User talk:Simesa/Archive1

Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself. How to edit a page Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial Picture tutorial How to write a great article Naming conventions Manual of Style If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the time stamp. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my Talk page. The Community Portal can also be very useful. Happy Wiki-ing! - Sango123 00:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Useful Banner Format

Thanks

Simesa, Thanks for moving and redirecting Don Wiley. It means a lot to my family. Sincerely, Craig Wiley (Don's Son)

Stubs

You added the stub Long Island Lighting Company to the Requested Articles pages. It has been removed as this is not the appropriate place for stubs. The proper procedure it to identify them as stubs by adding an appropriate template to the article, which was already done, and then it will appear in one of the stub categories for editors to find and expand (in this case Category:Corporation stubs). Of course, if you are knowledgable on the subject, we would always appreciate it if you help us out and expand it yourself. See also Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Wikiproject stub sorting. Dragons flight 06:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Simesa, I understand we have different and perhaps incompatible perspectives. I'm still human and mostly decent although I have been arrested for picking up litter - technically for encouraging kids to pick up litter. Yes, I intend to ensure, within the rules, that articles about nuclear energy do not becomes soapboxes for though who want to express the doublespeak of "its safe, but we need subsidized insurance." If I cross a line or break a clear rule, and somebody who plays fair points to it, I'll avoid it in future. We probably agree on everything else, from libertarianism to religion to taste in music.Benjamin Gatti 29 June 2005 02:07 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your nice comments; I'm a reporter so it's sorta what I do all day. The writing style is different of course, but the tenets are the same... unbiased writing about certain debates etc. etc. I briefly covered energy issues before Congress so I'm somewhat familiar with Price-Anderson. As for the psychology article, I'm not really sure... it's not anything I'm personally familiar with. But I think Wikipedia does have an "Articles wanted" requestboard; I don't have time to look at it this morning, but I'll see if I can later when I get a break. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 29, 2005 12:33 (UTC)

Cheers on starting the stub! · Katefan0^(scribble) June 30, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

I haven't even taken a peek at the Nuclear power article, but I don't know that it's necessary -- yet -- to protect Price-Anderson Act... for now, Benjamin appears to have realized that he's going to have to get a consensus for some of the changes he's been seeking. Let's give consensus-building a chance first at least on that page. As for the Nuclear power article, I can't give any recommendation, but enforcing a cooling off period is a valid reason for requesting a page be protected. You can visit Requests for page protection to make your request. Best of luck · Katefan0^(scribble) June 30, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

Thanks again for your kind comments. We're all in this together to make a better article, in the end. BTW, I'm an INFP. My I is right on the border of E, but the rest are firmly in their designations. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 1, 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Assumptions

Simesa, First, you're the moving party. Second, yes my recollection was that you were retired - as you say former - its a distinction without a difference quite nearly. I do assume that you were paid, and further I assume that you continue to be paid in some way - retiries usually receive a stipend of some kind. Whistleblowers almost always get a stipend. Even social security is a continuing form of payment based on your prior wages. You're profile doesn't include that you were a whistleblower - we'd like to hear more on that. As for gender - you're right, but English doesn't have a gender ambiguous pronoun, and so the assumption is forced, I took the road less followed. If you're saying it's wrong, then the ambiguity is resolved. I don't think i'm being any more or less unreasonable than anyone else including you. Its just that our perspectives have a lot of slogging through the facts before they meet. Its a journey of minds, and while a Cop Out Period is just that, we are making progress. I think you now realize the Act dramatically changes the rules for one selected Industry to which the government is partial. I think soon, you will realize that every business with liability insurance creates a pool for damages - PAA Creates a smaller pool - so suggesting to readers that it creates a novel "Pool of Money to compensate victoms" is pedantic and naive. Progress is moving the line of compromise - we are making progress. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

Ben's assumptions conveniently always seem to support his point of view. Simesa 1 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

