Revision as of 14:00, October 5, 2011

HELLO! :D

Machismo Article

I am sorry about that but you should have a look at this article then: pride. --ARamis 22:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I know what it is and I know what the Sins are, but they aren't biblical. --SeanS 22:35, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Ok. Are you saying that I should have named the category Machismo and Christianity instead ?--ARamis 22:38, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

No, its fine. I was removing the 7 deadly sins thing simply because those arent biblical, they are sins, but not "seven deadly"--SeanS 22:40, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry but I'm confused. What do you mean ? Is it wrong to say that those are biblical or to say that there are deadly ?--ARamis 22:44, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

The sins are biblical. but calling them the seven deadly sins isnt. --SeanS 22:49, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Alright, thanks for the update.--ARamis 23:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Earthquakes

Can you have a look at the Earthquake article and the discussion about it on the main talk page? There is a claim that severe earthquakes are doubling every 40 years, which just isn't true. DavidZa and I have both demonstrated that the cited source is incorrect, but nobody seems interested and all attempts to fix the error just get instantly reverted. Here is a link to the actual data so that the reference can be checked: [1]. --FindlayT 14:24, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Wikipedia

Sean, we don't copy from Wikipedia. Was your edit comment what you meant to say a few minutes ago?--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Well, i didn't have anything to put into the article, so i took the basic info about the name, who they are and birth date. better then a blank article at least.--SeanS 13:22, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

The vast internet has better sources than Wikipedia. I'll take a look at the entry.--Andy Schlafly 13:34, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Probably, but i figured I could trust the information I used. Better then the unrelated vandalism it was created as.--SeanS 13:35, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Accusation

In your edit comment reverting my last change to the election article you insinuated that I am a parodist. This is neither true nor in the spirit of a wiki. I simply reverted an edit made to an article Mr. Schlafly has expressed his contentment with. My personal views are not really in play here (they happen to differ from Mr. Schlafly's on the election), and I am most certainly not a parodist. Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a parodist? GeraldA 19:04, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

People who come here, making a account and suddenly getting involved in debates they should have no knowledge about, people who say "long time listener, first time caller", amongst other more obvious things. You act like a parodist because your doing the second, if you aren't, I apologize, but you put suspicion on yourself by doing the edit you did.--SeanS 19:06, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

PJ O'Rourke

Sorry, I kinda made a mess of creating that page. Thanks for your help. --LeonardS 19:58, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Hi there

Just checking. You are otherwise known as Mikalos209 right? --DamianJohn 19:40, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

yah? why.--SeanS 19:41, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

No reason. Only just worked it out. I'm not the cleverest cat. Carry on. --DamianJohn 19:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :yah? why.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:41, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
 ::No reason.  Only just worked it out.  I'm not the cleverest cat.  Carry on.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
-== First edit? ==
-Actually it wasn't my first edit: I was continuing a discussion I was having yesterday, before some clown blocked me for being a sock of someone I've never heard of. --[[User:BernhardtC|BernhardtC]] 09:13, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "User talk:SeanS"