James, there is a discussion ongoing on the talk page of Uranium trioxide if the image taken from Cotton's book is suitable. It is here. So far three people (including myself) say that it is not suitable. It's all good arguments and unanimous, so I removed the picture. Instead of going against consensus and putting it back in please participate in the discussion there if you want it kept. Dr Zak18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, I am getting ready to engauge in some graphic design using POVray. I need to don my bohemian clothing and get in touch with my artistic side first (but I refuse to hack away at my ear). Please could you tell me if you have any thoughts on the diagram which you would like to share with me before I draw it.
Would you like spacefilling sized atoms, small ball like atoms or anything special ?
Please if possible could you give me details of the papers by Pyykkö which are on the subject of the UO3 molecules, I have seen them mentioned in the talk page but I have not been able to find the citation.Cadmium20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, I saw this pair of papers and I thought of you. I know that you are interested in DU shells, and that while you have written a lot about them hitting hard objects and burning. I have not seen you write much about them landing in soft earth and then being subject to corrosion.
Uranium + water reaction. Part 1.—Kinetics, products and mechanism
M. McD. Baker, L. N. Less, S. Orman, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1966, 2513-2524
DOI: 10.1039/TF9666202513
Uranium + water reaction. Part 2.—Effect of oxygen and other gases, M. McD. Baker, L. N. Less and S. Orman, Transactions of the Faraday Society, 1966, 62, 2525 - 2530
DOI: 10.1039/TF9666202525
Hi there. I assume you know this already, but you might want to review WP:3RR, which says that nobody can revert something more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. You and I have each reverted the tag on Cold fusion twice now, so we get one more each. Personally, I'd much rather discuss the reasons for the tag more—I don't think this "give me a complete essay immediately on all the article's problems or I'll revert you" line you've taken is very constructive. In fact, it's an example of the biggest problem in dealing with the article—that any changes or suggestions I make are rapidly overwhelmed. -- SCZenz19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear James, please could you tell me what you think of the cold fusion subject. I have looked at the talk page quickly, but it was not clear to me what what the dispute is about. I do not know if you want to enlughten me. I know that it is possible to cause fusion in electric discharge tubes. Some neutron activation workers use a D-T fusion reaction which occurs in the metal target of a discharge tube rather than using a normal reactor, or a radioactive neutron source such as Am/Be or Cf.Cadmium20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I can see what you might be thinking, one worry I have is about the quality of some journals. When you say that papers considering cold fusion are getting published, are these in journals which deal only with cold fusion and things which are considered by the bulk of the science community to be far out stuff or are these papers in journals which deal with plenty of other stuff. One worry I have about cold fusion is that the people who do the experiments tend to do it up close and personal, I worry that any fusion device which could get warm or hot will be a strong gamma and neutron source. If I was to be experimenting with any fusion device I would want to stand behind a tank of zinc bromide soluble or dare I say it uranium oxide loaded concrete (one use of DU). Please could you tell me why if the cold fusion experiments work why have they not irradated the living daylights out of the experimenters.Cadmium21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I understand why the D-D fusion event would make He-4 rather than He-3 + n, but until I fully understand the subject (or consult an expert) I will take your word for it. About the Bremsstrahlung, I know that the Bremsstrahlung effect can be a strong photon making process. Do you know if the Bremsstrahlung emission seen in these experiments is stronger in the electrochemical experiments using Pd electrodes than it is in those cold fusion experiments where ultrasound or some other means of causing fusion in the bulk of a liquid is used ?
