User talk:Golgofrinchian/Archives/2011/April

Fukushima reversion
When an edit refers to the talk page, please try to read it before reverting an edit. I'm talking about this reversion and this talk page entry. Or if you still feel the need to do a blind reversion for some reason, do leave out the patronizing template on people's discussion pages. -- Kolbasz (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, sorry about the template on the talk page. It is placed automatically via Huggle. The reason I reverted it is it appeared to be an edit that was trying to be pedantic. I used to work 10 feet from a nuclear reactor for over 6 years. There is a large population of people that fear it as a power source. Changing the word "Radiation" to "Radioactivity" insinuates that the item being tested is somehow capable of being radioactive on its own. It is radioactive only in that it has been doused with radioactive material. A plant is not radioactive on its own. It is currently radiating only due to it being contaminated. Again I am sorry about the talk page template. It was placed by Huggle. I will get rid of it on your page.  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my case, I've had to teach people about rad safety - especially, the difference between external radiation and internal radiation, where the distinction between stuff that's actually radioactive and momentary radiation really counts. But all's well that ends well. (And I might have been a bit overly snarky in my comment above as well.) -- Kolbasz (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all Kolbasz. Take care and keep up the vigilance!  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel
The next time you remove valid references to reliable sources, as you did in this edit, I will give you a warning for vandalism. You can insert all the crap you want, sourced to non-existing articles on the subject's own website, but even the slightest understanding of what a "reliable source" is should make you see that this version, which you have messed with a few times already, has reliable sources. Now, screw up the article as much as you like, but do not remove these references. I hope I made myself clear. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * April Fools to you too! LOL you almost got me there with the threats. I love it when people do that sort of thing. Because you possibly could not be serious. Being that you have vandalized the page extensively. Have attacked other editors for posting cogent references and have removed valid references yourself I can see how your threat can only be taken as a joke. Thanks again that made my day. Have a good one!  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  19:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)