User talk:NPguy

Hello NPguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article Perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your 'correct' interpretations

First, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, I am worried that you view all your interpretations and edits as 'correct' whereas everybody else's is wrong. Please remember this is Wikipedia, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to create neutral articles stemming from different interpretations and subsequent debates. However, there are some issues which are simply facts, and your reinterpretation of various treaties (NPT) and UN laws gives rise for concern. Please be more open-minded. Third, if you are indeed a genuine expert in this area, please say so. If not, then please recognize that there may be other editors out there which base their knowledge not on just what they read in newspapers or other news sources, read on opinion pages and the internet. Jsw663 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I am indeed new to Wikipedia and a bit unused to the culture. I am also, as you suspect, a subject matter expert. I have been working as a nuclear nonproliferation expert for over ten years. I have dealt extensively with many of the issues I have written on in my professional work. Hence the user name NPguy. How do I make this clear? NPguy 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I've answered all your queries re the NPT talk + 6-party talk pages so far. We agree on all the main points; our main point of disagreement is about the rights non-NPT states have, on which the international law is silent, as you said. However, I don't think this disagreement is unique to us only - this is also a matter hotly debated by international lawyers for the past few decades (especially by, say, the extent of rights the D3 should have). Up until the US-India nuclear deal, the US complained about how the Pak-Chn + Rus-Irn, Rus- many others deals were undermining the success of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This is why I've decided just to stop reverting what you said last time regarding the 6-party talks page - after all, what was said originally wasn't incorrect.

It is also great to meet another expert in this field; my exposure to this, as you may have gathered from my user page, is more recent than yours (nuclear non-proliferation only, not international relations in general) as I spent my earlier life in the legal sector. Since you are an expert, your contributions + reviews will be of great value on Wikipedia as there are too many self-proclaimed experts rather than genuine ones, hence the need to verify yourself as an expert if indeed you want to edit on Wikipedia whilst carrying the tag (personally, I find this too 'public' so I haven't bothered formally establishing myself as one). Originally, there was going to be a formal method for establishing field experts (see WP:EXPERT ) but this was rejected. However, if you don't mind, then the closest way is simply to post your user page / business (I'm not sure whether you're in the academic, NGO or proper government sector) and carry on like that. It will mean you have to not mind giving quite a lot of personal details on Wikipedia, AND, when challenged, be able to somehow (depending on the situation) prove who you are.

Also, it will be great if we could communicate by e-mail (or other ways, and if you're stationed in the southern half of the UK now then there is a high probability that I will have met you through conferences recently without knowing it!), but I note that you didn't even want to give your e-mail to Wikipedia, or have elected not to receive any e-mail via Wikipedia. Since you seem to be so reluctant to give away more information on Wiki much like myself, I'll simply wear the 'expert' tag seldomly and only when necessary. Experts, however, talk in a way that is slightly different from the layperson, so your knowledge already made me suspect you were one after the talk page discussions. Anyway, if you have any more questions please ask. If you are looking for general editing rules, then reading WP:A should get you started!! Jsw663 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to remain anonymous. I work, as you put it in the "proper government sector," but my views do not in every case align with those of my government. Since I prefer to be candid, I will continue to refrain from posting personal identifying information. I look forward to learning more about Wikipedia and its social norms. NPguy 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I respect your wishes. Any chance of answering these two questions though - 1. Can you say which nation's government you work for? (I'm not going to ask for the Department or section or anything that identifiable), 2. Any chance of me contacting you to discuss more on (current) nuclear non-proliferation issues? Jsw663 10:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Alternatively you can contact me directly without revealing your e-mail address etc. by click on my name in my signature (the jsw663 one), then on the left-hand column, scroll down to 'toolbox', then there is an 'E-mail this user' function. This way you can contact without having to set up an anon. public e-mail account. Jsw663 10:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of states with nuclear weapons

I think you might find this interesting if you have not seen it already. KnightLago 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of states with nuclear weapons, redux

The consensus on the talk page was that we shouldn't just go and remove all those countries again, which you pretty much completely ignored in removing them.

Please don't just remove things against consensus like that and tell people not to re-add without consensus. It's insulting to all the other participants.