I know that if a strong beta source (such as 90Sr) is placed in a Pb pot then plenty of photons of gamma type energy will be generated while if the pot has a polystyrene inner pot which covers the source then the photon production will be much less.Cadmium22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought long and hard about it, and it does appear that even if the work of Fleischmann is discounted as being untrustworthy that after 1995 some work on the subject did appear in a trustworthy chemical journal (which does agree with the hypothesis of Fleischmann). (D. Gozzi et. al., Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 1998, 452, 253). I would say that while it would be unreasonable to state that just becuase something is in a peer reviewed journal it has to be right (plenty of papers are shown 20 years later to be wrong), I think that the fact that such a paper has appeared does suggest to a reasonable scientist (science version of the legal fiction of the imaginary reasonable man) that however remote the majority of scientists view cold fusion that it still has some supporters within the science community. As a result I think it should be noted on the cold fusion page that while the majority of scientists might reject the idea of cold fusion that experiment and debate continues (feel free to paraphrase this). I also think that you should mention a fusion device which is well known and has been used for many years is the D+T reaction which occurs inside a gas discharge tube.[1]Also some work has been published on the idea of using a neutron source to detect landmines, one suggested neutron source would be a D-T neutron source.[2][3].
I thought that you might be interested in a relatively new form of mine detection, do you want to know more about it ? A review of the subject can be found at www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull432/article4.pdf Cadmium
I was displeased to see that ER MD has made a vile personal attack upon you, I have given him a gentle bit of my mind. I can not say that we see eye to eye over much, but we make a point of not subjecting each other to such vile remarks. I have looked at his user page and what he writes does not make me want to like him, if I was you try and avoid having too much to do with him (he is not the worth the time of day IMHO !)
On a more positive side, I have started to add content on the detection of bombs/mines by neutron based systems. It is currently in an early stage but it is showing promise. If you want to get stuck in then feel free to.Cadmium16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me, James has made PLENTY of personal attacks and his editing of capital punishment borders on vandalism. I don't care for ER MD's style, but James is far from an innocent puppy. YellowPigNowNow18:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, I meant that you get just as personal when it comes to ER MD, and you make similar comments to the ones he makes. Thus, if his comments are personal attacks, so are yours.
You're not inserting POV garbage into just capital punishment. You're also doing it to shock and awe. I'm not going to edit shock and awe, because you would probably consider that harassment (and trust me, someone else will come by and change it; it's way too obvious for someone else not to notice), but I will continue to watch capital punishment, because I contributed to that article first and discovered your little changes after the fact. It's obvious you are an activist, but wikipedia is not the place for such protest.
I don't know if it's just the fact that you can't see how your change to the introduction of CP distorts it and makes it biased, or if you are intentionally trying to frame the debate. Either way, it's getting tiring. YellowPigNowNow19:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, I've been following capital punishment for weeks, and I've read the history comments, the user talk pages, as well as the article talk page. Please don't act like a victim. You can dish it out pretty well yourself. You do have a habit of slanting articles to the left. I have no doubt that you know your chemistry and math, as do I, but putting your personal bias into articles just isn't appropriate. I'm trying to resolve this amicably. As I've demonstrated, I'm entirely willing to discuss the idea of the so-called wrongful killing rate, but any changes must not come at the expense of the quality of the article. YellowPigNowNow19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you do me a favour, could you have a quick look at Goiânia accident for me. I know that you have a rather different view of the nuclear/radiation industry/sector to me. So I would value your thoughts on the subject, I think that what I have added is NPOV stuff such as dose data but please could you check to see if the article is NPOV or not (also please look to see if I have made some silly error).Cadmium
If you are interested in becoming the chairman, the chief executive or councillor please add yourself, and a statement, to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections.
