User talk:Nailedtooth

Welcome!

Hello, Nailedtooth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 199.125.109.41 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have I inspired you ire because I am a fellow nuclear guy or are you 199? Please explain. Are you in the nuclear field and if so what do you do? ~~Additionally, you started out your edits with an RFC. This indicates that you are not new to WP. What have you been editing previously?~~ Mrshaba 05:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have started using the name Nailedtooth I have made no IP-only contributions nor do I have any sockpuppets. Nailedtooth 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "assume good faith" (code of conduct). Speculating too much on what fellow editors are doing really doesn't accomplish anything. There is way too much garbage to clean up to worry about petty things like that. 199.125.109.38 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Power

I am not sure what you were thinking but you screwed around with the picture if you are going to change something put it on it page because what you are doing is not right.Sparrowman980 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of posting a baffling and seemingly angry message to me you explain the situation so I can understand. Simply saying "You're doing it wrong! Do it right!" is no help to anyone, least of all me. I guess trying to do the right thing and messing up due to imperfect knowledge is grounds for public beratement. I apologize for trying to help. Nailedtooth 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem really is the fact that you made a whole new pic. If you don't know just tell me i will change it for you. Just provide references when you need change and also when you plan to change it talk about it on the actual pic page.Sparrowman980 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a whole new pic because that's what the upload page at wikimedia commons suggested I do after telling me I couldn't change pics with my new account. So, I followed wikimedia's suggestion and then edited (imperfectly, I will admit) the Nuclear Power page to make it more accurate. Why are we having this conversation? Nailedtooth 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but yes if you need to change it i will be happy to do it for you.Sparrowman980 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

As per here, the following message also goes for you:

You have mangled the List of civilian nuclear accidents article and perpetrated a edit war over the contents.

This was noticed on the administrators' incidents noticeboard.

Please stop editing the article for the time being (talk page is ok and strongly encouraged to work out the dispute peacefully).

And please do not export the conflict to other edits - or use the talk page before removing my additions. Thank you -- Eiland (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That notice was issued to you and only you on your talk page. I cannot fathom why you would try to parrot it here. Nailedtooth (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war has two sides. We have been asked to resolve it on the talk page -- Eiland (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes only one to make war. Only you were given the warning.Nailedtooth (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an edit war takes two. I was given the warning upon your request -- Eiland (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it takes only one to screw up the page. That person was you and - as you have stated - you did it because of personal preference. I bear no blame if I try to fix the problems you caused. Nailedtooth (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "There is no geometry that could cause criticality in the dissolved uranium. It is not fissile." -- would you please prove what you claim? From what I know (and I've actually worked with uranium salts), you're wrong since fissile material doesn't depend on its chemical or macrophysical state to be fissile. --Gvy (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fissile: capable of sustaining a chain reaction of nuclear fission. 75kg of uranium dissolved in 18,000 liters of water is not even remotely capable of sustaining a chain reaction. It is therefore, not fissile. QED Nailedtooth (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to Core damage frequency

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Core damage frequency. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun politics

Hi Nialedtooth: I apologize for reverting you without explanation recently on the Gun Politics in Canada article. I just saw the re-revert and as it was a paragraph about guns rather than about gun politics or law, I reverted. When I say your name, I recalled the many fine edits you had made to the article and felt bad not to have explained my revert. Hope all is well with you. Sunray (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is ill advised. The paragraph you removed is about the maximum legal capacities of firearm magazines which are defined specifically by law in Canada. That makes the paragraph about gun law. Nailedtooth (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have added the connection to gun law. However, it is much to detailed to be of much use. Sunray (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything. The paragraph is unchanged from the first version. The paragraph was always about gun law. Not only is it useful in comparing the gun laws of one nation to another, but it's useful to any Canadians who might need to know if a magazine they possess is legal or not. Nailedtooth (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicking pea

Thanks for correcting my text about Lathyrus. It would be nice to have a reliable source for the name chicking pea for Lathyrus sativus. I haven't found one. --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page there's a link to the Lathyrus staivus article which calls them "chicking peas". In the L.staivus article they are called variations of "* peas" and "chicking *". Even though, a good source would be the best. Perhaps we need to remove both references to "chicking peas" if we can't find one. Nailedtooth (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]