User talk:Mkosmul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 14:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morasko

Any realiable soucers to provide that Morasko craters are only "suspected" to be impact craters? Radomil talk 13:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Polish Meteoritical Society and whether the formations in Morasko are impact craters is still disputed (the idea that they are of meteoritic origin is certainly the most common opinion, however). There is some doubt because the shape and position of the craters doesn't fit the locations of meteorite specimens that were found too well. The area around Morasko has also been sculpted by glaciers during the last few thousand years and different dating methods give different ages for the meteorites and for the craters, in some cases they don't fit each other well. Some theories say the meteorites could have fallen elsewhere and then be dragged by the glacier to their current location (the craters would in such case be places where the ice melted, creating circular lakes). So, while most researchers do believe the craters to be impact craters, the dispute is not settled yet. Michał Kosmulski 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but on wikipedia we cannot belive just because somebody (even recipent of Nobel Prize) said something. You need to give any realiable soucre - Wikipedia:Verifiability (also on pl-wiki pl:Wikipedia:Weryfikowalość). You also need to keep proper style. "probably impcat" suggest that opinions are divide 50-50 or 40-60 per cent. As for number of publications I suspect that vaste (85-90% or more) specialists are on position that this are impacat craters (especialy after last findings) Radomil talk 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badagoni

Thanks for marking this article for speedy deletion as spam. However, the CSD criterion in question requires that the article be written in such a biased way that rewriting it encyclopedically would be impossible; this does not appear to be the case here. If you think the article should still be deleted, WP:PROD or WP:AFD would probably be best. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I could rewrite the article to be unbiased but the company's notability is a bit questionable - it seems to be one of the biggest Georgian wine exporters, but I'm not sure whether that alone is enough for it to get an article of its own in enwiki. Michał Kosmulski 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If notability is the issue, the fact that it is a large company in Georgia would probably preclude speedy deletion; a discussion on WP:AFD would be your best bet then. Johnleemk | Talk 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the most blatant advertising (one of the sentences even used wording such as "our products") and I guess I'll leave this article alone now. Michał Kosmulski 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)