I'm just grateful for your support on the issues we now agree on - which is most of Price Anderson. Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Price-Anderson

Make any changes you want to make. The problem is that Ben wants citations on simple declarative sentences and I would have no idea where to even start on that. Maybe you do. --Woohookitty 2 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Sure, I will add my vote for RfP. And yeah, I don't think Ben will quit. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

I'm trying to support you, but honestly, you guys have lost me. :) Too many posts. Too many issues. So I'm trying to keep up, but it's hard. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

I'm with ya. Yeah at this point, the criticism section has dwarfed the other sections and I don't think we should let it get bigger or let criticism creep into the first part of the article. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

I have no idea if we are still in mediation or not. Frankly, I would just request arbitration (and if you need help on that, let me know), bookmark the mediation version, so then when it goes to arbitration, you will have that for quick access. --Woohookitty 20:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson

Things can move fast around here. Whk is now an admin - you had written almost an admin. I have posted a comment - possibly incisive, possibly naive - at talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. If that goes down well, Mediation should proceed rapidly. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 11:45 (UTC)

• No, lots of websites capture and republish Wikipedia information. Essentially all Wikipedia except user pages is considered fair use, meaning it's free to be reused as long as Wikipedia is credited and, I think, as long as it's not for profit. I could be wrong about the specfics, but there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors and as long as WP is credited, it's OK. Generally these sites scoop up Wikipedia content every so often, to catch pages that've been updated. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Withdrawn section

Text above here was withdrawn by the author. Simesa 13:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Energy Bill

Looks like conferees have dropped MTBE from the bill, so we could actually see the thing enacted this week. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Simesa, I have about a million press releases on the thing in my inbox, but since today is my first day back at work (and since I don't really cover energy issues anymore), I haven't really looked at them. I may have some time to help update the article, but I got a last minute magazine assignment dropped in my lap today so I don't know how much time I'll have until Friday at the earliest. I'll see what I can do though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you read all the policies and guidelines, I'd say you're more prepared than the average person who participates in RfC! · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nuclear power

Thanks for the update, keep me appraised! I'm sorry I never meaningfully responded to the RfC, iirc it was shortly before London 7/7 - after which, I was pretty much editing exclusively on Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) 22:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Nuclear power

In Wikipedia, that is permissible. However, I would recommend just highlighting Archive 6 or noting that that is the most recent archive. Too confusing otherwise. --Woohookitty 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. If you need further help, let me know. What happened is that the page was not moved correctly and the formatting was incorrect. Should work now. --Woohookitty 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power phase-out

Hi Simesa! You put a lot of material in nuclear power phase-out. On the discussion page, nuclear proliferation came up. Questioned was this sentence (an extended version of one you introduced) in the section Nuclear_power_phase-out#Nuclear_Proliferation:

This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons).

Please comment on Talk:Nuclear power phase-out. Thank you. Ben ^T/_C 10:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

India, Israel, North Korea and South Africa are discussed in nuclear proliferation. India in particular was supplied reactors under Atoms for Peace and shortly after made weapons, after which the US refused to supply fuel for India's two BWRs (I worked at the fuel company). Pakistan is also covered in nuclear proliferation and [1] and probably should be added to the list.

I am surprised that Iran is not covered in nuclear proliferation but it is detailed in Iran's nuclear program.

Simesa 11:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Ben ^T/_C 05:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hunry i

Seeing that "Kingstrio Trio at the Hungry i" cover from the link you added really brought back the memories; my parents had it, and I used to listen to it all the time. It was a suburban kid's epitome of hipness for a while there ... - DavidWBrooks 18:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! We had that album too! Simesa 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction Energy vs. Electricity

Thanks for your correction. Slip of the tongue.

