User talk:Sean7phil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just an FYI, your edits on the 12 step program article are totally out of line and innapropriate. Please learn to use the talk page and not the article itself to make your personal points. Mr Christopher 15:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sean7phil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Xyrael T 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workplace bullying

Phil, you DO know that there is a seperate Workplace bullying article? That's why it really wouldn't be a great idea to expand the section here UNLESS the two articles are merged, which is an option worth discussing though I confess I can't make up my mind about it, I just think it's an option worth talking about.

Also, trust me, you DON'T need to be an expert to participate, you just need to be able to stay objective and neutral, refrain from personal opinion and experience (which are valid in their own right, but inappropriate here) and able to locate and cite reputable, mainstream published, sources for all the information you post. Copyied from Talk:Bully --Zeraeph 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

I am sorry to inform you that your AMA request was improperly filed and has been deleted from our que. For us to help you, you need to follow the instructions as closely as possible as disregarding them will significantly cause us problems in fielding your request (especially with how large our backlog currently is). As such, we ask that you re-file your request properly, and we will be able to help you from there. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet types

Hello,

I was wondering where you got the quote from that stated there are Super-Maximum, Super, etc planet types?

Zzzzzzzzzzz 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry it took so long for me to see this. It was one of the major astronomical society websites (the scientist organizations, not the amature astronomers). I whish I could remember exactly which site-- I should have cited it but the terms your referred to were not my idea, I can't take credit for all of it. I like the terms though for the simple reason that these very difference planet sizes are refelctive of very different types of planets (for instance, rocky planets like Earth and Mars have more in common than say Earth and Jupter. I think there really are classes of planets, objectively and that it's more accurate to use terminology that reflects this. I am actually not speciifcally attached to these particular terms though-- we could use different terms, just so long as a sense of different classes of planets is preserved and reflected in the terminology.

Sean7phil 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits without edit summaries tend to look like vandalism or spam!

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary. This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important.

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places: * Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military brats

What the heck does your edit have to do with "politness?" The original was not rude in the slightest. Perhaps not as eloquent, but that doesn't make it impolite. --Belg4mit 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh, sorry. I didn't notice that the text was gray, indicating that it was the section title, and that you'd simply not provided a reason for the edit. --Belg4mit 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good quip at Andrea Mitchell

Pretty good one, re facelifts issue. Dogru144 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of article talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Health care in the United States are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Brian Chase, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note that the article you edited is about Brian Chase the musician. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Brian Chase. Do not repeat or you will be blocked from editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain comments

OK, I'll let you know if/when I start an article on the whole Vietnam POW/MIA issue. By the way, there's currently a very short National League of Families article; you could certainly do some work to expand that, although as you said you'd need to use citations to document whatever personal knowledge you have of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your message

You may wish to read about WP:Undue weight. I'm sorry if you put a lot of work into something that may be ultimately unusable, but an encyclopedia need to accurately weight controversies. Jefffire (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bigfoot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Bigfoot, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bigfoot, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I never added any original research on the Bigfoot page-- not one shred.
Everything I added was cited from interviews with Jane Goodall-- the world famous Primatologist and Chimpanzee expert.
Did you even bother to read what I contributed?
Sean7phil (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It was a mixture of original research and unlikely synthesis of material. Please understand that while we value your contributions, Wikipedia aims to be a free, accurate and mainstream encyclopedia, and fringe theories and other unlikely stories don't belong. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot

DNA evidence of an "unidentified primate" taken from Bigfoot sighting locations is not a fringe fact.

This DNA evidence was reviewed in several prominent university laboratories and citations are available to support this.

Nor is Jane Goodall a fringe authority.

Goodall is a world-renowned primatologist-- and she has stated she believes that bigfoot is real BASED ON THESE SAMPLES OF DNA EVIDENCE.

The view that bigfoot is a real animal is no longer a fringe view in the scientific community but is now a competing view with the skeptical scientific position.

Sean7phil (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Stop deluding yourself :( Stifle (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)