User talk:Ian Goddard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SampathAbstract.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:SampathAbstract.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tendonitis

Please don't add specific names to pages regarding scientific research. If a specific name or researcher is of interest to readers they can look it up in the references section, but otherwise it's pretty much irrelevant to the page itself and just adds to the length without improving the actual article. I'll be reverting those specific changes to the page, though the others appear to be good ones.

WLU 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! Ian Goddard 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you approve, I wasn't sure about some of the changes I made and it's reassuring to get good feedback. I mean no offence and I'm glad to see I'm not facing a revert war. The specific reason why I dislike including proper names attached to references is I've run into editors in the past who have used the articles as a way of self- or other-promoting on specific topics. Unless they are the originator of a theory or field of inquiry, there's really not much point in my mind.

Thanks,

WLU 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red rain in Kerala

The material you added was a duplicate of information already in the article. Your reference 13 is a duplicate, right down to the quotation, of reference 4. The detailed information about the carbon and nitrogen isotopic analyses would not be useful to a layperson. Would you object to removing or rewriting the section you added? I welcome the addition of new information to this article. IMHO it is not a balanced article. The simplest explanation (industrial pollution plus terrestrial spores/pollen/mold/whatever washed from the air by rain) is given very little coverage while the far-fetched extraterrestrial origins are given a lot of coverage. Where are the reports from biologists, biochemists, NASA and ESA? One would expect these persons or groups to be on the forefront of research if there really was any evidence of extraterrestrial origins.Silverchemist (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see ref 4. However, there is no duplicated quotation. All there is in the article for reference 4 is the single sentence: "The terrestrial origins of the solid material in the red rain were supported by an investigation into the isotopic ratios of nitrogen and carbon.[4]." So the more indepth review of that study I entered later in the article works fine. For example, the lead section where [4] is found cites many other items that are then covered in more detail later. If we were to remove anything mentioned in the lead section that's covered again thereafter, there'd be almost no article.
The only problem I see is that the section I added should link to [4] too, but I'm not sure how to do that. If you do, please fix that. Also, I disagree that mentioning the carbon and nitrogen isotopic analyses is a problem. If you're worried about that, why not about all the data on elemental analyses used to support independent research arguing for an extraterrestrial origin? Why I wonder is it that every referenced item I've added to this article that favors a simple explanation gets watered down or removed? It's as if the collective wiki-attitude is that extraterrestrial origins should be the default assumption. Ian Goddard (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)