You're welcome to engage on the talk page and shift consensus if you can get support, but edit warring on the page itself is not good for the project.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) The thing to remember is that some countries may not have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean they don't have components of nuclear weapons, or facilities for nuclear war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.252.34 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

You're making valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I'm posting this in the hope that you will continue to do so. One of the frustrations of trying to contribute to this entity is getting emotionally involved with strange people who have already gotten emotionally involved in reverting your perfectly reasonable edits. Please do remember that when the articles you are editing are important ones (and you seem to have excellent taste in choosing out such articles), those articles will still be there for you to edit in a week, in a month, in a year. The weirdo who has decided to revert your perfectly reasonable edit will have lost interest in the important article you are trying to improve in such a length of time, and will have gotten involved in edit warring with someone who is trying to make a perfectly reasonable edit to an article about a video game or a teevee show, if you can just wait, and move on in the meantime to some other important article that the weirdo who is currently frustrating you hasn't taken any notice of. Keep up the good work, and let the weirdos drop off your hide. You can review your edit history in a week's time, in a month's time, in a year's time, and see the old edit wars where someone once tried temporarily to frustrate your efforts to improve Wikipedia.

It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. I've been trying in my own small way to improve Wikipedia for years, as have many other editors. Although indeed one can engage in many heated exchanges over the course of a few hours here, this is really a slomo process, and improvements come slowly, but steadily. Illegitimi non carborundum.

And by the way, I know it doesn't have much to do with nuclear proliferation, but Boiling water reactor is in a sorry state of affairs, and seems to be attracting zero attention from edit-warring weirdos. --arkuat (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement

Perhaps, fair enough. I can't even access the source, but I was going on your last comment for the edit. Just b/c it had 1 source was nto valid to detail. But can you by any chance post the unreliable sources just to confirm it is in fact invalid? Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment on my talk page (Canada eager for nuclear cooperation with India (?))

I was agreeing with you when I said "fair enough" the first words ont here. im not asserting either way. I was simply asking if you could post the stuff here since I couldn't access the file. I didn't even seek to edit this after your kind explanation. i even said it was the first DESCRIPTION that seemed dodgy. But i took your word on it when you went ahead to explain. Why you getting defensive? I was not attacking you in any way, i was in fact supporting your civil explanation. The location of the press articles doesn't have to with the facts. Its not a nationalistic press wikipedia looks to, that's why i was wondering what source was dubious. In all likelihood it probably was so, I just couldn't read the article. Anyhoo, your response (the one before) was valid enough. Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPT list

Thanks for contacting me, and further still for all your edits and comments. I've replied as best I can on Talk:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty#Map requested and Talk:List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Feel free to contact me for any reason, and I hope I can work with you to make these articles better.

Also, if you have any edits or comments for List of Partial Test Ban Treaty signatories and List of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signatories, that would certainly be invaluable. I will probably move these over to …parties… as well.

Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war with Ivantheterrible1234

If you haven't done so already, could you leave a message on Ivan's talk page warning him about his conduct on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty article? Then we will have satisfied the requirements to Request comment on a user. Thanks. AzureFury (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I'm going to wait to see what happens with the RfC I put on the page. I'm half expecting an admin to become involved and block him. Maybe he'll back down when more editors start responding. Otherwise, we can get his IP, or a range of IPs, blocked for the threats of sock-puppetry and personal attacks. AzureFury (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Act binding India

I appreciate your edits in the India-US Nuclear agreement article. The information about "Hyde act binding India" is quite obscure and probably needs some clarification. I would be glad if you could do something about it or point me to some resources where I can find some information. Out of curiosity, I also wonder if it is possible to get a copy of the agreements between India and US. Dock^Hi 04:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. From the article There is ambiguity as to whether the Hyde Act binds India although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. decisions. Why is the ambiguity here then. What does "prescriptive for future US decisions". Guess it needs some clarification for laymen like me to be able to understand. Dock^Hi 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India US nuclear agreement

I have suggested an article split proposal on the article talk page. Could you pls throw in your opinion. thanks. Dock^Hi 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

You seem to know a lot about this. Do you think they want to develop nuclear weapons? As I understand it, they've been willing (recently at least) to more than fulfill their inspection obligations. They do seem to have the more secure argument regarding the NPT and their right to nuclear power. Further, diversifying their energy production makes at least a little sense. AzureFury (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the Iran NPT section seemed to organize it very well.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hyde act -- india's soverignity and 123 agreement

your edit incorporates "..except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement"..

but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing..

further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE !

further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)!

