User talk:Sean7phil

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)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Xyra  e  l  T 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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:
 * Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
 * User contributions - list of all your edits
 * Watchlist *  - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
 * diff page - shows the difference between two edits
 * Recent changes - list of all recent edits
 * Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
 * Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
 * List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

 *  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)

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)

Sean7 - Saw your comments in the discussion about General Casey. He lived in the same location every summer and when his father was deployed without dependents. I know, I grew up with him. For reasons of his security it is probably better if the location is not specified in more datail. Thanks DavidBOC (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good quip at Andrea Mitchell
Pretty good one, re facelifts issue. Dogru144 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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 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. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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. 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)

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)


 * A follow-up: I have now created the article in question, Vietnam War POW/MIA issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, 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. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, 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. 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)

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)

Starship Troopers (the children's movie)
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages
Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. There are plenty of forums on the internet where discussions about the world are welcome, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Friday (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you have had plenty of warnings. I have deleted your most recent contributions to Talk:Steorn for continuing to ignore them. Do not use talk pages as a platform for your ideas. GDallimore (Talk) 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
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. Erik the Red  2    00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? The quotes on in the article point out that he still supports terrorism and it is well documented that he is a former terrorist.

Please refrain form using wikipedia to push your political views. It is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic forum not a playground for would-be political activists.

Sean7phil (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be edit warring on the matter. Do not insert nonconsensus derogatory information about living people.  Please be aware that this issue was discussed at length in an RFC here and there was no consensus to include any material describing Ayers or his organization as current or former terrorists.  Further, many feel that doing so would violate WP:BLP.  Therefore, it is not reasonably likely that consensus could develop for doing so, and lobbying for it may be considered disruptive. Thanks.Wikidemon (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling my user page. This comment would be inappropriate anywhere on the encyclopedia per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:FORUM.  You should not edit other people's user pages, period.  vandalizing my user page to insult me and denigate my contributions to the encyclopedia is also harassment.  Should you continue an administrator may block you from further editing the encyclopedia.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Orangemarlin
orangemarlin is just an editor, not an administrator - he has no power to ban you or do anything else, but I suspect he's hoping that you'll get angry and do something aggressive, so that he has reason to ask a real administrator to block you. please read wp:BAIT for your own protection. -- Ludwigs 2 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 is also not an administrator - he's just an editor who has a history of conflicts with Orangemarlin. (You can use the Special:Listusers page to check on the status of any editor - just type their name in the box).


 * Regarding the subject matter - the warning above - I strongly recommend that you read the WP:NPOV policy and try to follow it in future. Regardless of who it comes from, a warning should always be heeded, and if in future an editor brings a complaint against you, you won't be able to claim that you weren't warned, or that you didn't know about that policy. Thus, Ludwigs2's advice, while apparently very helpful, might prove harmful if you take it at face value.


 * Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * let me second that. think of warnings as guides to becoming a better editor; if you heed them you'll never get another.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct location of the discussion is Talk:Missing in action.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Weilerbach from age 6 to almost 10! A great little town! 97.124.171.58 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Every One of the Links Added to This Page Met Wikipedia Guidelines
People who are quick to delete links should read the wikipedia guidelines themselves.

Every link that was deleted there was appropriate to the subject.

EVERY SINGLE ONE WAS ALSO NONPROFIT and there to help people with those problems. EVERY SINGLE ONE IS ALSO REPUTABLE.

Sean7phil (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Kingoomieiii. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ''I think you'll find I've never actually edited that article. And I mean ever.'' King Öomie  22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Your encouragement of those who did however was idiotic and self-centered. Too many self-centered arrogant people on this planet. Go away, your big ego is not more important than those people with social anxiety disorder who need help.

Sean7phil (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming and personal attacks.  Enigma msg  22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Light year
Hi Sean7phil. I've replied to your comment here, and also moved the section to the bottom of the page where new talk page threads are usually placed. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Saw your post on this article's talk page. Please be aware that new posts to talk pages go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Also, note that the name of the article has already been throughly discussed. The article follows the convention of "(Name of vessel) oil spill". Please also note that WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are taken seriously by the general editing community. Consensus was already established. However, if you see specific instances where NPOV has not been maintained, please bring them to attention at the talk page. Thank you. --N419BH (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, please place comments on my talk page, not my userpage. It's much easier for me to find them that way, and comments on userpages may be viewed as vandalism. I will move your comment to the talk page. To your questions:
 * The article you mentioned is called Exxon Valdez oil spill because the actual name of the vessel involved was the Exxon Valdez. The naming convention is "(name of vessel) oil spill". Hence Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The name of the article has been discussed at length on the talk page. I highly recommend reading these sections in order to gain an understanding of exactly why the article is named the way it is.
 * To answer your other question, I'm a pilot. I'm not employed by anyone connected to the oil industry. My only interaction with oil companies is filling up my car and airplane with gas.
 * Finally, I am not paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia articles. I do this in my own free time.
 * If you have any further questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. --N419BH (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
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:Wikipedia 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. Also see WP:NOTSCANDAL Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. - Gump Stump (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right; read the guideline to links, it will tell you when and where internal links are appropriate. And please be careful with your edits--you put a whole sentence in bold that shouldn't have been. - Gump Stump (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Controversy
See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01   talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here:, and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)