User talk:SSSheridan

Welcome
Hello, SSSheridan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lab leak
On Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, you wrote: In case you're wondering what's driving me so hard, if not conviction, it's this: if the lab leak hypothesis is true --if the pandemic of the century was constructed by scientists -- then (among much else), there will be a severe crisis of public trust in science, which would (probably) be a Very Bad Thing.

This made me laugh because of the "if". Aren't you aware that it does not need to be true? If enough people push the idea, voila, "severe crisis of public trust in science". The funny part is that you are among those who are pushing the idea.

The goal of many scientific methodologies, from double-blinding to peer review, is to minimize the influence of scientists' opinions on the outcome of studies. Scientists' opinions are a source of bias, not a source of truth. So, emphasizing opinions contradicting the actual results, which are published in peer-reviewed publications, is a bad idea. See also Nobel disease. That is one of the reasons why we have WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marshmallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-linking. 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) 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"CLO2" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect CLO2. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Propellant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Can.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2021 (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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slavic name suffixes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2023 (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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)