You have been blocked for 3RR again, this time for 48 hours, due to the fact that you were just blocked for the same thing two days ago. Please don't continue! --Heah?03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove warnings and whatnot from your talk page! this is considered very bad form, and other conversations on this page are relevant to a decision to unblock or not, not just my block message. I checked the diffs, and it was a 3rr vio; please be aware that a revert is a revert, "in whole or in part", as it says at WP:3RR. if the general effect was to revert, despite a difference in phrasing or something, it's still a revert. you can move the unblock to the top of the page if you want, but it doesn't really matter; the template puts you in a category of people requesting to be unblocked, and you will be seen no matter where the template is. --Heah?04:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking another look at this, and I'm sorry that just leaving the most recent block message and the unblock request was bad form, I won't do that again. Would you please explain exactly what you consider to be a revert "in part?" I don't understand how replacing disputed sections with completely re-phrased versions of the same text can be considered a revert -- if that were the case then no attempt to reach compromise language in a content dispute could not be considered a revert, could it? --James S.04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user has requested to be unblocked. The reason given is: Dr Zak claimed that I reverted to this version number 49038856. However, the diffs he provided were not to that version, they were simply diffs against the immediately previous edit. I was very careful to re-phrase the contentious statements. If you actually take the diffs of the page against version 49038856 which Dr Zak claims I reverted to, you get these: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. As you can see, none of those are reverts, and the phrasing is changed on the contentions statements in an attempt to find a compromise. Please unblock me. Administrators: If there is a legitimate reason to remove the block, please do so; otherwise, please leave a note to that effect on the user's talk page. In either case, please remove this template once you're done. User: If the block message says that your IP address is blocked or that your IP address was recently used by a blocked user, please paste the block message below.
Compromise is found on talk pages, not in the repeated revert warring in which you are engaged. Even a casual reading of the diffs shows you re-adding the "Uranium as a gas" paragraph; minor rephrasings do nothing to evade the 3RR (thank goodness). You are rapidly digging yourself a very, very deep hole. Have you considered taking a break for a while to think things through? Nandesuka04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been participating in detail on Talk:Uranium trioxide. I changed the phrasings of the disputed paragraphs, twice, in hopes that the other parties would not object to them in their other forms. I have been involved in several content disputes which were resolved when someone edited a compromise version on the article without proposing it on the talk page first. Thank you for your advice, but I really don't think you have my best interests at heart. --James S.04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. first off, you certainly seem like a good faith contributor; you don't seem like you're here to be a troll, but to add legitimate scientific info to articles. but you seem to somehow get yourself into a lot of conflicts with people in doing so, and i really think you should examine your edit patterns to learn how to avoid this. It isn't good for anyone, you or us or the pedia, if you have good info to add but keep getting yourself into disputes. Secondly- no, it isn't really your best interest that we have at heart, but that of the encyclopedia. However, if you have good info to add, it's obviously much better for the pedia if you can add it rather than getting yourself into trouble!! Which, in turn, is better for you . . .
If you look at the diffs, the wording of each paragraph was changed, but apparently the dispute had something to do with the nature of the combustion of UO3 itself, and in that regards your edits differed little from version to version. you worded it differently, but the claims being made and the effect of the versions was the same from time to time.
The way to work out the wording of such contentious subjects is on the talk page, as nandesuka says!!! If your re-wording isn't working, you really should take it to the talk page and reach a compromise there. after that, you can add the consented upon version. That's what talk pages are there for, reaching consensus; you can't really do that through revert warring and edit summaries.
