User talk:Chopduel

Welcome

Hello, Chopduel, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

March 2010

Your edits on ICBM

I presume you're the same IP editor formerly known as User:87.68.152.211 who originally added the Iran materials to ICBM.

Please read the article and technical sources on missiles... An ICBM is a ballistic missile with a range of greater than 5,500 kilometers, able to reach to far continental or inter-continental distances.

None of Iran's missile systems have ICBM like range. The longest range models which have been announced or test flown have ranges in the 2,000 km band. The Sajjil downrange impacts were all in the 1,950 km range band, and the Shahab-3 MRBM variant with lighter warhead reached an equivalent 1,930 km range band in the 2008 test.

The Shahab-4, Shahab-5, Shahab-6, and Project Koussar are hypothetical or paper missiles. There's no identified example of test firings of rocket motors, test stands to conduct test firings on, or vehicles under integration. Nobody has seen a RD-216 engine being wheeled around one of their factories or test facilities. I've spent a lot of hours staring at photos of Iran's test facilities and rocket plants, and there's no evidence of the infrastructure there for the bigger missiles.

Entries in the article's list have to have some reasonable technical basis for inclusion. Please don't add entries without sources which stand up to current scrutiny. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it says "possibly under development" in the article, besides, there was a source posted in the discussion page which indeed confirmed that some kind of development is taking place, and multiple sources do suggest that the range might be that of an ICBM 85.250.196.17 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed there are from the 1990s and no missiles have emerged. What they are working on actively - they have disclosed and showed off. Multiple 2,000 km models, including Sajjil (solid motors instead of liquid). But nothing with longer ranges, unless you count the much larger space launch vehicle design, which is too big for an ICBM (and has too small of an upper stage for a useful one). Sources making hypothetical claims in the 1990s, which did not come true in the 2000-2010 time frame, should now be discounted. What Iran is actually doing now must be supported by recent sources. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the guy that tried to remove it earlier quoted a source that only proved the existence of models and mockups. it's obvious Iran wouldn't release anything on weapons that are being developed, yet many sources point to that fact. therefore, Iran should stay on that list, at least with an "(possibly under development)" addition to it. Also this is consistent with all other Wikipedia articles on Iran and missiles/WMDs. Chopduel (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entries here for Iran, Pakistan, and India are all improper, as none of those projects has any serious technical intelligence available. I've removed them in the past and people keep sneaking them in over and over again.

The burden of proof is on people including information, to provide credible sources for that information.

There are credible sources from the mid-1990s that alleged that Iran was working on these missiles. But what we now know factually to be true, including their more recent missiles and much better intelligence and imagery on their program and test sites and so forth, doesn't support the more alarmist allegations. There are no newer credible sources alleging ICBM projects, because we know more now, and possibly because Iran has gotten a more concrete development program and is no longer doing plans for vehicles it can't actually reasonably build in any reasonable near term.

Repeated improper inclusion here comes from two sources - one, Iranian, Pakistani, and Indian zealots trying to play up their national pride, and two, the Israeli, US, and Pakistani and Indian zealots in opposition to those missile programs, trying to play them up to make those countries look excessively like agressors.

I am plenty frightened of TELs of Sajjil missiles in bunkers in central Iran, which are credible right now, without making up imaginary Shahab-5 and -6 models which they clearly aren't building at the moment.

You're clearly in Israel, and have the tendency to inflate the threat to make Iran look like an aggressor. This is a pattern we've seen before. Please stop this behavior, it's disruptive to the encyclopedia and violates a number of our policies. If there's a newer credible source arguing for ongoing large missile work in Iran, you can post that. Otherwise, please stop pushing this agenda.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing any agenda. If you feel that that the whole "Under Development" section should be removed, go ahead. But I don't see a reason why Iran constantly gets removed either by muslims or liberals. Iran was on the list before I even found the article and I re-added it because someone removed it. You don't see me removing Israel or changing it's entry (even though the ranges mentioned there are fictional and don't even show up in the cited sources), because I simply don't care, but when people are suddenly trying to remove anything Iran-WMD related from the internet because of all the hype lately, it just turns Wikipedia into some propaganda site. Chopduel (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently in the way of an actual reasonable cleanup (removal of missiles which cannot reach 5,500 km) by way of continually re-adding material which is false or misleading to the Iran section. I can't get to the others (and Israel, Pakistan, and India need to go, along with Iran) until you stop disrupting things.

You are clearly pushing an agenda, as were the people who created those sections. I have no interest in minimizing anyones' WMD projects - google my name if you doubt that. I've spent hundreds of hours in the last two years looking at satellite photographs of Iranian weapons sites, North Korean weapons sites, Myanmar's nascent nuclear reactor program (I know where the reactor site is there, do you?), and the like. I know things I can't talk about openly about the warheads, too.

If you want to help, stop inserting material which is false. If you want to help, post on the article talk page about other stuff which should be removed.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's been discussed here. The sources mentioning Iran's possible development program are about as credible as the sources for any other development program on that list, and also about some of the countries in the operational list. In my opinion the article is alright as it is, but if you think the "Under Development" section must go altogether, I don't mind. It would make sense not to include items which are not 100% confirmed. What bothered me was people removing Iran exclusively while ignoring everything else, and I was simply putting it back on the list. Chopduel (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. πr² (t • c) 02:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GreenFecesBrilliantBlueFCF.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Mercury

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to this article page appears to constitute vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, it is considered impolite to blank your talk page. If it gets too full, you can archive it. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]