i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so, i am intending to either remove the quoted phrase or restore the previous version - after considering your take on this issue..awaiting your response..(pasting the same on the article's talk page) Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am hereby removing the phrase discussed above as no objection was received from you..Cityvalyu (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consensus before reinserting controversial edits

regarding indo us nuclear deal, please note that consensus has not been arrived at..further your reply does not seem to reflect the grasp of my objections..please go through them and then justify the choice of words used in your edit (as i have done)..though i have not reverted your edits today(allowing you to modify/revert yourself), please dont revert such controversial edits till you can justify them..Cityvalyu (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Program of Iran debate

Hey, I just wanted to give a quick suggestion. Your arguments with the IP user are intelligently crafted, but they're designed more to disprove him than convince him, especially with the moderately aggressive language. Understandable considering how irate he's been, but he's more likely to stop listening and continue reverting to spite you. We know how aggressive IP users can be, and indeed a revert is usually interpretted as a slap in the face. I think in this case we'd better be careful to avoid feeding the trolls or things will get out of hand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

thanks for always helping out with the India and WMDs article by telling me to add the refs and citations. I wanted to talk about India nuclear arsenal. I have given a source that said 60-250 but u disregarded that. I have underlined the same point on the talk page under the section that u recently added. I guess we can continue the talks there. CheersEnthusiast10 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dear NPguy, I have twice requested you to change "Mr ..." in an earlier comment of yours to BF. May I ask you for yet another time to comply with my request? On Wikipedia I am not "Mr ..." and expect that you respect my wish. If things are not clear to you, I do not wish that I or my family get harassed or killed by some deranged MEK members. You may also consider to delete this message after having read it. --BF 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were two cases where no changes had been effected. I asked you to effect the changes because it is morally wrong to change something in someone else's texts (texts on talk pages have a different status than those on the main pages). Well, I broke this rule today, as you can see from the edit log of the talk page at issue. As for my user name, the present one does not get into Google and moreover I almost never make public statements regarding MEK, the ones on the talk page under discussion being exceptions (actually, elsewhere I have passionately advocated that members of this group should be integrated into our societies and be given chance to live normal lives; a large number of them are holed up in Camp Ashraf inside Iraq; even though Iran has officially announced that those of them who have not committed crimes will be given amnesty and can go back to Iran, I do not believe that they will ever be safe in Iran --- the state may honour her promise, but one can never be certain that those who have lost some family members in the war may not have surprises in store for them). --BF 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

High-level radioactive waste

Hi NPguy. You have come to this discussion a bit late. If you examine the history page for that talk page, you will see J-Star has several times changed his edits there to clean them up. For example, his initial comment, shown as revision (last) of 01:45, 31 December 2008 included the statement "and this is - pardon the wording - bullshit!" Not a great way to begin a conversation with anyone, I think you may agree, to refer to their contributions as bullshit.

The 17 million year figure is the half-life of Iodine 129 in the lead paragraph of the article, from a referenced and respected source. Iodine 129 is particularly concerning because it is taken up by cattle and found in cow's milk ingested by infants. All of the information there is from verifiable sources, and the article is heavily referenced to scholarly sources.

I agree it would have been desirable to keep the discussion all in one place, which it was before J-Star showed up and started placing hostile comments on my personal talk page, in addition to the article talk page, instead of limiting them to the article talk page.

I have tried to accommodate his demands by adding material to the article as described above, including references he provided, but some are not useful. And he was not quick to provide them. J-Star appears to be an advocate or employee of either the Swedish agency or the consultant who prepared the report he refers to (I suspect the latter). An agency homepage listing of research performed for that agency is not a credible source on the issues raised in the research. After all, the agency paid for that research.

The methodology of such modeling as is reported there has been questioned for many years by Karen Shrader-Frechette (and others) in a series of scholarly publications by respected publishers (e.g., Univ. of California Press). Actually, she has gone much farther in publications cited, questioning the wisdom and public ethics of making official decisions based on such modeling efforts. Some have stated the methodolgy was created because the agencies charged with finding stable geologic strata were unable to do so, and needed justification for using unstable strata. This article does not say that.