Please think about it, no matter whose interests we have at heart . . . Like i said, you really seem to want to help out and add legit info in good faith, but you keep finding yourself in trouble. I'm sure there is a way you can figure out to avoid that.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Heah. You're right, I'm in a huge amount of trouble -- I'm not sure whether you know that there is an arbitration proceeding, essentially against me, brought by nuclear power and military depleted uranium munitions proponents who don't like the fact that I've been reporting facts from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature. Am I a conspiracy theorist if I say that the issue here is not so much the way I edit but the fact that I've been insisting on adding uncomfortable truths, in particular that when uranium burns it produces poison gas? Nobody has a problem saying that it produces poison dust when it burns, but poison gas raises legal issues. That's really what the issue on Uranium trioxide is about. Anyway, thanks for taking another look. I'm sorry that I can't convince you that my attempts to change the phrasings of the disputed statements to reach a compromise don't count as bona fide reverts. That's just the way it goes, I guess. --James S.04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, have you even considered for a moment that maybe the issue is the way you edit? Seriously. Have you given that possibility serious thought? Because I'll tell you: I know nothing about depleted uranium, and really don't care about the issue at all. What I care about is that, as near as I can tell, you are trying to damage the encyclopedia by consistently violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Nandesuka05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you had evidence supporting that absurd personal attack, I'm sure you would have already added it to arbitration evidence. Take our interaction at Capital punishment today -- we apparently reached a compromise. I know you think that my stating the obvious about what the facts that more than a person a year was exonorated by DNA evidence and that such evidence isn't available in most capital cases imply, but I capitulated. And then you got upset at calling wrongful execution a miscarriage of justice, which it is by definition -- is that what you consider original research? You got angry at me when I was trying to defend myself by displaying a table of authorities at arbitration, and you haven't let up since. --James S.05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never gotten angry at you, James, although I was certainly frustrated by your misbehavior on the arbcom case. Likewise, I wasn't "upset" at your attempts to insert your own opinions into the capital punishment article; I simply rolled back your attempts to put it into the article. It's really simple. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia is a tertiary source that publishes verifiable information from reliable sources. Your opinions on what are or are not health risks or miscarriages of justice are not encyclopedic. Not even a tiny little bit. Not even a smidge. If you want to publish original research, then find an encylopedia that encourages and allows it, because this one doesn't. More to the point, this is yet another example of you personalizing a discussion. I'm not "attacking" you -- I'm describing the quality and tenor of your edits to the encyclopedia, the evidence for which is simply overwhelming. You can continue to believe that everyone who criticizes you is a paid shill of the nuclear industry, in which case I suspect you'll end up permanently banned from Wikipedia in a month or so, or you can accept that many, many people see the way your interact as problematic and change your behavior, in which case you might be able to continue to be a valuable contributor. The choice really is yours. But playing wikilawyer is not going to help you at all. Nandesuka05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is "you are trying to damage the encyclopedia by consistently violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV" not a personal attack? Again, if you had such "simply overwhelming" evidence, you would have stated it. The other editors of depleted uranium, capital punishment, and similar articles who support my work apparently have a different opinion. If you "know nothing about depleted uranium" then how can you say that the information I've been adding about health risks aren't supported by peer-reviewed sources -- which they in fact are? A wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice by definition, it is not a matter of opinion. Your complaints are so transparently a grudge. --James S.06:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to know anything about any given topic to recognize original research when I see it. Tip: when it is James S. (or any other editor) who is drawing the conclusion or -- as you have admitted -- making a syllogism, rather than the source he claims "supports" it, that's original research. Anyone interested in reading the overwhelming evidence of your misbehavior can look at the evidence page of your arbcom case. I am sorry that you are unable to recognize the problems in your behavior. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Best of luck finding one somewhere else. Nandesuka16:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James, why do you say poison gas raises legal issues but suggest that a toxic powder is not subject to the same laws. I think that somewhere an early international law banned the use of toxic gases, it used the word gas. But almost all the standard chemical warfare nasties are not gases at room temperture and 1 Atm. For instance mustard gas is a high boiling point oil as is VX. The G agents are also liquids under the same conditions. I am sure that the use of any of these liquids within war is covered by international laws which outlaw (or greatly limit) the use of chemical warfare despite the fact that they are liquids rather than true gases.Cadmium22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are not registered for voting or nomination in the CJ elections, and would like to remind everyone that all Candidates Must Submit Their Statement By April 23rd. Voting will begin April 24th, and end May 1st. More details on how to nominate yourself can be found HERE.
I hope to see you at the elections!
