User talk:Dchandhok

Sorry about the very late reply. I'm a horrible procrastinator, and also just plain forgetful. Take a look here for info on reliable sources. Using your own research and knowledge would be original research. IMHO, however, clearing up this little mystery isn't particularly necessary.--Drat (Talk) 08:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Comments
Some articles are just too basic, or have far too few people interested, for the article to be twisted around; Others are nothing more than propganda dressed up as research. Yes, SOME articles are through, trustworthy, and "safe." Far too many are not, and because there is no way for the average person to know which is which, Wikipedia remains the most untrsutworthy source since the (now defunct) Weekly World News. (Had you read the full page, you'd have understood what I'm really trying to do- Which is get this "resource" up to at least the acedemic standards of a High School report.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I thought about it and realized that might be taken as a sarcastic, snooty, rude, disrepectful or otherwise inaaprotiate tone; I wish to clarify, I abhor sarcasm like a plague, and not (technically) smart enough to be snooty ("judge not..."), you were NOT rude to me (you may not nessesarily said entirely NICE things, but they were TRUE and I respect truth above all else, especially when I don't like it), and being disrepectfull just to be an ass is "ineffecient" and I do try to avoid this. IF you took the comments above that way, please accpt my appology. A. J. REDDSON, who can be an ass sometimes- But doesn't really like it.
 * EDIT: Spelling. Fer Realz. A. J. REDDSON, who hasn't been around in a while.