Contents

User talk:154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam

This user may have left Wikipedia. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam has not edited Wikipedia since 4 May 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome![edit]

Hey,

I´ve replaced almost all of the respective article after your recent updates. Looking into the the page history you can probably see that I worked on a major expansion before, posted a part of it once and rowed back because it wasn´t finished and, in my opinion, therefore not ready to be posted yet. I´ve also incorporated your new pictures and updated some of the refs (including your group). There is still much left to do, especially the regimental history from 1863 to 1865. If you want to work on the article and post more info you´re more than welcome. Thanks for your work so far. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I´ve seen you replaced some infobox pictures with paintings. Please refrain from deleting portrait photographs; they´re the real depictions of said persons while paintings are artwork and interpretation. That is no argument against the use of paintings, they´re welcome as well, but they shouldn´t be in the infobox if actual photographs are available . Regards ... GELongstreet (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Nathan Bedford Forrest Portrait 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Polk during the Civil War.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Tennessee in the American Civil War have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• Ifyou own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Invery rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domainorcompatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving your report to the notice board from the talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indiana in the American Civil War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John F. Miller, John Coburn and Charles Cruft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

                         - The disambiguation links have been fixed! 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is the Biographies of living persons policy. It's rather difficult to violate it on Civil War generals. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; my point still stands. If this means so much to you more than the problem posed at hand of involving modern politically motivated sources on someone who died nearly 150 years ago, then you clearly came to the wrong place. I work to improve pages with acceptable sources so our visitors can get the correct information. It's laughable that an article titled "Monuments to white supremacy" from New York Times is acceptable by some to be used as a source on Nathan Bedford Forrest's page. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the New York Times is an unreliable source, you may be editing the wrong encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, which is why I haven't reverted your edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times is a media site that is rated moderate left-leaning by every media bias check site I looked on. I don't think you would like someone using Breitbart as a source on Barack Obama's page. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT is a very reliable source. I did not give a reason because I took the deletion as vandalism. deisenbe (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to comply with the policy that requires direct quotations to be attributed properly. Otherwise, you are claiming those words as your own. Please be careful because these are really important matters. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original researchornovel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Antifa (United States). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Doug Weller talk 12:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your contribution to antifa and I felt your edits were warranted and somehow reverted. I tried to undo the revision that another editor had on you, but the team has made significant revisions, so that I'm not able to revert to your contribution. I aim at neutrality and I've felt significant traction. I'll see what I can do to restore the intent of your edits.

Please know that no one editor owns a page. Don't give up.

I find these resources useful:

WP:PA

WP:BULLY

WP:POV railroad

WP:Civility

Cheers! 02:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDSU-Prepper (talk • contribs)

→ I added that back into the page. Apparently the guy reverted it because I marked it as minor, so I guess he couldn't find any other reasons besides that which is no excuse. Tahnk you for notifying me. Cheers, 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, "It is clear by the common definition of "domestic terrorism" that this term applies to the group Antifa from the violence they inflict on the people and environment they encounter"--no, that is the very hallmark of original research. The BBC reference that verifies that information does not state this at all. Doug Weller, you alerted this editor to DS; I haven't looked at their other edits, but it's something to keep an eye on since it's kind of blatant. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead and report us, I contributed much to wikipedia and to report for something like this is ridiculous. I was unaware of exactly why my original edit was reverted, until you just mentioned it. But luckily a much kinder user took the time to help me by citing it, unlike you people who work against it without caring to help. Because regardless of the technicalities, it's pretty clear that Antifa commits acts of domestic terrorism, and I think you know that too, which makes me question if you are on neutral grounds or if you are one sided. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you're wrong. I don't know if there's something wrong with your reading ability, but neither the BBC source nor the misplaced Newsweek source claim that Antifa engage in such acts. So, given that it's not there, you may well ask yourself why you want to state these imaginary facts. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think I nailed it right on the spot. "Third gender wikipedian" and supports a complete ban on concealed carry. Yeah, wouldn't be surprised if you are part of the organization we are arguing over. The sources all point to Politico, which is a left leaning source, and they have personally interviewed those with the DHS. The DHS has labeled them a domestic terrorist organization. So you talk about reading skills; well I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all? How about we get the Department of Homeland Security involved as a matter of national security? I have no problem talking with agents! What about you?

I'm concerned because Drmies and company is changing the narrative about what antifa is about and this is a national concern (they aren't peace activists). I'm concerned about politics and election meddling -- and it's not just from Russia! There is cyber warfare from the U.K., China and other sources. Let's be civil!

Incidentally, here is my source: https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396 The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good source. But apparently Drmies still doesn't provide a clear excuse as to why he doesn't want this on the page. Like I said, I suspect he's part of it or at least sympathetic to them, and therefore tries to minimize any negativity shown towards them on the page even if it's factual. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you lack a sense of humor or not, but your comment about one of the categories at User:Drmies's user page suggests you might not. That aside, these sorts of personal attacks can get you blocked. Even the editor SDSU-Prepper, now blocked for making legal threats, has mentioned WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA. Perhaps you need reminding that the sanctions alert I gave you states "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." Doug Weller talk 10:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're sounding pathetic. "I don't know if you lack a sense of humor or not, but your comment about one of the categories at User:Drmies's user page suggests you might not. That aside, these sorts of personal attacks can get you blocked." You just contradicted your own self. I will be reporting this. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seth Adam #civility please. There are good people, fine people, on both sides. The reason (not "excuse") for my not wanting "Antifa engages in acts of domestic terrorism" in the article is that it is not verified by the sources, not even by the source you kept adding. Surely it is not too hard to understand that you can't say things in an encyclopedia that aren't verified. It's a variety of don't lie. And that stuff you take issue with, third-gender or whatever, that's just dumb. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth you introduced the second identical image to L. Polk's article? What is a hidden message that stubbornly eludes my understanding? --Taterian (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I said look at the article's talk page. If you are going to be a jack a- with a bad attitude then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Learn better social skills by going out more. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • I understand that you are trying to provoke me into calling you being an ***hole which I aint gonna do.

    

    Hello 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam, Taterian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
    Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
    Instead, I gonna politely tell you that you can have no images at all in an article; have a ton of them if they are related to the subject in an important way, but you cannot place two identical images in two different places in the same article. Why? Just because it will make all those who spent time volunteering on the site, guess what, idiots in the eyes of the outside society. --Taterian (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tennessee in the American Civil War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tennessee in the American Civil War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tennessee in the American Civil War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]