User talk:NPguy
|
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Nuclear power
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Boundarylayer (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this characterization. In any case, it takes two to tango, and your behavior -- in particular your insistence on reverting text before despite explicit and repeated requests to discuss on the talk page first -- has been the primary cause of the "warring." NPguy (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you really just write, in so many words, you started it? From the Nucler proliferation guy? Look, you have some, high interest, in playing down reprocessing. I get that position however to be neutral and summarize the reliable references is what we are supposed to do. That is not inject our own personal views that aren't even remotely supported by the reference at the end of the sentence. Your edits fell into that domain and no amount of discussion matters when you're literally pushing a view not supported by the reference at hand.
- Boundarylayer (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, I didn't say "you started it." I said "I tried to discuss this calmly, but you kept fighting an edit war." You seem very angry, and I don't understand why. By the way NP stands for "nonproliferation." NPguy (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Timeline of development of nuclear weapons
Hello, NPguy, regarding my recents edits to the page Timeline of nuclear weapons development, the introduction of the page states that political events related to nuclear weapons (i.e., arms-control and nuclear non-proliferation negotiations such as the SALT and START negotiations, as well as treaties involving nuclear weapons and evolution in nuclear strategy) are covered in the page, and I would defend the inclusion of these events as events directly affecting the development of nuclear weapons. In addition, I would also defend the edits I have made relating to the development of peripheral technology to nuclear weapons (such as new bombers and missiles) as being more than "tangentially related" to nuclear weapons development since these contributed to nuclear bombs' ability to function (being able to remotely launch a nuclear weapon with a missile is a major change from having to fly bombers over a territory, and the development of intercontinental strategic bombers was in itself a step up). I would be happy to discuss further if have objections to these edits. TheAlderaanian (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Chicago Pile (CP-1)
Please, sir, elaborate on your decision to revert my recent tweaks to the CP-1 article. You stated simply, "not improvements" -- but some justification for this would be appreciated, since an improvement can be in the eye of the beholder(s). Thank you for your prompt reply, Silverhill (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- "artificial" is redundant with "human-made" in the same sentence. "even though it would be" doesn't explain anything, and implies (without evidence) that there was a discussion/decision about whether to build the reactor in a populated area. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK on the note about 'artificial' (though note that "human-made" is actually in the next sentence).
- Re: "even though it would be", IMHO, avoids the (possible, but erroneous) nuance that the decision was made because of, rather than despite the dense population. Not a really big deal.
- I would like to join various other editors here, though, who have objected to your making (at times) arbitrary-seeming reversions without offering real explanation and discussion. We need to keep it cordial here, and your help in that pursuit is essential.
Silverhill (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit
Regarding your previous edit below, if you believe the edit is not relevant to the main article. Can you please write the details on the talk page of the main article?
- The subject: 2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit
- The time and date: 02:27, 1 October 2019
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Nuclear Technology
Regarding your undo of my edit on the above-mentioned page.
A gentle reminder that whenever you undo any edit, it is a basic Wikipedia norm to tell what led you to do that. It is even better if you can leave something on the user's talk page. Simply saying that "these kinds of edits make things worse" is an insufficient reason for undoing any edit. It implies that you didn't see or read my edit and undid it, just because of the edit summary; I hope that is not the case. It may be the case that most such edits are bad but it is kind of necessary that you first see the edit and then, take any decision. I have undone your undone :) of my edit. Feel free to discuss this. Viewing your talk page shows that this is a big problem of yours. Please try to amend it. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Please check my edit to Critical mass
If you have the time, could you check my edit to the lede of Critical mass here? Regards, 220 of Borg 11:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
MAUD Commitee
Hi! I'm searching for someone to contribute a review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MAUD Committee/archive1. Someone who is not one of the usual suspects. If you could have a look, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
RNM edit
Imagine a day when I don’t have to wonder what a beautiful world is and we can all share our truths? ❤️ KnowStringsAttached (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
IFNEC edit reverted
Hi. I did not understand why you reverted my edit updating the composition of IFNEC. The title of the article is IFNEC (not GNEP) and the paragraph in discussion reads: "In 2010, the GNEP was renamed the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. IFNEC is now an international partnership ..." The key word here is "now". This paragraph is an IFNEC paragraph and GNEP is simply in the past.
Could you please reread the entire paragraph with my edit and explain what you find incorrect? Were the article named GNEP, your edit summary would make more sense to me, but as it currently stands IFNEC is not being correctly described in wikipedia. Erkcan (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)