User talk:Seaphoto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Barnstar

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

Speedy deletion declined: Stacia Pierce

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

User page

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

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

Wait, what the heck?

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

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

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

A bit of fun

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

Happy Seaphoto's Day!

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

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

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

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

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

I do not understand your removal

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

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

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

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

-_-

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

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

Water Cress Thing

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

User:David K Brown and MuseumPlanet

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 19 /Expect Us vandalism

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

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

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

You keep changing the page with my name on it

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

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

Tonyboy bautista

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

You flagged my page

Please note....

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

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

Big Fan of your work

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

She's back

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