User talk:Davy p

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 ( ~ ); 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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 bibliomaniac15  Review?  02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

welcome
Hi there, I applaude yor good edits. I've been searcinh for ANY update on the red rain thing for months now, and it seems as though this oncein a life time discovery is left unresearched...why hasn't there been an going debate and worldwide research on the findings..? do you have any more information..? -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, once in a lifetime. If we were really living to the full then every moment would be 'once in a lifetime'. Like most of us, presumably, I can't handle reality all the time at that level.

Bomb Disposal /Search /Detecttion
Eh Up Son, Im actually reasonably fluent in Yorkshire and can even quote "Yorkshire Man born & Bred, Strong in arm and fick in ead!"

Re the Bomb Detection, I misunderstood your meaning, some people confuse detection with "EOD search", your right, a section on detection would not go amiss. What do you have in mind?

"Snorkel | Talk" 13:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Changanacherry
It is a bit confusing. For example the article on Changanassery uses both Changanassery and Changanacherry and there are lot more variations out there. The problem is Malayalam has a lot more vocal variations and people end up transliterating in many ways. The actual local pronunciation is closer to Changanassery (tʃŋːnːʃeri - my poor attempt at IPA), but the common English form is Changanacherry (and it is in the paper), so personally I would pick that. Sorry, I couldn't be of more help. --Nithin 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Since you commented on Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience (2nd nomination), the article has been renamed as Hindutva propaganda, and has again been put up for deletion here Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda. Haphar 07:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Miller
You might want to file a Request for page protection, asking that the page be semi-protected. I'd do it myself, but I have reverted the anon. Guettarda 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Mind
Huh? I just fixed the references. The actual content of the article is completely unchanged. fraggle (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, you must have misunderstood. I didn't change the text of the article at all, introduction included. fraggle (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your quotation from Baer is in my opinion inappropriate article for the following reasons: the statement made is very fallacious and makes no citation, which is because it was taken from a 2nd-party print of the abstract which did not include citations. If you haven't read the full paper, you probably should not quote from it, especially not from the abstract. Abstracts are too brief to be taken at face value. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

helpme
www. [and then] bonus.com/contour/Black_holes_sci/http@@/imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-micro.html All About The Microcalorimeter]
 * [http:// [and then]

This link on the EDAX page seems to be rather dodgy - at least my computer didn't seem at all happy after I clicked on it to check where it went - so I pulled the plug and haven't been back. I wonder if there is a) an appropriate way to report such linkes (assuming this one really is dodgy) and b) if there is any way to trawl for similar links that may be scattered around Wikipedia. Davy p (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm confused. When I saw that, I assumed it had originally been a legitimate link to http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-micro.html before being vandalised to point to bonus.com (a games website, if your computer can't handle it), but it was in fact added in the exact form you removed it (two and a half years ago!) by Alchemy pete. There's probably somewhere this sort of thing is discussed (WP:WPSPAM maybe), but in this case I see nothing wrong with just removing it, or maybe changing to the underlying legitimate link to NASA. I suppose you could also ask the original poster what's going on. If you're interested in trawling for spamlinks in general, WP:WPSPAM is certainly the place to be. Algebraist 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala
Thank you for helping to resolve the issues on the article. To address the points raised on my talk page, for the first two statements that needed a source that were previously sited, although the paper is sourced above, any statement that may be challenged by a reader should have an inline citation after it. There is no problem with reusing the same source again after a statement, and this will avoid any issues with "citation needed" tags down the road and will help readers look to the right places for verification of the information presented. For the bat statement, if a reliable source can't be found for it, it would probably be best to remove it or move it to the talk page until one can be found. For the other points you raised, I'd recommend bringing them up on the talk page of the article so that editors can help to expand the article further to be more comprehensive and also address the outdated information. I'm sure there may be some papers/journals out there that support your ideas on the topic, so I'm sure the article could avoid the original research issue, especially if multiple sources are found. The reason that the article wasn't discovered sooner is that there are now over 4,000 Good Articles, and it can be difficult to search and help fix any problems with all of the articles. However, with the sweeps, we are going through each and every article based on a specific point in time, and helping to ensure that the articles meet updated standards. So again, I'd recommend bringing up these points on the talk page of the article so that the article can be improved further. If you want further clarification, or don't think I addressed your points, please let me know on my talk page again and I'll get back to you soon. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)