Trying to maintain a balanced NPOV stance in this article in the face of such ad hominum attacks has been difficult, but I think it is there now. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Recently checked and changed the half-life of Iodine-129 to 15.7 million years, according to the Idaho National Laboratory, and added link. Small difference, as a practical matter for waste management. Looks like it was a typo left by somebody else. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments

There's no reason to delete the user's comments at Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Let it be incoherent, people will ignore it as such. Technically, deleting user's comments is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference at Nuclear transmutation

You added a ref for the Soddy-Rutherford interchange, which is good - but I don't think the webpage in question would qualify as a reliable source under WP guidelines. I thought i would re-tag it in the hope someone will turn up a good source for this. But I will leave your ref for now as a starting point. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Administration non-proliferation initiative

Hi. I agree this content could use a new article but I am unable to make one. I have temporarily placed it on Talk:Global Nuclear Energy Partnership because it seemed at least slightly more relevant there. I would encourage you to just copy and paste the material in to a new article, and to put a brief summary back in Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or Nuclear power in Iran if you find it necessary.--68.251.187.176 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moves against consensus

Hi, please do not revert moves which have been made as the result of a move discussion. If you would like to request a new move, you may initiate another move request by following the instructions at WP:RM. If you feel the move discussion was closed in error, you may ask for review by other admins at WT:RM. Thank you,--Aervanath (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move was not "the result of" a discussion. It was despite the lack of consensus in the discussion. NPguy (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Hi Pal

Regarding the article I really un satisfied following things
1)History and Facility should be devide
2)Current Article does not figure out annual Pulutonium production ability of each 3 reactors.And 2reprocessing Lines.
- It may be decision RED line between diplomatic nego and Surgical strike ,wheater DPRK produce 1Nuke warhead/year by current toy 5MW reactor, or resume construction of 2Big reactor(50MW/200MW) and start production 50Warheads/year.
3)Current Article negrect the history before 1994, and Current Article negrect the Famous General Kim Jon-il's Blackmail "If US strike our Pulutonium Production Facilities ,then we will change Seol to Burning Field by our 10,000 canons"
- It is important because the difficulties of this probrem is NK take Seoul as the Hotage
4)Current article negrect that NK breached Flamework agreement by they recognize the existance of prohibited Uranium Enrichment Project.

Please show me your rewrite proposal until end of this month. Otherwise I recognize that you agreed to revert the article.
Sorry for your busy moment Thank you!

--Jack332 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed ElBaradei

Hi, I'm informally mediating a dispute at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei which I thought you may be interested in joining. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan has created postings at WP:ANI#On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc.., WP:BLPN#BLP concerns at Mohamed ElBaradei and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#For those who are familiar with Mohamed Elbaradei. I am centralizing my discussion at WP:ANI#On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc...--68.248.155.2 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

Not one lousy source, all of them. Denying reliable sources (regardless of how many inaccuracies you find) while willingly using propaganda news services to substantiate secondary and primary evidence is extremely frustrating. Especially when users do not provide a rule or guideline justifying their edits. I'm all for "balance." Balance isn't rocket science, we have a rule book on wikipedia that tells us exactly how we are supposed to edit. We must accept the fact that one's personal opinion of a source (or ignorance of sourcing rules in general) should have no effect in arguing balance/neutrality. This is paramount to the entire mediation. We can make plans and organize all we want, but editing-habits have to change if they disagree with BLP guidelines. Does this not seem reasonable, or should everyone be allowed to edit how they wish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Bombers: indian POV based vandalism of articles

Hi Mate

Can you please help with protecting these articles from vandalism:

The Problem

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M) to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. The above listed articles are continuously vandalized with blatant misinformation, such as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" and "The indian Tu-142 and Il-387 are already fitted with nuclear payload delivery systems", (which we know) are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M.

Please help! For any good reader, this type of systemic misinformation campaign (by large number of indian-orgin users) on an interesting article is very very annoying.

Thanks -- Ash sul (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is not really my cup of tea. I'm not an expert on delivery systems. I see this not as vandalism but as over-enthusiasm (consistent with the name of the editor involved). Your objections seem reasonable, but I am not in a position to help. I do have one correction. I would not interpret the NPT as outlawing the export of nuclear-capable delivery systems to India. For example, the United States provided delivery systems to its NATO allies but retained control over the nuclear warheads themselves. While some have considered this a violation of the NPT, most have not. NPguy (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Iraq and weapons of mass destruction for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapons and Israel

Hi, I just saw your last edit on the article whose title is mentioned above. You have deleted a source I provide about that a 1 megaton warhead could easily destory any unprotected electric device in a radius that can cover entire Iran. The source I gave is an obselte one however its estimations regarding the EMP effect of this warhead are still absolutly valid. It seems like you didn't look carefully in it because it contain a figure (in page 30 [1])that show the circle of EMP caused by a 1 MT WH over Iran itself. So, I didn't revert your editing still, but I ask you to come over it again-if it's not too hard for you, as soon as possible, and to return this source.

