User talk:Seanrm93

Welcome
Hello Seanrm93. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you find working in Wikipedia an interesting experience. John.Farquhar (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi! I just wanted to stop by and quickly welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm helping out a bit as the online Ambassador for the "Reality Check" course, so if you need any assistance just give me a yell. You can leave a message on my talk page, or send me an email - both should work well, and I'm really happy to receive questions. I'm in Australia, so our time zones will be out of sync a bit, but I'm normally online during the mornings and evenings your time. At any rate, it should be an enjoyable course. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
I'd also like to welcome you to Wikipedia! I've been interested in issues related to skepticism and rational thinking for many years. I'd be happy to help if you have any questions. Dustinlull (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing and sources
I've added some links to the top of this page to help you. I've had to revert your edits of this morning as they are too closely paraphrased from their sources. Could you please read []. Also, although it says it is just an essay, it is one, unlike many such essays, that we take very seriously and try to enforce. You've done nothing to worry about but if you want to replace the material you need to follow what it says there. Now sources - have a look at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I can tell you that neither Rense.com nor Wisegeek are the sort of sources we are looking for. The Rense.com material seems copied all over the place, perhaps you can find the original to use as a source as I doubt it started at Rense.com. Don't let these comments worry you, we all start off not knowing how Wikipedia works! Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to sourcing, all else being equal, it is best to start by looking at peer-reviewed academic journals, as they are considered to be the most reliable. After that I tend to consider books from respected publishers, and then news articles from major publications. Websites are self-published, as a general rule, so they aren't very reliable - although there are times when they can be ok, especially if they are written by acknowledged experts in the field. The basic rule is that the stronger the claim, the more reliable the sources have to be. :) A problem you will encounter in this field is that there are a number of works which seem ok, but in the end aren't particularly reliable. One suggestion to get started is to look at the sources already in the article, and see if you can build from there. - Bilby (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your addition to Earthquake prediction has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)