User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/March - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

HK is trying to convince me that he's not some of the socks you've blocked, so i'm going to have to run some things by you to get the true story. This IP address was blocked by you back in October as a sock of HK. I just ran a WHOIS search and it came back as Road Runner HoldCo LLC, which is based in Virginia and the IP address further geolocates to Florida through the Road Runner ISP. So, what's going on here, is my search wrong? SilverserenC 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

HK has been using socks long before he got to Wikipedia. He has used proxies and other techniques to avoid detection. For example, it is trivially easy to access a dial-up ISP from a different location. Sock detection relies on using a variety of methods, the crudest being the WP:DUCK test. Per WP:BEANS, if we disclose all of those techniques then puppet masters will find new ways of cheating the system. HK in particular has modified his behavior in response to past disclosures of the methods used to track him.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I was kinda asking George, as he's the blocking admin and would know more about this specific case. SilverserenC 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah; with all due respect, and I appreciate your AGFing on this Silver seren, HK is only going to care about a sock if it's actually him. He's shown absolutely no reluctance to lie, cheat, cover up, do anything he had to to deceive and continue affecting the articles. He hasn't cared about anyone else, has hurt legions of other interested people (including LaRouche supporters not aligned with / working for LaRouche's organization), etc.
That IP's actions directly repeated actions made by other accounts and IPs (and repeated afterwards by other accounts and IPs) that were CU connected to HK. Is it remotely possible that some random person out there, unrelated to HK, came along, decided to do the exact same 5-6 things HK had been doing to that article? Sure. The odds? About zero.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so then, since presumably the LaRouchies of the world that might want to edit here include more than just HK, can you propose a way for someone who isn't HK to pass muster with you, Will, and the CU who's run many of these checks? If you can't, then we have a problem, because in effect, the use of the "It's HK" meme is preventing any LaRouchie whatever from editing here. Until and unless ArbCom or the community pass something saying that's not allowed... it's not allowed to ban them. I think LaRouchies are all totally bonkers but they need to be allowed to edit, if doing so is within policy, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true that we shouldn't ban every LaRouchian editor just on the basis that they could be HK. We need some way to tell the difference and it's clearly not through bad editing, since all of these purported socks were just making edits to the article. Pro-LaRouche edits, yes, but that doesn't mean that every IP that edits the LaRouche articles is HK. SilverserenC 01:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
[e/c] A good start would be honesty. HK's socks have often pretended to have no previous knowledge or interest in LaRouche. See, for example, comments by Leatherstocking.[1] Another practice that would help is not pushing the exact same text or points that HK pushes.
However the presumption that other LaRouche movement members would wish or be allowed to edit may be unfounded. The movement is harshly critical of social networking sites in general and Wikipedia in particular.[2]   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There are actually fairly distinctive edit interests we know of; a random LaRouche member who started editing would probably not fall into the same patterns. The organization has some specific propaganda points it wants to hit and affect in media and reporting coverage, and WP entries, and those just keep coming up. Normal people who are followers aren't going to be as narrowminded as the organization's interests.
We have permablocked IP ranges for the organizations which were organizationally problematic elsewhere before. That might be called for here. But they seem to be acting to expand their use and trying to evade restrictions we have now. If there's an active, network administrative aware effort to evade our protection interests then that complicates all sorts of things. And there clearly is from the record.
Honesty and openness would be helpful, probably necessary for long term success. There are scientologists and various other organization members who edit successfully; they didn't hide who they were and stayed away from the group problems we had from those organizations.
It's somewhat complicated here by WP's standard of privacy - we can't really insist on people identifying themselves to us (or arbcom, or what). If someone were to voluntarily do so, that would potentially establish a basis for moving forwards unambiguously. But we can't say "oh, you have to voluntarily agree to ID yourself or there's no option"; that's unreasonable. We have to have another path.