Best--Gilisa (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have replaced one of the sources which was, my mistake, unreliable, with a reliable one. As for CSIS source, it's an academic source. Of course, you can't attribute 100% credibility for anything is written there as they consider their knowledge to be only partial themselvs. However, when it comes to phsycial estimations of EMP effect size they are basing their estimations on computer simulations and exact science tools. There is no reason why to omit this source. However, if you still disagree with me-please tell me.--Gilisa (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

former director

Sorry about that edit, I had misread the date and thought he was now former. --Curuxz (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee unanimously decided on 4 Dec 2005 and on other dates that WP is neutral on the China issue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Principles

Quoting ArbCom,

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."

and

Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China

This is FYI, not an argument with you. I am merely the messenger, not the decision maker. User F203 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. This is not an issue that I desire to fight over. However, I am interested in following ArbCom's directive. Do you wish to overturn ArbCom's decision? I am willing to discuss this with you and help you find a solution, if you think there is a problem. User F203 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NNPT openly possessing

Hi NPguy. I strongly agree with most of your reverts - recent edits have made it worse by and large. But is this bit you returned really correct: (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970)? France first tested in 1960, China 1964 and I'm pretty sure they had deployed weapons of some kind by 1968. WP China and WMD says bombs deployed in 1965 and WP Strike Force (France) says operational weapons became available in 1964 (though I've not externally checked this). Rwendland (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But France and China were not among the original ratifiers. NPguy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not mean they did not openly possess nuclear weapons, which they did, so were included in the list of 5 in the original text I believe. They did not ratify because, I presume, they disagreed with the treaty at that time. Rwendland (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, just realised the significance of "original ratifiers" in that sentance, so it is strictly correct, though I found it confusing. I will have a think about rewording it to try to avoid this confusion for others. Rwendland (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Range of Agni II

I'm going to assume you were acting in good faith but for future reference, the range of Agni II is 2,500 km. In addition, the user from the IP area 76.69.xxx.xxx is a chronic vandal with a strong bias who has in the past instated biased and uncited claims while removing reliable citations under the pretense of being "neutral".

Vedant (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but do you have a problem reading edits or do you just look at the history and go reverting them? I made sure that Agni II is the missile defined under max range. Why have you reverted my edit? Perhaps in the future you should actually use the diff or prev features provided by Wikipedia. Vedant (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the page history of India and WMD, I noticed our brief revert war. I understand the rationale for your edit and nor was I disputing it. What I didn't realize is that my revision still linked to the Agni-III page instead of the Agni-II page and I mistakenly accused you of incorrectly reading the differences. I believe I was in the wrong here and would ask you to please accept my apologies for my earlier rudeness. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Labs article

Can you please look at the article again and check the references. None of them back the existence of "Khan Labs", they talk about other topics like AQ Khan's proliferation, etc. After a google search I could find nothing talking about the existence of an organisation within Kahuta Research Laboratories called "Khan Labs". Can I just delete everything in Khan Labs and put the re-direct to KRL? --Hj108 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly needs more citations, but the name "Khan Research Labs" is in common international usage, unlike "Kahuta Research Labs." NPguy (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm talking about the seperate article Khan Labs. I have found no references to back the article's claim that "Khan Labs" is an "independent wing of KRL". None of the three references in the article (two of which are forum/blog posts) support the existence of "Khan Labs", they just talk about AQ Khan.--Hj108 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there should be a single article under the title "Khan Research Laboratories," with other names redirecting to that. The content of the two existing articles (such as it is) should be merged into that single article. NPguy (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm sure I read somewhere that Khan Research Labs was changed to Kahuta Research Labs after the AQ Khan proliferation scandal, but I can't find it now. I've moved "Kahuta Research Labs" to "Khan Research Labs" and merged "Khan Labs" with KRL. There was nothing worth retrieving in the Khan Labs article, none of it was referenced. The only references were referring to the AQ Khan proliferation scandal, none backed the existence of "Khan Labs" being a separate wing under KRL as claimed by the Khan Labs article.--Hj108 (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luis E. Echávarri

Hi, NPguy. You removed the Category:International Atomic Energy Agency officials from the Luis E. Echávarri article. I am agree that this category may be someway misleading; however, Luis E. Echávarri is also a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, and therefore by my understanding this category is appropriate. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that fits the definition of an IAEA "official." I think an "official" is either a member of the IAEA staff or a representative to one of the IAEA's policy making organs - the Board of Governors or the General Conference. To me, a member of an advisory panel doesn't meet this standard. NPguy (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to START 2010

I've personally met Rose Goettemoeller, and thought her contribution ought to be recognised. But I didn't know the other delegation head's name. So thanks for fixing that. Reading your earlier talk discussions, I'm almost exactly in the same position as you - anonymity helpful. But please do drop a note on my talkpage if you ever want assistance with modern-day conventional armed forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead shortening

Hi! I posted something here which I was trying to get your input on.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reactor in Dimona

Thanks for fixing the grammar here. You also asked for the source to be verified as you couldn't find it online. Here it is in Hebrew online version. I think that what is left, if you want, is another Hebrew speaker to verify it. Regards --Gilisa (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran‎ and Stoning

Hey, if you get a chance could you comment on the RFCs at these pages? Thanks! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on India and WMD

Just to make it clear, I have no interest in entering the revert war/content dispute you are having on that page. The only reason I reverted my rollback was simply because my rollback was unintentional. Vedant (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian nuclear. program

Hey man I just wondered why you keep deleting my stuff from the Iranian nuclear program site, I also wonder why you make personal insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil and weapons of mass destruction

Hi NPguy. I noticed you reverted all my edits on Brazil and weapons of mass destruction. I honestly do not understand your reasoning, as I added over 20 different credible references to the article. Every single sentence I added was properly sourced. The content of the article was not changed, but reworded - reflecting what the sources state and making the article clearer and easier to understand. It would be more constructive if you discussed any issues on the article's talk page before removing sourced material. Thanks. Limongi (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the discussion page. I don't think most of the edits are justified, but I'm prepared to discuss on the article's talk page. As a whole I think the article as it was is a better starting point for that discussion. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niger Uranium Forgeries

Hey you're right the section as I left it didn't have proper citations. However the version you returned it to is IMO worse because that is an outright false claim. It says the President was briefed on the results of Wilson's trip and that's not true at all. Moreover the BBC reference is the initial stories that were being run when Wilson first went public, and cites Wilson as the source of the knowledge the President was briefed on Wilson. I hope I don't need to explain why that's wrong. The Senate report a year later ended Wilson's political career and proves that BBC reference a farce. I'm just going to pull that whole paragraph, the story is dead as far as I'm concerned and not worth quibbling over. If you feel like adding content back go ahead but make sure it's factual. Not just verifiable, I could produce 50 versions of that in various media forms. There is one truth. Joe Wilson went to Nigeria. The White House was not directly informed of the results and Wilson claiming he knew otherwise is a lie. Thanks for catching my bad edit, FWIW. It was late and I was tired. Batvette (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the blow-by-blow about Wilson, but the larger truth is that he informed the U.S. Government that the Niger uranium claims were a hoax. In this he was correct and the Bush Administration was wrong. NPguy (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency" moved

NPguy,

I have moved your draft, NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to your userspace, User:NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as this appears to be what you intended. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-US nuclear cooperation

articles on laws (which was the basis for, other info is perfectly fine to add to it) are generally names after the official title. (ive worked on a couple of us laws thats why i though so for this) but i wont object to your revert anyhoo.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sanction page

Why do you delete my addition to Iranian sanctions page and get personal by calling me a "troll"? MUCHERS22 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to discuss on the talk page of that article. The original reason for my change (which was not a revert) was in the brief description of that change. I reverted back when you insisted on your original text, noting your penchant for edit warring. NPguy (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you havent told me 1. Why you edited 2. Why you called me a troll. Could you please do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiki-troll" was a reference to your obnoxious penchant for edit wars and tendentious discussions. As for the substance, better to discuss on the article's discussion page, not here. NPguy (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know you got your view, if I challenge that, that doesnt make me a troll. And that doesnt give you the power to fully decide what should be said on a specific page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing the “the” in the New York Times in the article on Mohamed ElBaradei

Hi, I see you changed

publisher= The {{subst:dtag|nowiki| New York Times}}

to

publisher= {{subst:dtag|nowiki|The New York Times}};

in other words, you changed “The New York Times” to “The New York Times,” on grounds that it is the “standard wiki-link format.”

