User talk:Seaeffel
|
Why did you undo my edits
[edit]Hello Seaeffel,
I saw you undid my edits on the article of Abbas Babaei, you left the comment "edit don't editorialize" I wanted to say that I take your move to undo my edits as ineffective and purposeless. The sentence you deleted was not opinion based in the first place, and I have been conducting lots of research on the life of Abbas Babaei recently, I only included factual information in his article. Typically in Wikipedia it is considered unethical to undo someone's work if there is no reason behind it; I feel as if you undid my edits purely to find something wrong with all the time and effort I have been putting into Abbas Babaei's article recently. Secondly I was surprised to see you had changed the word "martyred" to "killed". I assume you claim the word martyred is also opinion based? In order to clear things up for you the word martyred means "a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc." as quoted from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. In Abbas Babaei's article I changed the word "killed" to "martyred" as I felt it better described his death, in case you didn't know Abbas Babaei was killed while defending his country during the Iran-Iraq war, and he was also a religious person and held it has his religious duty to fight in the war. Nothing here is opinion based, I feel as if you have mistaken my use of language to better describe Abbas Babaei as opinions.
By the way I know long comments like this can be misinterpreted as hostile lots of the time, I myself have felt that way before. But don't feel that way, I am voicing my idea on your latest edit to the Abbas Babaei article, which is something editors need to do in order to improve an articles quality.
I look forward to your response, and hopefully we can discuss the Abbas Babaei article further to enhance it more, perhaps combining my ideas and your ideas into the article!
Hooperag (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
[edit]
|
Hello! Seaeffel,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
|
This was really much too controversial a move to take without discussion. This particular Brown is, pretty clearly I think, the primary topic. I've started a discussion on the talk page to get it moved back. Frickeg (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. What on earth do you think you were doing? Please get to that Talk page now and discuss your move. Very rude to do it without discussion. My personal opinion is that it was stupid to do it at all. Please try to convince us. (WARNING: You've left it a bit late. That will reduce your chances of doing so.) (this previously unsigned comment was from User:HiLo48)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be more careful with your editing
[edit]I notice that you have moved about three articles to new names, and this has caused concern to other editors. Please take time to get used to how things are done on Wikipedia (WP). The first welcome message on this page has links to a lot of useful information, and I strongly recommend Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions as a way of learning about WP. Best wishes and I hope you enjoy editing WP. You can reply to messages like this by editing a reply here. I will be watching for a reply. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Doctor, heal thyself
[edit]I still reckon a bit of discussion before your Bob Brown page move would have been nice manners.
But anyway, nice to know you have an Australian connection. I gather it's with the Sydney part of the country. You see, we have at least four different professional football codes here, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Soccer and Australian Football. While soccer is played everywhere, there's a massive divide between where the rugbys are played and where Aussie Rules is played. You might find Barassi Line an interesting article. I live on the Aussie Rules side of the line, and hadn't heard of Rob Andrew. But I looked him up, and now I know more! Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be fascinated to hear any potential rebuttal of the argument I just put forth. Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bart Hull, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ACL and WCHL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Ace of Aces
[edit]If an ace must be ace and the most total for the article, why don't you delete, Georges Flachaire, Jean Navarre, Georges Guynemer, Charles Nungesser, Erich Loewenhardt and many others?!! Diako1971 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Tell me something
[edit]If I opened up a sockpuppet investigation on the belief that you and the blocked IP are the same, what do you think the odds that a checkuser will find you are the same are? You have been told several times now that these so-called "forgotten firsts" are not considered members of the Triple Gold Club. Full Stop. Until and unless you provide a reliable source that explicitly states they are, do not revert again. If you wish to go through the IP's edits and reintroduce prose improvements, go ahead. But stop with the tedious edit warring. Resolute 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Dude, where is the wikilove?
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seaeffel, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Resolute 19:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked this account for 31 hours and reset the block on your IP to 31 hours. Blocks will extend in duration if you continue to circumvent any active blocks. Nick (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Response
[edit]"Personally, I don not understand. Why don't YOU take out the parts you think are not valuable additions and edits so I know where you are coming from."
If this were The Daily Show, this would be the part where we cut to Jon Stewart looking incredulous.
Seriously? I've spent a day trying to explain why I took out the parts that weren't valuable and your responses have not been constructive at all. -- Scorpion0422 22:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Doubleplusgood!
Your edits have always been constructive, and mine are not. It has always been this way. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Wait, no, Ww are at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
And your edits did nothing more than add leaden prose back into a dull and poorly organized article.
Geez, I can't tell my players without a scorecard these days.
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Pat Bonnett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Guard
- Wayne Conrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Center
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Jerome Gantt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Charlotte Hornets and Tackle
- Doug Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Center
- Max Huber (Canadian football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Tackle
- Richie Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Upsala
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Seaeffel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]Please refrain from the use of your other, IP, address should you wish to retain editing privileges. Only one account can be used unless you declare use of a second account for special purposes in accordance with WP's protocols. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Seaeffel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Thanks for creating C.P. Stacey Prize.
User:Willbb234 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
There is a lot more good references so please add them. The reference currently provided is not sufficient - it doesn't show the information on the Wikipedia page.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willbb234}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
August 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)