I don't know that we have to clearly identify all the right answers to this problem right now, but establishing that there is one now (and I unambiguously agree with Lar that there is) and at least establishing some groundrules for how to engage if it comes up is reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. And your input on this is far more helpful than Will's. At least you see there's a problem. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand where Will and Slim are coming from, but as far as I'm concerned the only person who's unambiguously not welcome here is HK and their sockpuppet farms. Anyone else I will AGF about. This has led to us being fairly tolerant of new HK socks, until we had enough evidence that they were in fact HK and not a new random LaRouche follower or independent interested person. The situation makes me uncomfortable in both directions (I think it's hostile to newcomers, and I know we're letting accounts that turn out to be HK have a lot of rope before we act, when I'd prefer to be swifter) - I don't know if that's really ok, but if I'm equally uncomfortable with both aspects, that may be the best balance point to be found. Additional review and comments and admin effort here would be appreciated. Me being familiar with the issues and envelope doesn't mean I am the only person who should be intervening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I hear you. It's a quandary. On the one hand "better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be wrongly imprisoned"... but on the other hand, this project is not a system of justice, nor is it intended to be fair, and editing here is a priv, not a right... to be exercised for the good of the project and no other reason. I agree with you that HK should not edit here, nor should any of his socks, regardless of the validity of some of his points, if any. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to move away from the idea that it's only HK and socks who shouldn't edit LaRouche-related articles, because that's what causes editors to have to spend time proving that a LaRouche account is a sock. WP:BLOCK says that "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" may be blocked indefinitely, and WP:COI#Blocks contains similar language. No one who works for LaRouche, or who has arrived at Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, should be editing articles about him or inserting his ideas into other articles. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we need a summary motion for that. It seems a stretch from normal policy. But it certainly might move us away from the current HK bugaboo, which is rather counter productive... as soon as someone says something complimentary about LaRouche, we know they're a LaRouchie and we can ban them. Problem solved. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If the rest of Wikipedia was run the way your last sentence states, we wouldn't have very many, if any, IP addresses editing the project at all. o_o SilverserenC 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't ban editors "as soon as someone says something complimentary about LaRouche". Leatherstocking edited for over two years before he was blocked, and Delia Peabody edited for about seven months before being blocked. No account blocked as a sock of HK has been unblocked due to misidentification because in each case there has been sufficient evidence to show that there was a clear violation. The ArbCom has already held three cases about HK, and their existing remedies are sufficient to deal with this single-minded serial puppet master.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that everyone taking a step back would help.
What Will and Slim said further above is more strict that what any of us has actually enforced. As Will said directly above, accounts are being allowed to edit for some time while reviews happen, e.g. the seven months for DP and two years for Leatherstocking, etc.
I personally am not asking for permission (community or arbcom) to shorten that period. I don't think Will or Slim is asking for that either, though they can speak for themselves on that point. Public and private CUs are identifying some of these guys early; if we have to do it on behavioral evidence and the known behavioral profile, it takes longer, at least some months.
If there's concern about things being done too quickly, please feel free to review the record and identify any specific accounts that were zapped very quickly after appearing that didn't blatantly meet the profile or didn't get CU detected, and we can talk about those. I don't rule out there having been one - there have been a lot, over a long time, and I have no illusion of perfection on my account or anyone else's. But I don't know of any we did make a mistake with.
This became very visible because the most recent sock had started an ANI thread immediately before being blocked. This was, all things considered, simply a matter of impeccably bad timing. Profile information justifying a very close look came to light last week, and they would likely have been blocked a week earlier had I not had a health issue come up that took me away from the computer for several days. While I was getting back to editing actively, the ANI thread started. Cla68 and HK apparently saw this as retaliation for the ANI thread. I see where they're coming from, but all I can say is that real life sometimes preempts Wikipedia, and that if Arbcom or the WMF want to know why I was away I can privately provide the emails associated with starting the review, an explanation of the medical reasons for the delay, and scans of the medical records. Fortunately all is now well health wise (almost, problem A resolved but caused a sprained knee which I'm still dealing with). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We routinely block accounts whose main or sole purpose is promotion, including people arriving from politician's offices to remove properly sourced criticism. There's no reason to make an exception for the LaRouche accounts. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the LaRouche article a BLP? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
To some degree, but also a political movement. Enough of a BLP to qualify as complicated by those rules, at least. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
   
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
 
  • Project News
  • News from Orbit
  • Article News
  • Direction of the Project
  • The Charts
  • Europa
Project News
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.

