User talk:Jpritikin

Re: Nubio question

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia :-) I don't know the answer to the question about paragraphs that you posted at the Nubio omissions page, so I have asked at the Help desk (I have often wondered about this myself ;).

By the way, in case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. (I pinched these signature instructions from {{tilde}})

Oh and if you have any other feedback about Nubio please let me know, you can write here, I will keep an eye on this page :-)

Regards,--Commander Keane 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpritikin, thanks for the new section in Chastity. I reworded some of your paragraphs. I hope you don't mind. I explained my changes in the talk page. Alkas 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your change addressed the issue. You are claiming that, for purposes of marriage, it is necessary to find a sexual partner. I disagree. Read the article on Josephite marriage--a marriage without the express purpose of sexual intimacy. So as not to start an edit war, I'll leave it to you to fix. Sheridp 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Unmarried to Married

I don't know that I can tell you any deep reasons "why" that's the case, but nevertheless it's historically true -- for example, the Victorian middle classes in Britain and America certainly placed great emphasis on the pre-marital virginity of young women, but arranged marriages were uncommon. AnonMoos 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take my remarks above (which are incompatible with your previous edits) and use them as a platfrom for personal pontificating and opinionizing on your part -- while simultaneously restoring your past incompatible edits?? AnonMoos 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just label it "personal pontificating and opinionizing" without providing some rationalization. I took your remarks because I agreed that you had a valid point. I want to add your remarks to better set the context for explaining how chastity can be implemented when trying to get married. You need to explain better where I am going wrong. Jpritikin 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is simply factually NOT the case that all societies / cultures/ social groups which have placed a high value on chastity have strongly preferred arranged marriages.

That's interesting. Shouldn't we document that instead of sweeping the issue under the rug? Jpritikin (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chastity is actually not mainly about arranged marriages. The place to document the prevalence of arranged marriages would be on a page specifically devoted to the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Your personal opinions about the morally deficient nature of sexual double standards are not really relevant to the Wikipedia article. AnonMoos 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look at the double standard page, the first example is about premarital sexual abstinence. That seems like a pretty strong argument that it is relevant to chastity. Jpritikin (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant, all right -- but your personal opinion that the double standard is bad is not relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I plan to change the page back to my version. Instead, I'd rather you propose a sensible compromise. I'll wait a few days before I make changes again. Jpritikin (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't know what there is to "compromise" about in this particular case -- it's simply a historical/comparative fact that not all societies / cultures / social groups which have placed a high value on chastity have strongly preferred arranged marriages, and your personal opinion about whether sexual double standards are a good thing or a bad thing simply don't belong on the article page itself. 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

linkspam for peeredit.us

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nuclear fuel cycle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linear no-threshold model

Please remember the WP:NPOV policy when editing at Linear no-threshold model. Specifically, your point that "[t]he only rational way to protect the public from exposure is a moratorium on non-natural nuclear reactions…" seems to be a synthesis you have drawn, and this isn't allowed; see WP:NOR for more. Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]