User talk:Seaphoto/Archive

 Archive 

Sardinia links
There has been much discussion concerning these links and you may join the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bcnviajero#Link_spam

Thank you for your comments on the above mentioned talk page. I do find it a little disapointing that it seems you did not read any of the above comments written by myself or the other two users on the subject matter as if you had you may of responded directly to some of the comments made. I also noticed from you edit history that you seem to have not even looked at the links in question but merely deleted them without noting the content of the websites in question. I have also noted that you have included in Wikipedia one of your own personal websites on the model boats page. Reading the Wikipedia guidlines you will see that this is NOT recommend. I thank you for your time and will check back here for your further comments.


 * Thanks for your comments. I did, in fact, follow the links before deleting them - I found they were the typical travel links that appear in  many of these type of articles, and really add nothing to them.  As for my hobby site, it is a non profit page that displays the work of 100's of non commercial ship modelers (almost 50 gallery pages at this point), and includes step by step instructions on how to research, build and operate radio control ship models, without trying to sell anything (There are 5 banners on the site that support the actual costs involved, 1 on the message board and 4 others on various pages, the vast majority of the site is ad free). I clearly identify on my user page that it is a site that I edit, having made no attempt at all to obscure that fact.  I invite you to have a look at the site and make up your own mind - maybe you will find a fun new hobby! Seaphoto 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my delay in responding to your remarks. Firstly I would like to ask you what you think a travel related link should cover? Pages of information on the destination? This is what the pages that you deleted cover and as mentioned on the talk page are information about Sardinia that is non profit based and runs adwords as many websites to cover costs. There are no online booking features or online costs of any kind, infact all content and information is completely free to the user. I am very confused as to what you believe should and should not be included as an external link. As to your own website I have had a look and It is is definetley what it claims to be a website about model ships, and a good one at that but if we were to follow your own policy concerning external links would not be included in any wikipedia articles as it both sells books, posters and runs commercial banners e.t.c. This would not be my own opinion but none the less if you were to follow the no commercial site to the word and the don't add your own websites guidlines then it would not be included. It is worth remembering that Wikipedia guidlines are just that, Guidlines! I will chack back for any response--84.223.29.119 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I erred on putting my own website up, and will not contest or revert if someone takes it off the links. I thought it would be useful for those wishing to learn about building model ships, but would understand its removal.


 * I deleted it myself in the end. Seaphoto 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as travel links, I am not sure what they add to an article about a country, and can proliferate into dozens of sites very quickly if not aggresively removed - look at the page history of any popular tourist designation to see many examples. I agree that those in question are among the most benign that I have seen, and certainly are not a clear cut case. For my part, I made the one change and left the situation alone after it was reverted, as I don't feel strongly about it. Seaphoto 23:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Caine Mutiny
Hi, do you know what edition this cover is? It may be first, but wanted to check where the image came from. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser Regards, The Land (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Jared Fogle
Thanks for the note you left me. I am sorry that I reverted to edits that were not acceptable. Even though I was aware of WP:BLP I thought that it only applied to article mainspace. I have read through the entire page now though and I see that that is not the case. I have done some dumb things on here before but reverting those edits on the Jared Fogle talk page is by far the dumbest and I should probably hang my head in wikishame. I have now read through the entire BLP page though so I am smarter than I was and I promise that I won’t screw up like that again. So, again, I apologize. Thanks for straightening me out. Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Karel
Sure, I'd be willing to discuss the changes I made vs. the changes you made. Fire away... ;-)

Karel, please just don't make any more edits! "Joy"

Seaphoto, I meant to mention earlier that you have been helpful and reasonable, for this I belatedly thank you! Your advice is superb and fair. Will follow such! Thanks again JoyDiamond (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Regisfugit
Hi, Seaphoto. As an FYI - I have reported this "editor" to the Admin noticeboard. Also, Regisfugit just left a message on my talk page which stated, "Please, keep changing it back, you can't censor me.... Regisfugit (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"

Just thought you'd want to know. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked his edit history - there are a few constructive edits mixed in with some clearly unhelpful ones. I just reverted his PROD on the Karel page, as, once it was taken down, it should not have been restored, per WP:Deletion.  Will keep an eye on things so that you and Joy and not having to do all the reverting, should it come to that. Sea photo Talk  04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - please explain "PROD". ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. PROD - Guidelines for proposed deletion, which can be found here. Cheers.-- Sea photo Talk  04:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay...that makes sense ;-) FYI - I got a warning on my talk page from an admin that I could be blocked for edit warring in regard to reverting Regisfugit's "edits".  Oy vey... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't feel like you have to carry the water on this article by yourself. I check my watchlist once or twice a day (most of the time) and will correct any problems I find. If more than one editor is reverting, you are less likely to get a 3RR warning, at least before the offending party get's theirs :-).  You did the right thing by reporting this person, and the Admin stepped up and took care of it pretty promptly.  It all works out over a reasonably short time, so don't stress yourself if you see this type of editing. Editing should be fun!-- Sea photo Talk  05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Seaphoto, I would like to report some of the disruptive edits by user Kelly A. Siebecke. Repeatedly, this user has changed close to 100% of the edit to the Karel page, even minor, referenced changes. Additionally, when someone does make a change, she labels anyone else's change as "vandalism" or reverts the changes back. What I am wondering is how can someone objectively have the power to get someone temporarily banned, simply if they disagree with this editor, who takes any changes in a personal and vindictive manner.Regisfugit (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kelly and Joy Diamond have done a tremendous amount of work on this article, and while their viewpoints are often at odds, it is clear they are trying to improve on it. Your edit history is spotty, with obvious vandalism to the Spence Pratt article, and then, when that proved unfruitful, requests for deletion.  Your only contribution to the Karel article are requests for deletion.  That's not going to happen to an established article without a clear consensus, and your actions will not achieve that. When a block is considered, Admins look at the track record of the editor, and yours, so far, is not very good.  Why not find articles about subjects you are knowledgeable about, such as the Giants, and concentrate on improving them?  Seeing your time spent improving articles has to be more satisfying in the long run than this type of battle, which just wastes time.-- Sea photo Talk  00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seaphoto, RegisFugit is again blanking pages (User pages, talk pages) and has been harassing me all afternoon by adding disruptive content on my talk page - every time he/she puts it there, I revert it and then he/she puts it back, etc.. I have requested an admin look into the situation.  If you have any clout in that area, and if you feel so inclined, feel free to see what you can do about this editor.  While I appreciate the patience in your words above, my gut feeling is that RegisFugit is going to do whatever he/she wants to do.  He/she was banned a couple of days ago and since having the ban lifted, his/her behavior has been very "anti-Wikipedia" IMO.  Thanks.  SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seaphoto, I don't necesarily disagree with your post, however Kelly Siebecke is an antagonist, and when I go to either defend my POV or justification for edits, she either immediately becomes defensive or becomes the "victim" of vandalism or (fill in the blank) convenient complaint at the moment. Please, don't think I pulled her name out of a hat to pick on- I am on the defensive and will not tolerate these attacks without lobbing a few of my own. Regisfugit (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum, a place to pick fights, or a place to pursue a personal vendetta. When I see a history of constructive edits, I will be more sympathetic to your concerns.  At present, it seems you main purpose is to engage in trolling behavior.  Please spend your time on Wikipedia to add, not to tear down.-- Sea photo Talk  06:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)