An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.

User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.

News from orbit

Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.

A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space Shuttle Discovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.

Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.

4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data System communications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.

A Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle is expected to deploy the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft during a launch in March. The flight has been delayed several times, and was expected to have launched last month, however it is currently scheduled to occur no earlier than 20 March. On 29 March, an Ariane 5ECA will launch the Yahsat 1A and New Dawn communications satellites. Both currently require articles. On 30 March, a Soyuz-FG will launch the manned Soyuz TMA-21 mission to the International Space Station carrying three Expedition 27 crewmembers.

On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.

Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.

Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.

It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.

Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.

A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.

A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.

A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.

It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.

Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.

Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.

Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.

Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch‎, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.

Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)

The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.

Satellite was the most popular article of February, up six places from seventh in December. STS-133 was the highest climber in the top 10, up 78 places from 88th. January's most popular article, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, dropped seven places to eighth. Moon landing remains ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories for the second month in a row.

Of the top ten, two articles are featured content, two are listed as Good Articles, and the remaining six are assessed as C-class.

№ Article Movement
1   Satellite ↑6 (7)
2   Space Shuttle ↑11 (13)
3   NASA ↑7 (10)
4   Neil Armstrong ↓1 (4)
5   Apollo 13 ↑4 (9)
6   Global Positioning System ↓1 (5)
7   International Space Station ↑5 (12)
8   Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↓7 (1)
9   Apollo 11 ↓3 (6)
10   STS-133 ↑78 (88)

For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for February).

Selected Article: Europa
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
“ The Europa rocket was an early expendable launch system of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which was the precursor to the European Space Agency and its Ariane family of launchers. The programme was initiated by the UK and the first launch occurred in August 1967.

Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.

The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :

  • Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
  • Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
  • Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
  • Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled

The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.

”

The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.

Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Maybe you could ask Rod for the emails[3] and post a summary that leaves out private info, which might satisfy some of the peanut gallery. I also left a note with Jehochman, suggesting that both of you do that. I don't care much what is in the emails myself, but some people's curiosity/voyeurism seems overpowering. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered closing that thread but you did a better job than I could have. Well done. --John (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking on this task. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this article, just like the Aspartame controversy article, needs semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Excellent work putting your foot down in that incident, it had gone on far too long. Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperium Caelestis 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When you get the chance, could you take a look at this? It seems pretty one-sided. Furthermore, there have been a wide range of molten salt reactors but this article has been pretty much taken over by advocates of one variant, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). It seems to me we probably need one article for molten salt reactors and another LFTRs. To some extent, some non-engineering enthusiasts seem to be confusing reactor cooling variations (water vs. liquid salt, etc.) vs fuel cycles (thorium vs. uranium).

The LFTR reactor design has been getting a lot of hype in the last 2 weeks; I'm instinctively wary of new (or resurrected) reactor designs that solve all the world's problems without any of the costs or issues associated with today's designs. They bring to mind some comments from Hyman Rickover almost 60 years ago (and still true):

I'm not saying these designs aren't promising -- just that it takes a lot of practical engineering work to get a design from the expert pages of Wired magazine to the real world of some commercial reactor site. In any event, we need a neutral article, especially now when the concept is getting a lot of hype after the Fukushima debacle.

I know you have some nuclear expertise and your review of this article would be helpful. I've left a similar message for Orlady who's worked on Oak Ridge-related articles.

Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, your comment at the WW2 Talk page is being discussed. Please chime in there and help us work to consensus. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[4] In The End, It's All About Revenge (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)