--Trigor 03:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement

Please vote for the American Civil Rights Movement in the nominations for the Article Improvement Drive. [Click here and scroll down to (Nominated in August or later: American Civil Rights Movement... to cast your vote]. Thanks! Mamawrites 03:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Power plant image

I changed the tag so it says its from a Dept. of Energy employee, which I believe it is, since it was set as gov-pd before. So you should be ok. --Woohookitty 23:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

VO2 max etc

As I've written on the VO2 talk page, don't think Dr C discoverd the training effect, but rather investigated it in detail. Using the Cooper test to estimate VO2max is pretty rough and ready, I think, and I suspect only works at all well for a rather restricted range of people (20 to 40 yrs moderately fit, and adequately motivated etc) - so it's no substitute for the kit...Linuxlad

Wha?

Er, no! I don't even know who that is. How curious! Thanks for letting me know, I'll go have a look. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Problem user

I'll watch it, but if he continues, he needs to be added to the Vandalism in Progress page but either you or me. I can't just block users out of hand or else they'll throw me out of admin school. lol --Woohookitty 01:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear reprocessing

Hi Simesa, DV8 2XL here. I've done some work on the Nuclear reprocessing page and I'd like you to pass a critical eye over it - can't see the forest for the trees at this point. DV8 2XL 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for proof reading and making the necessary changes. While I was doing the research I ran into a lot of material on enrichment as well, so I did some additions to the Enriched uranium article. I wonder if I could prevail upon you to look that one over as well, if you have the time. DV8 2XL 13:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station

You say in this edit that Rancho Seco still has two units operating. Are you sure you're not confusing it with San Onofre? Andrewa 06:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I did - both were shut down. If you haven't changed it, I will. Simesa 07:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Training Effect

There's a recent addition here by a guy disputing the uplift in metabolic rate (amongst other things)... I think.. Needs clarifiying what he IS saying then editing into the main article when the real position is clear. I've left a note on the talk page and his user page, but have no response yet, so made a tiny edit to start things off. Bob aka Linuxlad 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Mediation

Thanks for your request for mediation. I will be taking the case. See Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Ral315 W_S 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon

Not really too much I can do with an anon IP. He appears to have stopped vandalizing for now. Blocking IP addresses, except for short blocks to discourage vandalism, is strongly discouraged becuase of the potential for collateral damage. Anybody could be using that IP, multiple people, etc., so it's something that's not done lightly. Since he's quit vandalizing for now, there's really not much I can do. Next time he starts vandalizing, now that he's been clearly warned that he can be blocked for it, I can block him for a short time -- 24 hours, say. But until he starts back up again, I'm not inclined to block quite yet. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw

Katefan and I are working on a Request for Comment on Ben. I was giving him leeway for awhile as he seemed to be improving, but now we're back to ridiculously POV posts. It's probably overdue. I know you aren't involved alot in the "guts" of Wikipedia, so in case you don't know, a request for comment is when other efforts to deal with a user have failed and someone decides to ask for community views. I don't know if it'll reform Ben, but I'm just tired of this. He will never give in to anything we want. It's just a fact of life. We could do mediation for years and I don't think he'd give in, I really don't. I'll leave the link on your talk page once it's up and ready. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not finished yet. :) It's at User:Woohookitty/Requests_for_Comment/Benjamin_Gatti. Having Kate give it a once over since she's done more of these than I have. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon/A-bomb RfC

There is an RfC over at Talk:Nuclear weapon: Should a separate A-bomb article exist, or is it better merged with Nuclear weapon and/or Nuclear weapon design? Your input in this mater would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 03:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late. I'm getting overwhelmed between classes and family matters. Simesa 06:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

user:204.38.108.3

Remember to check on this user's edits occassionally. User edited Feodor Dostoevsky Simesa 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfAr against Ben is live

