| Revision as of 02:42, 1 September 2009 editSilverchemist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,425 edits →Red rain: References← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:10, 4 September 2009 edit undoGabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs)2,704 edits →Red rain: moving discussion hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :You mentioned that the Red rain article touched on your area of expertise. Is it possible to get a reprint of the full paper from the conference, or was just the abstract available? It is really quite sad that such work gets into the literature with little or no peer review. Here is the full conference report from 2008. Have you seen this? It needs to be put into the article. I don't like to give unreviewed reports undue weight and would like to have something to balance it. ] (]) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | :You mentioned that the Red rain article touched on your area of expertise. Is it possible to get a reprint of the full paper from the conference, or was just the abstract available? It is really quite sad that such work gets into the literature with little or no peer review. Here is the full conference report from 2008. Have you seen this? It needs to be put into the article. I don't like to give unreviewed reports undue weight and would like to have something to balance it. ] (]) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==You might want to get your articles straight before making false accusations== | |||
| :I believe this is -at least- yor fourth different proposal to disrupt the article Planetary Habitability: one day you want to expand, then split, then merge, rename, and now split ''and'' merge simultaneously. All were shut down, yet you keep at it withot listening to reason. The article is brilliant the way it is; what could you possibly be thinking to place TWO tags on Planetary Habitability within 2 days, one proposing to split it and one proposing to merge it? Your bogus and chronic requests to interfering with that article are quite disruptive, and I do not expect your requests will be taken seriously any more. ] (]) 04:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], you are '''CONFUSED''', keep your articles straight, this merger is about ''']''' <br />and has nothing to do with the ] article that you hold so dear. ] (]) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:10, 4 September 2009
 Archives | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Welcome!
Hello, BatteryIncluded, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages: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! --Ghewgill 07:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
DYK for Beltrán-Leyva Cartel
|
On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beltrán-Leyva Cartel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
{{User0|Giants27 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Red rain
You are welcome. The feeling is mutual. This is how Misplaced Pages should work! Silverchemist (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- You mentioned that the Red rain article touched on your area of expertise. Is it possible to get a reprint of the full paper from the conference, or was just the abstract available? It is really quite sad that such work gets into the literature with little or no peer review. Here is the full conference report from 2008. Have you seen this? It needs to be put into the article. I don't like to give unreviewed reports undue weight and would like to have something to balance it. Silverchemist (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to get your articles straight before making false accusations
- I believe this is -at least- yor fourth different proposal to disrupt the article Planetary Habitability: one day you want to expand, then split, then merge, rename, and now split and merge simultaneously. All were shut down, yet you keep at it withot listening to reason. The article is brilliant the way it is; what could you possibly be thinking to place TWO tags on Planetary Habitability within 2 days, one proposing to split it and one proposing to merge it? Your bogus and chronic requests to interfering with that article are quite disruptive, and I do not expect your requests will be taken seriously any more. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- BatteryIncluded, you are CONFUSED, keep your articles straight, this merger is about User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability
and has nothing to do with the Planetary habitability article that you hold so dear. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- BatteryIncluded, you are CONFUSED, keep your articles straight, this merger is about User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability