Talk:General Atomics
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Companies Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||
|
San Diego C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
NPOV
Does anyone else think this article may not be in compliance with the NPOV policy? Several accusations are mentioned (most notably "which the generals didn't want") that lack citations or any kind of substantiation. The only outside link is to a source that one could hardly consider credible mainstream media, so the article is (for all intensive purposes) lacking outside validation. In the interest of fairness and honesty, I will not edit this article myself beyond questioning its neutrality. I am an employee of General Atomics, so I can hardly claim to have a neutral point of view of my own. Kob zilla 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your not editing the article, and your disclosure of your status. I have changed the only section that I think you were referring to, citing a San Diego newspaper. I hope that it acceptable. John Broughton 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Time to block?
Anyone notice that it's the third time that 141.248.184.210 has deleted content critical of General Atomics?
Note that 141.248.184.210 is an IP owned by General Atomics: [1] 05:19, 5 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.86.10 (talk • contribs)
- Nice job on editing the article, by the way.
- As for blocking an IP address, my sense is that what's happened with this article is considered so low-level a degree of vandalism (only four times in the last year) that an automated approach is overkill. The article is on my watchlist, and I hope it's on yours, and it seems to be on other people's watchlist as well, and that seems to be enough right now, I believe. If someone were to attack the article several times a day, that would be different. John Broughton 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:General Atomics.png
Image:General Atomics.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
External link to YouTube removed
A BOT removed a link I added to the Smithsonian's Drone exhibit. Is You tube excluded automatically ... for some reason? I suppose I can find a newspaper that has the same story, if that is the situation... (?) I see that I hadn't logged in, so that was one factor. The article is so pro-drone ("accolades" for example in place of "awards"). I wanted to include a link to an anti-drone video recorded at the Smithsonian Drone exhibit, just to toss in the issue of collateral damage, or "bug splat" as it is sometimes called, to the otherwise "Military Industrial Complex" tone of the article.
EM2
GA has recently announced that they're working on what they call the EM2, a very advanced, high-temperature helium-cooled fast reactor, a type of GFR with some similarities to GA's existing graphite-moderated reactor proposal. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Stolen data and technology?
No talk about the accused, data, blueprints, and technology stolen by china? --172.251.204.186 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)