Just letting you know that I opened the RfAr on Benjamin Gatti. Please comment so we can get this case opened ASAP. Comment here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Test diff process [2] Simesa 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note Simesa, the award was in good humor. Yes, I find that you tend to understate the risk of nuclear energy - say compared to the Supreme Court and other objective points of reference, but you needn't labor under some hyperbolic interpretation of satire. Benjamin Gatti 03:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the diff again Simesa - it say "all in good fun" - hardly a recent revelation. Benjamin Gatti 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Glibly saying "all in good fun" after you flip someone off and then scream "screw you" doesn't really cut it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate, it's a pretty little trinket, with an interesting design and purpose. It was given to people who cleaned up a nuclear mess. I didn't scream "screw you" or any such thing. It's a fairly sophistictaed ribbing involving second languages and latin symbols. Benjamin Gatti 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please. I don't think awarding it for "his work scrubbing the wikipedia clean of the consequences of nuclear radiation" is particularly sophisticated OR fun. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we don't see it the same. Let's move on. Benjamin Gatti 16:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Move of Nuclear Power

Hi. You can find the information here. [3] Diffs can be found by looking in the history. I participate in other arbitration cases and articles at the moment. However, when they are finished I may be able to participate in this one. Ultramarine 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Update

Thanks for the update, it's much appreciated (and I'm impressed with your memory!) Dan100 (Talk) 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Depleted uranium RfC

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 04:05, 15 December 2005

I don't know if you are up for a fight, but editors that want to turn the Depleted uranium page into an ant-DU pamphlet are winning every attempt at establishing NPOV is reverted, other out right violations of policy abound. I know that getting involved in this sort of thing can be exhausting and if you are not up to it I understand, but if I can't get some help in this I am just going to let the article go to hell as I cannot fight them by myself. DV8 2XL 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In the news

This is the template for the in the news section. I'd suggest asking about it there. I don't know if you can just add to it or if you have to discuss it first. Once you find out, let me know. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Diffs and all ... Benjamin Gatti

Purpose of RfArb

Just out of interest I was wondering what you hope to achieve out of the RFArb against Benjamin Gatti? --Chazz88 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And now Ben is blackmailing me

Please comment. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Blackmail_and_threats_are_not_permissible. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The WHOLE barn?

Hey... it actually fits!  :) Thank you! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Electronic ankle bracelet

Why did you make Electronic ankle bracelet a redirect to Pro-Tech, a brand of electronic ankle bracelet? It's a generic term. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to post the Nuclear Indictment article

If we're still talking - don't you at least agree a wee little bit that plant operators are very tempted to cover up dangers, and that the risk of prosecution, or financial damages from the loss of the plant alone are not adequate to ensure that the investors will insist on adequate thorough and impartial inspections? your truly, Benjamin Gatti 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Could you weight in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enriched limit? Thanks --DV8 2XL 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

A final decision has been published in this case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the heads up on Ben's latest adventure. Kate and I posted. That makes 2 admins. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Article

Perhaps you can find a way to include this information in the Nuclear Articles. Benjamin Gatti 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11845981/

Reading it now. Items that jump out are "Nobody alleges that Flint did anything illegal.", "the Senate Ethics Handbook: ... employees seeking future employment are under a substantial obligation to avoid not only an actual conflict of interest, but also the appearance of a conflict between their duties to the Senate and the interests of the prospective employers with whom they are negotiating.", "With regard to Alex Flint, all I can tell you is that we’ve dotted all our i’s and we’re going to ensure that all the recusals and ethics requirements are met.", "said Holman, citing statistics that he says indicate 42 percent of former House members and 50 percent of ex-senators wind up lobbying for the same businesses that appeared before them while they were in public office.", and "Moves like Tauzin’s and Flint’s are perfectly legal on Capitol Hill, Holman said".

