User talk:Solmil

Welcome!

Hello, Solmil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  | Klaw ¡digame! 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding your comments on Talk:Myron Evans, I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines on civility and on no personal attacks. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Amazon link. I replaced the link you added with a proper bibliography citation, including a linked ISBN that can be used to search a variety of libraries and booksellers. This is just because Wikipedia doesn't "endorse" Amazon or any other single bookstore. Articles should never directly link to a book on Amazon, but rather should contain an ISBN search link.--Srleffler 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MyronWEvans.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Energy Catalyzer shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
You should also avoid marking your edits as minor when you are adding significant content to an article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little more to the rv comment User:Enric_Naval left, note Cold_fusion#Conferences:

On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society meeting included a four-day symposium in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector, a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften. The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions; without quantitative analysis of the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons and exclusion of other potential sources, this interpretation is unlikely to be accepted by the wider scientific community.

What has happened in the 2.5 years since that SPAWAR presentation? If it was "clear independent repeatable hard evidence of Cold Fusion" then why hasn't it been accepted by the scientific community? Please do not make unsupported allegations of Wikipedia editors trying to play by the rules being "religiously against Truth and Real Science" in your reply. Thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research. Research had been going on at SPAWAR only thanks to the interest of individual researchers inside the institution. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]