User talk:Comet Tuttle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 1 February 2010

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Comet Tuttle! I am NAHID and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

NAHID 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geejo strikes again!

I won't be back on Wikipedia for several days, but I'd appreciate input from anyone who tried to help me. There's more specific information.[1]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Yahoo Email nightmare

[2]

It's getting better. I think they might be able to fix it. At least I got a response.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Effect

In science reputation plays a large role in securing resources. Places/people with good reputations can secure lots of funds, with lots of funds they can do lots of research, with lots of research they can reinforce their reputation, a strong reputation allows they to secure more resources/funds. As I'm sure you can see its something of a feedback loop. Reputation in science is based on credit (citations, awards, associations...) mis-attribution of credit is thus a big deal especially when lots of grant money is at stake. Check out Merton's 1968 paper, there is no pay wall and its a good read.--OMCV (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

Excuse the "stupid question": What does (ec) stand for. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you

The Refdesk Barnstar

What a splendid video link you provided! DRosenbach ^(Talk

Just to assure you don't get me wrong

I reread my latest comment on "is melvin manhoef okay?" on the reference desk. It occured to me that you could misread this as an offence. I am totally aware that what you wrote about using the Entertainment desk does not imply you would be thinking this kind of "sports" was an entertainment of any kind, but to where such incidents are classified nowadays by the majority of media-people. So in short: no offence meant; not to you. 95.112.190.236 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Welcome! ==
@@ Line 39: / Line 37: @@
   text= What a splendid video link you provided! '''[[User:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">DRosenbach</span>]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Contribs</span>]])</sup> 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 }}
+== Just to assure  you don't get me wrong ==
+I reread my latest comment on "is melvin manhoef okay?" on the reference desk. It occured to me that you could misread this as an offence.
+I am totally aware that what you wrote about using the Entertainment desk does not imply you would be thinking this kind of "sports" was an entertainment of any kind, but to where such incidents are classified nowadays by the majority of media-people. So in short: no offence meant; not to you. [[Special:Contributions/95.112.190.236|95.112.190.236]] ([[User talk:95.112.190.236|talk]]) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)