FYI, a lot of what you're doing in the nuclear weapons design page is duplicated in edits I made a month ago in the Teller-Ulam design page, which is specific for multistage fusion weapons. Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies, I had overlooked that. In any case, everything I write gets reverted by Fastfission anyway, so you needn't worry. My intent is to avoid articles that lie inside the boundaries of his wiki-fiefdom—not worth the aggravation. But, of course, everyone thinks he is god after 1L.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. There is absolutely no need for that many cite tags in any case, especially on a regional article where all information is found at the next link over. Nate • (chatter) 06:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Nathan,
The article was simply replete with unsourced information. Wikipedia's policies, as you know, require citations for facts asserted in an article. Flagging for citations in such context is not disruptive editing. I flagged as citation needed only those passages that had no cited sources for facts asserted therein. Your suggestion that "all information is found at the next link over" is patently untrue. Viewed objectively, the article is a tapestry of mere opinion mixed with interesting factual nuggets which look like they might be true, but are, of course, completely unsourced. If the flags were proper--and, on close examination, most or all of the were--then reverting them is itself disruptive editing inexplicably calculated to give a pass to the article's many defects. Which leads to your suggestion that "regional article[s]" need not be verifiable. This is also untrue and only serves to enshrine original research in articles simply because the represent notions that are popular with a local community.
It is strange how someone can apparently pull a claim out of thin air, deposit it on Wikipedia for the world to consume and there is no trouble about it. Do it over and over in the same article and there is still no trouble. Flag those instances for citation and you get this kind of silliness.
|Good catch in Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution! SMP0328. (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)|
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Presumption of Death may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)