• The Giant Puffin • 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Proof UO3 is a combustion product of uranium, from osd.mil
...when DU burns, the high temperatures created act to oxidize uranium metal to a series of complex oxides, predominantly depleted triuranium octaoxide (U3O8), but also depleted uranium dioxide (UO2), and depleted uranium trioxide (UO3) (AEPI, 1995; CHPPM, 1998).... -- http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en017/mr1018_7_chap1.html
AEPI, 1995 = "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army," Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Champaign, Illinois, June 1995.
CHPPM, 1998 = "Interim Summary, Total Uranium and Isotope Uranium Results, Operation Southern Watch 1998." U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) Project No. 47-EM-8111-98.
That kind of verifiability ought to be a defense against claims of 3RR violation, combined with the fact that the alleged reverts were instead using completely different phrasing in an attempt to find a compromise. So, I'm replacing [[:Category:Requests for unblock]] here. --James S.19:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, James, something you seem to be missing about 3RR is that 3RR does NOT take into account which edits are correct and which are incorrect. It has absolutely nothing to do with what content should be in the article; rather, it has to do with how many times you reverted, whether these were legit, good faith edits or not. So proving that your content should be in the article in no way works as a defense when violating 3RR. again, the only time 3RR does not apply is when reverting clear and obvious vandalism. What you are dealing with is a content dispute, not vandalism; so again, in your situation, there is no defense. you have reverted more than three times in 24 hours, and that's that. nothing more to it. This is why it frankly doesn't matter whether or not uo3 is combustible; I also know virtually nothing about uranium and uranium combustion. What i do know is how 3RR works, and you have violated it.
Have you listed this stuff on the talk page? have you taken this to a relevant WikiProject for discussion there? Because when you are able to edit again, that is what you need to do. If you return to revert warring, you will be blocked again, even if your content is correct. So you need to engage some people in discussion, get them to see your side, and then re-insert the information with concensus. I highly doubt that everyone working on these articles is a stooge of the nuclear industry, and if your interpretations of the scientific data are correct, you should be able to demonstrate this to some of the scientists that are knowledgable in the field and editing here at wikipedia.
So please read WP:3RR, because I really don't think you're understanding the purpose and use of the policy.
Commented out category, as noted read WP:3RR it's about preventing edit warring, your actions were edit warring regardless of who is right and who is wrong. If there is a dispute resolve it constructively. --pgk(talk)20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, I saw a paper which I think has a very rare point of view. It is in a refereed journal (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) but I am not sure many people will be able to believe the results (I am not in a great rush to accept the findings of the paper as I have doubts about it).[4] This is not the first time the idea has appeared in press. I would like to know how we should address the problem of is a paper in a refereed journal trustworthy or not ?.Cadmium13:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I view it the jury is still out over the linear dose vs. degree of harm effect for ionizing radiation. I know that a small dose of gamma rays or cadmium does have a slight protective effect in animals on later exposure, but that is for acute effects only. I think that experiments are still being done on the effect of dose rates and other things with regard to the induction of cancer, I know that in the cold war both the west and the soviets did a lot of radiation biology to try to work out what would happen in a nuclear war to people, plants and animals (much of this work was using large doses looking at acute effects in animals and people). I think that it would take a total nightmare dose it to cause acute effects in trees and herbs.
I sent you the reference to the Co-60 in rebar paper to help us consider how we deal with papers which go against the view that the majority of the science community take. I think that low level radiation can be bad, in India a beach exists where the sand is almost pure ThO2 it has been said by some NGOs that the dose from the sand is having a baneful effect upon the local people.
Thanks for explaining that point about the legal matters of gas vs solidCadmium
James please could you tell me what you think about the low temperture oxidation (corrosion) of uranium metal. I think that to date the debate here has concentrated only on high temperture corrosion (burning in air).Cadmium
I recently joined Community Justice and commend ComputerJoe on this creative, warm and critical initiative. There is no reason for conflict if effective, friendly communication is present by both sides. Communication = understanding, understanding = respect and tolerance. At the very least parties can agree to disagree with a smile.