On the talk page of the article in question ( here), I just posed a general question concerning the italicization of the “the” in the names of newpapers. I think we should be consistent throughout the article, regardless of whether the name of the newspaper appears in the main text or in the references; the principle of internal consistency, I think, trumps whatever standard there is on wiki-links.

And by the way, is there really a standard for wiki-links concerning this issue? You say that there is; could you give a link to the relevant style or format recommendation page? Reuqr (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was to change {{subst:dtag|nowiki|The_New_York_Times}} to the standard {{subst:dtag|nowiki|The New York Times}}. I don't have a strong opinion about "the," but I would note that it is part of the official name of the newspaper. NPguy (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I see—the point was to remove the underscores in the wikilink, as per the recommendation given here (subsection “Link to another Wiki article”). I am indeed the guilty party for putting the underscores, and so I will fix it.

As far as italicizing the “the.” Yes, it is part of the official name of the newspaper, but the Chicago Manual of Style says that it nevertheless should not be capitalized (CMOS 16th edition, 8.168); see here for their reasoning.

Of course, we are not obliged to follow the CMOS on this issue, or on any other issue; we are only obliged to be internally consistent. But it is a widely-used style, and they put a lot of thought into their recommendations. So, absent objections from you or others, I'll try to make the article compliant with it whenever possible.

(Following your lead, I'll mirror this reply on the talk page of the article.) Reuqr (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India and weapons of mass destruction

Hi :) I hope you don't mind me leaving a friendly reminder to be careful not to let yourself get sucked into a slow-burning edit war, as on the above article. I've now blocked Truth1Please for a week and will happily block them again in future if necessary. However, you've made a fair few reverts on that page yourself - I accept for the best of reasons, but edit warring over content is always against policy. If you find an editor won't discuss their edits, rather than feeling you have no choice other than to revert them, try to get more eyes on the situation. You can always drop a note on my talkpage :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear fuel cycle

Hi NPguy. It's not clear to me if you monitor the talk page at nuclear fuel cycle. I made some further, small edits to your rewrite. I know a great rewrite when I see one and I humbly submit to your expertise.

I would like to suggest a few additional changes. I will post them here. If you wish we can move the discussion to the article talk page itself. First, I refer to my original, inferior version that you've since transformed. While being mere garbage, my original section does illustrate some points I wish to make:

MOX and benefits derived from its usage. Elsewhere in the article it is mentioned that recycling of spent fuel can reduce or delay associated problems. Merely mentioning MOX without talking about why is is an 'alternative', I feel, is insufficient for the general public. There has been a recent, ridiculous national outcry in Taiwan and China accusing Japan of producing nuclear weapons derived from reprocessing of fuel (triggered by the Fukushima incident of course). Blogs and newspapers focus on nuclear proliferation issues while not one single person points out any potential benefit of using MOX fuel. This is in fact what pushed me to research this topic and to write that Basic Concepts section in the first place.
MOX and nuclear proliferation. Elsewhere in this article it is also mentioned how concerns about nuclear proliferation is the reason why the US does not reprocess spent fuel.
The scarcity of uranium, and especially U-325 as the only naturally fissile isotope. Since we are talking about the fuel 'cycle', it seems to me that it is worth mentioning in this summary section, together with or separately from the discussion about recycling of spent fuel. We may as well mention the competing thorium while we are at it.

I think this will complete what, as a layman, I perceive as the most important points regarding the complete fuel cycle.

Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some activities from you, but no response here. Well, I am not sure how you normally work. If you prefer that I make my raw edits first, then you rewrite them, that's fine with me. I will paste my suggestions here to the article's talk page. I will wait until tomorrow before I act again. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to discuss on the article's talk page, for others to see. Perhaps you could start by transferring your comments there. I don't think any of the points you raise are "basic concepts," and the one on the scarcity of uranium is simply not true. Uranium is plentiful. NPguy (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson and Plame

