User talk:Tyrerj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please leave the section on alternatives thanks. Most european fabricants/installers are now moving towards using liquid as the energy transfer medium rather than air. This needs to be pointed out.

HELLO! I have no idea which page this is referring to. Tyrerj (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


I just read your interesting post on talk:windows 8 and was distracted by reading "restraint of completion" which looks suspiciously like an automated miscorrection of "restraint of competition". TwoTwoHello (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those spelling checkers will get you every time if you don't pay close attention. Please feel free to correct it as it appears that I will not be allowed to continue the argument as my well reasoned argument has been perceived as a personal attack. If you find the argument interesting, please feel free to join it. Note that I consider the Software Freedom Law Center and Ziff Davis to be reliable sources. It is quite clear to many reliable sources in the trade press what Microsoft is up to here. It is a new effort to consolidate their monopoly power using illegal restraint of trade. For WP to ignore this obvious fact is a clear bias.

Tyrerj (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

DS Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark I Containment[edit]

I have to question the objectivity of this section.

You are repeating a talking point of the anti-nuclear echo chamber. They continue to try to make the point that the failure at Fukushima Daiichi was caused by something that would be the same as what we have in the United States. This is propaganda. Wikipedia should not disseminate anti-nuclear propaganda. It should only provide the facts.

The failure at Fukushima Daiichi was caused by a SBO (Station Black Out). This was caused by the poor design of the backup generators and their fuel supply tanks. Due to this poor design, which had nothing to do with the model or type of the reactors, the backup generators were rendered inoperative by the tsunami. There were also related issues with the fact that the sea water cooling supply pumps were also damaged by the tsunami.

Any type of Generation II Light Water Reactor would have had problems that probably would have lead to fuel damage under these circumstances. It is true that the consequences were worse because the GE Boiling Water Reactors using the Mark I containments were old designs.

However, the quote from Edwin Lyman is very biased, inaccurate, and misleading. I would suggest that it be removed and replaced with a description of the problem that properly describes the negligent design of the backup generator system. Whether or not someone is pro-nuclear, an engineer cannot excuse very poor design such as this.

Tyrerj (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)