I am presently coordinating a team of civil advocates for my RfC addressing personal attacks and harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her personal attacks and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Woggly. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes,IsraelBeach10:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, various notices regarding Community Justice have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual newsletter. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...!
In the last meeting, the conduct of 4 members was discussed. Ethnopunk will be put on probation, supervised by Ian13, if he/she is incivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from WP:CJ; the same was decided for Misza13 (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by Computerjoe. No action will be taken against Computerjoe.
Barnstar
The Civility Barnstar which our members have designed has been sent to Barnstar and award proposals. We'd appreciate your feedback!
Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to WT:CJ!
Name and logo change
There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at WT:CJ nor at WT:CJ/M/1. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time.
Programs
We are going to try to create programs to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at WT:CJ. We will try to work with WP:ESP on one of these programs, at some point in the future.
Thanks!
Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CJ or come into our IRC channel [5].
Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to User:Robchurch, a non-member who assisted in making {{tracker}} redundant, as well as Misza13 for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previous council.
Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp2321:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.
If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.
I ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in my case, because whether my editing behavior was appropriate or not (and I re-assert that it has been, now that we know for scientifically-established fact that half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor) my edits have improved the quality of the encyclopedia, and my detractors' edits have damaged the factual accuracy of the encyclopedia.
Please do not understate the importance of this issue. Many people look at Wikipedia, and many people try to make Wikipedia and the rest of the web say that depleted uranium munitions have no serious lasting effect. If I remain blocked from editing, that hurts more than my desire to bring truth to light. Perceived insults will be forgotten over time, but chromosome damage can affect millions of generations. I beg the committee to choose accuracy and truth for the Uranium, Depleted uranium, Uranium trioxide, and Gulf War Syndrome articles, and for the people who read them, and for the decisions those people make, because those decisions will affect all of us, if they have not already.
I ask only that the remedy be modified allowing me to make this edit and other correctional edits to that section of Uranium at this time, including re-uploading that image of page 836 of this document which has apparently been deleted, and whatever other modifications the committee thinks just.
((unblock|per above request, which has also been emailed to arbitration clerk Thatcher131, and to edit my own user page because Image:CS70-836.gif has been deleted.))
James, you should be able to edit your own user page as well as your talk page. In another day the block will expire and you will be free to amend or refile your request to modify your arbitration remedies. You do not seem to be restricted from editing the uranium article talk pages. If you make suggestions there and request that editors include your information and corrections and they do not, you can file a Request for comment; the article form of RFC directs users to the article talk page where you and other editors lay out your arguments and then solicit comments from the editors who respond to the RFC. If there is support for including your information in the article you should be able to get someone from the talk page to do it for you. There are also a number of "Wikiprojects" on science topics you could look for and ask for their help. Thatcher13101:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:TDC, I have cautioned TDC to be more careful in the future. I want also to remind you, however, that you are banned from depleted uraniumand associated articles. By creating that link that TDC deleted, you were creating an association that would keep you off the article. Admittedly, of course, that is a technicality, and I would not ban or block you for it, but it is probably something you should keep in mind in the future. Happy editing, Bucketsofg14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.
The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.
With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!
Read the policy carefully. The purpose of article discussion pages is discussion of the article itself, not the subject of the article. So Talk:Capital punishment is intended for discussion of the "Capital punishment" article (problems, improvements, proposed additions and so forth), not capital punishment itself. Thanks – Qxz18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we determined that "Tornado", "Tornado Outbreak" and "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" were all part of event names and hence should be capitalized...I noticed you have moved quite a number of events...that may require some discussion. CrazyC8321:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the context that they are proper nouns because they are part of the event name, not a general descriptor. Like when well-known names like "Super Outbreak" and "Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak" come up, those are always capitalized as they are the names used well. In this case, the same rules apply, even though the names are not well-used in the media - the entire line is the name of the event, not just the date or region. CrazyC8300:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community Justice Newsletter 
NEWSLETTER
