User talk:Burbon2

CFE Treaty

Hi Burbon2, I'm Buckshot06, a wikipedian from New Zealand. I agree with virtually everything you've written in the CFE Treaty article but, unfortunately, I'm just about to delete it. Why? Because of two things:- it is not written in an encyclopedic style, more-a-stream-of-consciousness-flow-of-words, and because none of it is referenced - hence the WP:OR tags you will have seen people putting in. Fix those two things - I'll help you if you like - and it can stay. At the moment it looks like a bit of unpolished personal opinion, and thus detracts from the encyclopaedia. Cheers Buckshot06 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I don't know how to manually add references and I haven't enough time to find them precisely but I can tell you what should be included:

- various CFE articles (accessible on-line of course)

- parts of CFE pre-ratification US Congress hearings (accessible on-line at Congress Library Website if I remember correctly)

- some declassified NIE estimates about European military balance made in 1980s (accessible on-line at FOIA website)

I also can't encyclopedia style of writing maybe because English is not my native language and I haven't written encyclopedias do far. I simply wanted to share my informations and thoughts with others here. :)

Hi Burbon2,

No problem buddy; I can help you with the style and copyedit, but you have to come up with the refs. For a start, just paste some links directly into this space, and I'll take a look and link them to the parts they refer to. Also, if you put four of these ~ when you are signed in, you will get an electronic signature like my one above.

Now, the key bit. Right now the CFE Treaty is 'hot', as you well know. One of the other users user:Sijo Ripa- has spent a long time crafting and updating the entry so that it carefully reflects what's going on and is balanced Look at all his efforts here [1]. It is not worth reducing wikipedia's image as a good reference if you do not spare the time to find the references required to keep that article up to the standard it is now. I'm not worried about the START I, II, INF entries for the moment; but don't muck around with the CFE entry, please. Once you've found some good references and just manually pasted them in here, we can use this page as a 'sandbox' to figure out things from there. For ways to insert references, see Wikipedia:Footnotes Buckshot06 21:49, 24 July

Proposed deletion of Heavy ICBM

The article Heavy ICBM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dubiously referenced; WP:SYNTH-ish

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of NSWP

The article NSWP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DICDEF with no possibility of expansion. There is nothing that could be said about the non-Soviet members of the Warsaw Pact that wouldn't also fit in the existing Warsaw Pact article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Psychonaut (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Boening" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mr. Boening. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Mr. Boening until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]