User talk:Fbragaguima

Welcome!
Hello, Fbragaguima, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Solar variation
I'm sorry, but I've reverted your changes to Solar variation. To put in a claim like that you need a solid reference, and a workshop paper isn't good enough in my opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

=
============================

Dear William M. Connolley,

Don't be sorry, follow your consciousness.

Did you even read the paper that I linked or other many recent papers of Dr. Svalgaard on the subject?

Do you have an idea of how "solid" is the work of Dr. Leif Svalgaard as a solar scientist? I guess not, because if you did you'd certainly have allowed an exception to your "workshop criterion", having in sight that he has been bringing attention to this real possibility (Maunder type minimum) for a couple of years now and all solar data seems to prove it again and again, even if it has not yet gone into a normal scientific publication (as far as I know), of which Dr. Svalgaard has dozens in the best solar science journals.

A scientific hypothesis doesn't need to be correct in all its details, but the discussion of very well established phenomena should be brought to public attention as much as possible, in the name of the truth and enrichment of the scientific debate. Don't you think? That's why I put my comment (which is not *mine* but *his* conclusions) and linked it to the paper.

He is not speculating, he is stating that he firmly believes that this is the correct interpretation of the present solar data, which is what we usually do when publishing our ideas in science until someone else confirms it or proves it wrong.

But, of course, you don't think so, do you?

Therefore, what Dr. Svalgaard thinks or not makes no difference, right?

Fbragaguima (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) F. Guimaraes.