User talk:Seewolf

Thanks for letting me know. I've reprotected the page and blocked the user. Oh, and welcome to you! —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Durchhalten!
Seewolf,

ich bewundere (keine Ironie!) Dein Stehvermögen. Diese ständigen Beleidigungen hätten mich längst zu einem neuen Pseudonym bewegt; aber dass wollen diese XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - (<- Schimpffworte gestrichen, auf diese Ebene gehe ich nicht) ja bloß. Ich jedenfalls finde Deine Edits und COntribs gut. Hang on in there! Lost Boy 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beate-Uhse-Turm.JPG
Hi. "Fake" is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Perhaps try WP:IFD and explain your reasoning in more detail. Thank you for understanding. MECU ≈ talk 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Entsperrung
Guten Tag, wozu bedarf es, damit mein de.Konto wieder freigeschaltet wird? (Diese Frage ist ernst gemeint und erfüllbaren Belangen soll nachgekommen werden)--Vergelter (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hälleren
I've indeffed this user, and requested REVDEL of his edits. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sperre
Du hast sicher eine Erklärung dafür, warum du eine völlig harmlose Bearbeitung zurückgesetzt und mich gesperrt hast.--DerTrolly (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

why it is not quotable?
Hi Seewolf, you removed the the Kish cypher book from the wiki page as not quotable. Can you explain it why do you think it is so? No books are peer reviewed. Only papers in professional journals and at some conferences are peer reviewed. Books are never, for example, I have a science book contract with Cambridge and the book will be published as soon as I complete it, without peer review. You can ask around. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply because the book consists of old wikipedia articles. Quote them, if you don't find something peer reviewed. --Seewolf (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is not an argument against quoting a book. The book is a special edition of relevant wikipedia articles, which is more than just the standalone wiki articles, due to synergism. According to the rules of Wikipedia the only arguments you could use against quoting a source are that the source is either not publicly accessible or not reliable. However, you have just pointed out that cited book is as reliable as wiki. Thus, please restore the citation or I must do that. Alternatively we can bring up this debate for arbitration by high-level wiki editors. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, its not a "special edition", its simply an automatic compilation without any editorial work. These books have fake authors and they are heavily over-priced. They are trash. And of course, Wikipedia itself ist not an reliable source. --Seewolf (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, it seems, the wiki rules prohibit this, see the opinions here:. Even though, wiki says its basic rule is that rules can be changed, I have no interest and time to fight this. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Seewolf,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Software in Wikipedia
Gibt es in Wikipedia eine Software, die individuell oder automatisch den Zugang verweigert, filtert, sperrt, löscht? Ich suche etwas in der Deutschen Wikipedia und es ist nicht auffindbar? Was passiert mit Sachen (z.B. Link), die früher funktionieren und heute nicht mehr funktionieren? 193.192.233.131 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nein, es gibt keine Lesesperren.  Vielleicht suchst du einen gelöschten Artikel?  --Seewolf (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lesesperren ist gut ;-) --Seewolfs dear friend Bertram (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets
Would you like your talk page to be semiprotected? I always regard that as something to be avoided if possible, but the persistent trolling has been going on so long that it might be a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets concentrate the trolling here, he would only put his junk on another page. --Seewolf (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. Surprisingly often, though, I find that trolls don't move to another page, even when they easily could. However, it's your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

German Account
Hello, why can I not use this account in the German Wikipedia? Could you have the oppurunity, to give my acount free? --URSULA1347 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Atrott resurrection
Seewolf, would you care to look at the Hans-Henning Atrott article; it seems that Schinkelnburg is again trying to twist the information therein, reverting contents that the community had found a consensus on, e.g. th term "self-published". Perhaps, protecting the page for some time might cool down emotions. Best regards, Lost Boy (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Seewolf (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so that you know: he insulted you severely on the talk page of "Hans-Hennung Atrott". I reverted the edit, but do not want to go into an edit war over personal insults; I will not change again in case he re-reverts. Perhaps protection of the page might be a good concept? Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sperre
Warum? Ich hab alles davor hier geschrieben! Warum werde ich denn gesperrt? Ich hab noch gefragt, ob ich dann nicht als Sockenpuppe gesperrt werde, und es hies NEIN!Porsche Motorsport-Team Fan (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porsche Motorsport-Team Fan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Vergiss nicht meinen gesperrten Account in Otbergs Liste einzutragen
Vergiss bitte nicht meinen gesperrten Account in Otbergs Liste einzutragen.--Bernard Gunnar (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Julia Garner - Edit warring is prohibited
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Maroonmex (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, Seewolf. I noticed that your recent edit to Nikki Amuka-Bird added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. Sumanuil. 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)