Why do you keep reinserting this false claim in the Niger uranium forgeries article? " the CIA had warned the President in March 2002 that Wilson's trip had concluded the claims were unsubstantiated." Okay so you have a source that makes the claim (when Wilson first went public) USE YOUR OWN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. It has been determined by the Senate Intelligence Committee and reported in numerous sources, many of which are also referenced in that article, that no information which came from Wilson's trip ever made it to the White House. Moreover, the claim that the President/White House was told the matter was debunked by Wilson's trip as made by your source does not even cite the CIA official, even though it's BBC that article is shifty as hell and the claim HAS been disproven. See- a little literary flair for a rundown of the whole thing.Batvette (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, the claim claim you is supported by a reliable source. If you have a reliable source that contradicts this claim, add that along with appropriate qualifications: BBC says this, so-and-so says that. But don't try to tell me that the Weekly Standard - a right-wing opinion magazine - is unbiased on this issue. NPguy (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not present the Weekly Standard as anything but what it is, an acceptably reputable reference per wiki standards, in order to allow you to educate yourself on the events which have transpired since that BBC article was published. You will not find any detailed analysis of Wilson's activities by left wing publications after they were looked into by the Senate because their shameful nature was revealed. Several months ago you admitted "I don't know the blow by blow on Wilson"- I don't know why you even feel qualified to edit that article in the first place, let alone keep inserting a claim which was proven to be just wrong by multiple sources referencing an official Senate Report.

Maybe you should bring yourself up to speed on expected quality of Wiki articles: "because I found it somewhere on the internet", even if it was at the BBC, does not mean it is appropriate for you to engage in problematic editing and keep inserting it in an article-especially when I have repeatedly brought it up with you, asked you to engage in a discussion on the detailed points showing you why it is wrong, and you admit you don't know about any of the details nor seem willing to learn.

Continetti's article is a "cliff notes" on this Report-Senate intel report Niger section Please refer to conclusion 14 which directly addresses why this article which relies on the claims of an unnamed CIA source is just plain wrong. This has really become a silly waste of time for me to have to pound in what the rest of the world already knows. Nothing about Wilson's trip ever reached the White House and he was as good as lying when he implied he had firsthand knowledge it did. Some of his wife's colleagues tried to back him up dropping hints to the press (like this BBC story) but when the matter came before Congress it was revealed the CIA found Wilson's findings were so ambiguous they didn't use any of it- it's all in the above pdf. link. Since I have educated you on this matter using a non biased source I trust you will continue this dilligence on attention to this article and now edit it to reflect a more NPOV. Will check it in one week. Regards. Batvette (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems pointless. On the big picture question I think the facts are clear. The Bush Administration cited two pieces of evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. Both were known to be dubious at the time and both have since proven false. NPguy (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the White House notified of this based upon information gleaned from Wilson's trip, as your reference claims? Please answer yes or no, and if you decline to answer on the grounds of ignorance, intentional or otherwise, I strongly suggest you limit your wiki editing to articles your POV cannot be restrained from influencing. Batvette (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the citation. NPguy (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for removing the gramatical errors unintentionally introduced due to my edits onUS-India civil nuclear agreement.Happy editing. Suri 100 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

First, I appreciate for your recent edits on nuclear program of Libya. You are doing a great job for making edits and contributions. In end, I humbly request you to start working on Libyan nuclear program.

Thanks,

Contributor Ironboy-II

edit war

He NPguy and Johnfos, I spotted your discussions on the talk page and the reverts in the main article of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although the discussion on the talk page is good (you may want to look into other forms of WP:dispute resolution, it shouldn't be amended by continuous reverting. So I am urging you to stop that, as it is considered WP:edit waring (which holds even if -I didn't assess- it is strictly within the 3 revert rule. Thanks! L.tak (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power/nuclear energy

There is a discussion about usage of nuclear power v nuclear energy. As an experienced editor in this field you are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Union sanctions against Iran

Why would you not want to say why? It seems important.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China and Iranian Oil

Can you save me the effort of finding out why the Chinese have been curtailing their imports of Iranian oil down to half of what they used to buy? Successful efforts to diversify in case of US-UK—Israeli attack, I presume, as well as the kicker of being able to say to us that they are doing their part in killing Iran's economy, while having a legitimate excuse to give the Iranians for their curtailment?? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India's three stage nuclear power programme

Hi NPguy, I appreciate the edits you have made on my initially, shall we say, "jingoistic" comments in the article. I think your edits substantially improved the quality of my own contributions. Unlike you, I am not a nuclear power expert and am only doing this because I think it is critical from the sustainability point of view, besides being quite shamefully far below the mainstream public radar. Anyway, I will be looking to provide more information on the topic in the coming weeks. Hopefully, you will keep editing the contents in a ruthless manner (I mean it) to give it a neutral and expert point of view. Thanks a lot in advance. :) Nashtam (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]