Welcome

edit

Hello, Typhon Antaeus, and 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 at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or   or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 22)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


 
Hello! Typhon Antaeus, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hy, I am the founder of Aristos power and the chief designer of the HSR, I hope we agree that it doesnt get more reliable as a source. I have added external links to the company pages, hope this helps. Cheers

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 23)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


The article I wrote is not about a new theory or about a device employing the physics like the EM drive, this is about a reactor design repackaging a collection of known technologies which have been either in use or talked about largely on the nuclear scene for the last decades, it has nothing controversial ,like the EM drive, which would warrant careful examination. I cannot think of a single physics journal which would even discuss a new reactor design, unless we are still living in the 50 and 60 when nuclear tech was something new, , it is simply not in their scope anymore. Plus Wikipedia has a plethora of articles regarding other related reactor designs, like the IMSR, like the Thorcon, like the Stable Salt Reactor, and they do have pages, The reactor design I propose and these other reactors have many points in common, but there are also inherent differences from seeing things from different perspectives and priorities, like some designs prioritizing the burn of transuranics while others prioritizing low maintenance or low upfront costs , just an example. BUT all of them are based on the same physics principals, I do not understand why my particular design has to prove something which has been proven for the last 50 years or so. I respectfully request your reexamination of the logic behind the decision that you need more physics and engineering reports as a cause for this rejection. Thank you. Typhon Antaeus (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, I want to make a few clarifications first because I believe some wrong assumptions were made. My submission is NOT about the company, is about a reactor design that is being under development, as you already know the first submitted version didnt have any links to the company whatsoever , and there was only one mention of it in a one liner . The only reason that I later added links to the company was because the first refusal mentioned there were no references. I also took a peak at how other paper reactor designs were being presented on wikipedia ( that is reactors that were never built yet, we call them paper reactors in the industry, but which are being proposed by different companies, and lately by a lot of startups ), and all of their pages did have mentioned in the articles the company which is developing each of the designs, Further more, some of these articles had entire sections of the article dedicated to the parent company, if you wish I can provide links to prove my claims. So I considered that it is a normal thing to do, as others have done it too, in my case I didnt dwell to much on it, just a simple phrase about who is developing it, without saying anything else. So you see you can hardly catalog this as , and I quote you. """Wikipedia is not for organisations or people to publish about themselves as Wikipedia is not a web host (WP:NOTWEBHOST) or for promotion""" . As I stated already this is a page intended to make it easy to anyone to find a little information about a new reactor design being proposed, it is not a personal page , it is not a company promoting page. I just wish there is no double standard applied when a much younger design is not allowed to have a proper wiki page while other designs, barely a few years older do have this right and further more the said pages include a lot more information on the companies that develop these designs, again, I can provide links to such pages if you wish me to.
As to me being the chief designer of the HSR, if there were a third party involved, aka publishing a wiki page on the HSR design, there is a high risk of things being poorly or inaccurately presented and as such would warrant an intervention, either by me or one of my colleagues because, simply put, there are no others who would now the design into more detail than us, and I was under the impression that wikipedia was striding to have articles with information presented as accurately as possible. Thank you for your time, I much appreciate your insight and I hope we can reach a conclusion which will be mutually acceptable. Typhon Antaeus (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply