. I take your point though, Thanks!Seaphoto^Talk 05:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly common for new editors to do that. They just wipe the whole thing instead of leaving the speedy deletion template or changing it. It is better to just re-tag the article with the appropriate CSD template and then leave a note for the editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, will do that in the future - it's been a busy night, some very persistent vandalism! Seaphoto^Talk 05:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow & The Fast and the furious franchise

I am not vandalising anything. The user Kintetsubuffalo is vandalising "The Fast and the Furious" template ans the "Better Luck Tomorrow" article. Better Luck Tomorrow is related to the franchise. Because of this the link is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.15.45 (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Then discuss it on the relevant pages. Note I am not reverting those at this time, but please don't remove suspected sockpuppet investigation tags; that weakens your case in any other discussions. Also, please be aware of the 3RR rule. Thank you Seaphoto^Talk 07:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this on his discussion page. He just erased my post and try to sell me as vandal and spammer when I am just wanting to help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.15.45 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Try discussing it on the page for the article or template in question, and not his user page. Avoid making inflammatory comments and present your case in a logical manner. If someone reverts that, then they will have the problem. The secret to Wikipedia is to persuade and reach consensus. Dogged reversions will not help your posistion Seaphoto^Talk 07:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, I really understand your point of view, but is difficult for me to discuss with somebody that says "go fuck yourself" when you try to talk.

That's why the discussion should be held on the article's talk page, not the editors. Uncivil behavior there will be noticed quickly by a number of editors and appropriate action can be taken. At any rate, it is there you should make your case. Try it, give some time (a day or two) for comments to be made by other editors. There is no urgency to include this information, so best to take your time, let tempers cool and help us all get it right. Seaphoto^Talk 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Just another doubt. The 3RR do not apply for him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.15.45 (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It applies to both of you equally. I have left a message on the template page for the Fast and the Furious urging both of you to discuss the change, your reasons why you feel it should be included, and the other reasons why it should be not. Seaphoto^Talk 08:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, note to the IP-it is never a good idea to accuse a longterm editor of vandalism-that is not a "discussion", that is trolling, hence my suggestion of what you can do, my standard response to trolls. You've not in days of reversions provided any link between the two. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that just escalates matters, never a good idea to feed the trolls if you think that is what is going on here. If you feel this is vandalism, apply for semi-protection for the template, but this back and forth is not accomplishing anything. Seaphoto^Talk 08:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, man. I posted there. But the guy is still being harsh calling me tendentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.15.45 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your brilliant and tireless work on Special:RecentChanges, even if you do beat me to a lot of edits ;-) WackyWace talk 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Corinthos III

It's true though, if you watch General Hospital you will see that Michael may have been raped in prison but it's unclear. Maybe he was just frightened, maybe beaten up, who knows. Jason is there too. It's clear. Watch the fu----- show!!!

- Damien Demento —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.43.48 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can do it too, chief.

Just reverted some vandalism on the featured article. Now what? You gonna vandalize something? No you're not. Why? Because I'll be all up in your grill anonymously.

-Anonymous Anti-Vandalism Vigilant Vigilante —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.150.221 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Seaphoto, Thanks for stopping the vandalism on the World Affairs Conference article. Keep up the good work.

Aasdfghjkl1 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, thank you for your contributions to the article, including the restoration of both sponsoring schools, which I missed. Seaphoto^Talk 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is she back?

Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing, and categorizing the article, only to have it reverted. Input please. Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure...it is a Verizon IP, but the pattern is not quite the same, and there are a huge number of Verizon users. For one, there was no edit summary. Secondly, instead of wholesale reversion, it was just a couple of points - it might be a legitimate difference of opinion, or a testing of the waters. Will watch the article to see if problems develop. Have a nice weekend! Seaphoto^Talk 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would urge caution...it is one thing bringing up a question, and another engaging in taunting. I know how frustrated you must be with this situation, but wikihounding is never a good idea. The "Skag" section on Ryan Seacrest's talk page will only make the situation worse if indeed it is SRQ that is the anonymous IP behind the edits, and will lessen your credibility with other editors unfamiliar with the history between you two. An unasked for bit of advice <grin>. Seaphoto^Talk 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) you be right, as usual ;-D DocOfSoc (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time rearranging and categorizing. Categories were removed and a timeline format was reinserted. I have not seen an article set up with a time line. Is this usual? More than a couple of points LOL. I value your input and would like to know what you think of my changes as I am planning on changing them back if you agree. The "Personal" life change is her style. Later... Have a great weekend! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Seaphoto. You have new messages at Karel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the Help!

Just dropping by to say thank you for helping revert edits by that IP ANON vandal. They were quite persistent on their task and it was starting to get cumbersome watching their contributions and issuing proper warnings in time to revert their next mark and repeat it all over again. I really appreciate it! Good hunting! Fox816 (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

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

OK

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

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

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

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

And just 2¢ - or a bit more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

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

Could you look again at an AfD?

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

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

Thank you . . .

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

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

Presentation of a barnstar

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

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

Band of Horses

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

William Howard Taft University's Proposed Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		YOu know why you have got --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Seaphoto^Talk 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my talk page

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

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

FYI

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

Please stop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be a little more careful

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

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

whoops.

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

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

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for all the clean up work you do!!!

DocOfSoc 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! Seaphoto^Talk 04:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Daric Rawr

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

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

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

Many thanks

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

Congratulations

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

No

It wasn't vandalism, just a legitimate comment. Next time think before you wrongfully revert.