I can see this in the article on revolving door (see Metaphorical Use), but since it's nothing but how business is currently done on Capitol Hill and the article just happens to single out a pro-nuclear person I don't see where it would fit in Nuclear power or Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Simesa 04:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Power Walking

I've just added a stub on this, and Icarus3 has asked for sources/references. My recollection is that Kenneth H. Cooper has written at length on this, but on a quick look I couldn't see it. Perhaps you can help? Bob aka Linuxlad 11:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nondestructive testing and statistics

You seem to misapprehend the statistical fallacy that is operative in nuclear power plants. Please call (650-941-0533) or write (terry@oldberg.biz) for a check on the accuracy of your opinions before editing my material on this topic. I am an expert on this topic. You are not. It is a waste of my time and an injustice to readers of the Nuclear Power article to you replacing my, published, peer reviewed views with your own, mistaken opinions.Terry Oldberg 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I received your latest message. Are you willing to reveal your identity and/or discuss the actual, technical problem? If so, please contact met at 650-941-0533 or terry@oldberg.biz.

License tagging for Image:LSST CAMERA scale 250x188.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LSST CAMERA scale 250x188.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tags

Your answer is in the posting right above this one. It's a tag like any other. Go through the list here and then open up the image's page and added the appropriate tag to the bottom of the page and save it. Simple as that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

INEL

I made the redirect for you. I have no idea where the other page went. I went into the history but there is zip there. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Packistani A-bomb

I have put this article up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. --DV8 2XL 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel and reactor accidents

Dear Simesa, as you are a nuclear engineer I would value your input on the subject of how fuel (both the fuel pellets and the fuel elements {pellets in Zr alloy tube}) behave during both normal use and accident conditions. I am a chemist, so I expect that I have a very different view point and experience from you. I think that you could help make the page much better.Cadmium 10:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Low dose radiation

Hi Simesa. i just had the unusual pleasure of catching a Horizon program...about radiation danger. It was saying that the number of deaths from radiation after chernobyl was way below what might have been expected from relatively low dose exposure to large numbers of people. Similarly, some other examples. But with the conclusion that doses below 100 mSv are essentially not dangerous, and consistent with the evidence could even conceivably be beneficial. Well, the relevance of this. I notice that ben Gatti seems to have disappeared, though I do wonder whether he may have been reincarnated? However, this information makes a significant difference to the potential danger of power station nuclear accidents. It might indeed explain regulators reviewing their risk assessments downwards. I wondered whether you knew anything about this? PAA at least does not seem to be contentious at the moment, but were it so, this might have been relevant. Sandpiper 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back, and nice to hear from you again. I have not been here much myself lately. The two summaries you mentioned are clear in their conclusion, but seem a little lacking in their evidence. They admit this. There is a rather oddly phrased sentence in the centre of the first summary (I thought), which mentions the results of studies on people with low dose radiation, saying this is 'compatible with the committees statistical model'. That sounds to me like a weazel word way of saying it fails to support their model, but the available evidence is not sufficiently statistically significant as to be 'incompatible'.

The evidence being presented from russia appeared to be that given the very large number of people with a low exposure, there were insufficient bad consequences. The point being made was that this incident uniquely produced such a group of people who were then intensively studied, so it was the first real measurable test of the linear effect theory at such doses. So if as you say this evidence was ignored, then I can see there might be no reason to dismiss a linear dose/damage theory. Now, I can see why russian authorities might wish to whitewash any bad consequences, so there might be suspiscion that the data was invalid, but if the result presented by Horizon needs explaining away.

I would say that the theory that animal systems are designed to be highly resistant to, and capable of repairing, low dose radiation is a very attractive one. I like to view these things from an evolutionary point of view, and we live in a low (but non-zero) dose environment. This may have been worse at various periods in the past. It is likely therefore that we are adapted to this environment. That is not necessarily incompatible with a linear exposure/harm theory, but it might imply such mechanisms in animals are designed to deal with low doses successfully, but could fail totally at high ones. Interesting Sandpiper 14:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson Hinton

Re [4]: no problem. I will eventually get to this myself if no one else does, but it won't be soon. I think that the A-A Civil Rights Movement article as it stands plays down black militancy pre-Black Power era, which makes the Black Power folks look like they came out of nowhere. I believe that the article doesn't mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice, either. But I have enough battleground articles I'm already involved in, so I really don't want to plunge in, I was hoping just to pass info along to those already working on this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to subst: templates!

Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Mehta books

Thanks for defending content at Nuclear safety. You should also look at other contributions by User:71.17.155.207. Are thay spam? -- Petri Krohn 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - that text belongs somewhere else, and we will have to move it. I just couldn't think of where off the top of my head, and didn't want to make a snap decision. Simesa 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A agree. I am pleased someone has finally contributed to the Nuclear safety article. Adding controvrsal content (and in the wrong place) often gets thigs moving. The thing I am worried aboit is that this users edits seem like self promotion. --Petri Krohn 14:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power by country

I felt that the new Category:Nuclear power would be a perfect home and the additional categorization in Category:Nuclear technology would not be required Inwind 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kennedy Administration in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)

"Bravo! A magnificent addition!" Simesa 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! So pleased you liked it...am smiling broadly :o) (do I get a star?...ah go on!) Big thanks, Iamlondon 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Radioactive waste copyvio

Hi Simesa. I saw you tagged a section of Radioactive waste as a copyvio. If you ever come across blatant copyright infringement, like in that article, you can simply remove the offending text. You only need to use {{copyvio}} when an entire article was lifted from another source, so an administrator can delete it. Thanks. ~MDD4696 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arab Mind

I don't understand. It looks like you dropped the RfC, but you are still seeking comments?-Psychohistorian 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Come and join us

Please consider joining us at [[5]], I think that the trolls are absent from this new wiki and it looks like the crank brigade will be much more easy to control. I think that at the new wiki that you could help out as an editor.Cadmium

RfC on Iran and Terrorism and/or WMD

This discussion was originally on the page of user:69.116.234.208 and moved here by him - I have elected to "mirror" the messages here - Note that 69.116.234.208 has MODIFIED his statements. Note that Simesa is MISREPRESENTING the facts here.

Since we're obviously deadlocked and completely mistrustful of one another, I've started an RfC on this topic. I suggest you read WP:RfC. Please add your comments on the Iran Discussion page under Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. Simesa 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. Thank you. (I think that you are biased and misrepresented the facts.) This comment was changed 69.116.234.208 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)- see Diff below

Now I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And you're wrong on both counts -- but I do have high standards, and am willing to stand up for them. Simesa 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I must tell you that I had no choice but to report you to Wikipedia for your uncontrollable behavior on Iran's articles last night. You reverted what several others Wikipedians have deleted several times and also for disrespecting what people have agreed upon before. For the rest, just stated the facts (no personal attacks).69.116.234.208 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it is rude not to sign your comments. Second, moving and changing comments when you've (allegedly) reported someone is not ethical, to say the least. Third, I reverted three times and proposed one change - entirely within wp:3RR - I will be putting the paragraph back in again later. Fourth, I welcome more Wikipedians looking at this situation - that's why I filed the RfC. Fifth, you can't hide what you typed, it's all in the records - you called me a bully and said I needed a girlfriend in [6]. You lied and now you're trying to deceive admins. I am on the verge of filing an RfC on your User Conduct. Simesa 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There won't be a debate with me on Iran's talk page anymore. The problem is with yourself and your relations to other people on Wikipedia.(The remark about 'having a girlfriend' was gentlle fun, after all your cranky attitude and NOT a personal attack in anyway). But since you seem to have been offended, I decided to edit my comment (for that reason alone). Finally, I did not report YOU last night but only the fact that Iran's page has been vandalized many times and that makes me sick. (But again: YES your entire attitude, replayed systematically since last night is part of it also).69.116.234.208 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since user:69.116.234.208 can't bear to have this on his talk page, I guess we'll continue on mine, with the courtesy of copy of new messages to his talk page. The new diff is [7]. We'll see how this goes one more day. Simesa 16:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For those reading this later, this issue was resolved when Alain10 created a page Iran international crisis and proposed linking it into Iran. Simesa 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)