User talk:Theanphibian/Archive2

; Archives
	2005 to 2006-ish; 2007-ish; 2008 to 2009-ish; Recent discussion; Messages from the future; ;

University of Massachusetts Lowell Radiation Laboratory

We had discussed the University of Massachusetts Lowell Radiation Laboratory article months ago - I finally got another source, but it didn't add to much (I only added one sentence). It's from the student newspaper at UML from back in 2001. Take a look; I assume it's good. -Midnightdreary 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Cleanup

FYI... Wikipedia house style is add comments to the bottom of discussion pages. This is done automatically if you use the "+" tab. Happy editing. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gatti

I would suggest reading as much as you can on the history of this debate. We had several hellish months in 2005 that I'd like to forget. But it's good to get caught up on it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I am trying mightily to assume good faith. But coming back and proposing that ridiculous opening paragraph and now opening a RfC without really discussing things for more than a couple of days doesn't show me that he's changed much. This edit as well shows that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been the kicker. I'm anti-nuclear personally. But what he's never understood is that our goal is a NPOV article. I think that "Writing from the other point of view" is an important part of being a Wikipedian. But he always wants "the truth" when it says all over the site that we're not here for "the truth". We're here to make an factual NPOV encyclopedia. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It is amazing how many people don't understand that idea. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test -[[User:Theanphibian|Theanphibian <sup>([[User talk:Theanphibian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theanphibian|contribs]])</sup>]] 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox request

Howdy. I noticed you posted an infobox request[1] for US research reactors. Did you still want that? I may be able to craft one for ya; I recently made my first, for U.S. bills, as seen here, and I'd like to get some more experiance. Anyways, let me know. --Xiaphias 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC article

Thought of you when I saw this one... Japanese fears over nuclear power regards, Johnfos 05:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh

Image:Kashiwazaki-Kariwa monitoring.jpg will have to be locally uploaded: Websites are 99% of the time copyrighted (If they're commercial (EG. TEPCO), you can round to 100%) and Commons absolutely refuses to accept "Fair Use". 68.39.174.238 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've made a few edits that seem legit (to me), check them out. Also, now that this image is here, it needs to be removed from Commons per copyrights, etc, etc. Since you're the uploader, you can more easily request a deletion (IE. You wont have to go through the whole "Notify the uploader and wait to see if they object" part of the deletion system). Also, check out {{Non-free media rationale}} for giving fairuse rationales. Specifically, can the screenshot be cropped any? I can't read Japanese, but if the stuff on the left-hand side isn't entirely relevant, it could be removed and the smaller image uploaded over the current one. 68.39.174.238 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the navigation on the left actually useful for anything as far as "identification and critical commentary" of the event? Put it this way, if it was taken out and a native or near native Japanese reader looked at the resulting image, would it be blatantly obvious that there was something missing? As to scaling down resolution, that's mostly applicable for things like fairuse photographs where you can downgrade the quality while still maintaining the recognizability of the subject. In this instance, it's all (thin and complex character) text and very simple graphics. As to the educational cartoons (For lack of a better phrase), they don't seem to be present here except for the annoying animated rain/raincloud. I wouldn't worry too extensively about it. Also, I note that MP-7 is still errored out on their site ; 68.39.174.238 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. On Commons, I think you can just use the "delete" or "copyvio" tag and add as the optional parameter something like "Uploader requested deletion (on the grounds that it's a copyright violation)" or some such, I don't think they have a template for such things. Anyway, if you're concerned with the fair use state of it you can crop the left part out, if nothing else it would be a show of good faith in the extremely unlikely even that TEPCO or someone tried to test the fair use of it. As to the one still being out, I just mentioned that offhand. Finally, personally, I don't doubt the legitimacy and usefullness of this image. 68.39.174.238 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of Brokdorf Nuclear Power Plant

Maybe I was a tad trigger-happy adding the citation tags. I was imprsessed how quickly you sorted it though! I had a go at trying to sort out the Unterhaching page. What a nightmare. Would appreciate your input on that if you do german translation articles a lot, as it is a bit thread-bare! Cheers Toon 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittle Power

I was thinking about what you wrote on the Intermittent power source page recently, and thought you might be interested in the book Brittle Power cheers, Johnfos 09:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK nuclear plant location map

Hey, thanks for your hard work! I just want run some style guidelines for the location maps by you that I've been using.

Notably, for multiple plants or different kinds of plants in the same location, I've been trying my absolute hardest to not clutter the map with more names than we need. For instance, if there is a location with 2 plants very near to each other that are "Plant A" and "Plant B", my ultimate plan for the map is to have one name on the map that says "Plant A, B" with Wikilinks on each A and B.

Sure, in some cases this may be impossible. For instance, it's discovered that Ao Ling and Daya Bay are physically separated by half-a-mile, but use different technology and completely independent, then yeah, one will have to go on the right with the other on the left. However, if we ever get more than that, we've reached the limitations of the Location map template (a good reason to keep things compact as possible when expanding). Anyway, I'm sure you'll develop you're own likes and dislikes with them as well. Happy editing. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite relaxed about the maps. Your guidelines regarding the map is good - for example Hunterston A and B are very close together - however are operated by two separate organisations under separate site licences. Will be interested when considering the Bruce site in Canada as the whole site is operated Bruce POwer - expect Douglas Point (the prototype Candu). Bruce A and B are around 3km apart.

Returning to Scotland, and Hunterston A and B. They are different technologies with Hunterston A having operated with Natural Uranium and producing saturated steam, whilst Hunterston B operates with enriched fuel and produces superheater steam. As a result of the history of the UK nuclear programme, most stations are different and have their own notable features. For example, Hunterston A was designed to be refuelled from underneath. Hunerston B (with its close cousin - Hinkley Point B) was the first AGR that was designed to be refuelled on-load.

--Stewart 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the map, I have added Culham and Harwell to the list, I will leave it to you to sort out the best presentation for the map. A number of the UK sites are dual facility sites with a twin reactor MAGNOX (shutdown - being decommissioned) and a twin AGR (still operational) - namely Hunterston, Hinkley Point, Dungeness and Sizewell. How you represent a purple and a red spot I do not know and will be a real challenge. --Stewart 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear energy (or power) in {country} category

The aim is to use matrix structure of categories for systematic approach of energy related articles. Category Nuclear energy in country X belongs to category:Energy in X as also to Nuclear energy by country. This way you get there by both ways: strating with thematic energy topic or starting with energy by countries. It is agreed previously that you may have a category only for one article if it helps systematic approach. There is some overlapping with category Nuclear technology. However, nuclear energy is a broader term than nuclear energy, and again the logical linking to the energy is needed. I think in case there is category: Nuclear technology in country X, the category: Nuclear energy in country X should be classified also as subcategory of this.Beagel 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky question. Both categories are appropriate, and I probably would use both. But if only one category, I really don't knew.

Excuse me for intruding on your conversation, but I just came across your discussion.

The main 'energy' category above 'Nuclear energy in {country}' is 'Nuclear power by country' and when the initial countries were added to it they used the format 'Nuclear power in country'. Perhaps changing the categories that use 'Nuclear energy in {country}' to 'Nuclear power in {country}', to align with the higher category, would help?

'Nuclear technology in (country)' was generally being used for military and other non-power-related uses, although there probably weren't that many nuclear power articles to categorize...

Gralo 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German plant

hi Theanphibian, i have translated the template in violation of the first rule of translation: "Never translate in something as your native language". please take a look. note that the name German plant is misleading it is a general description for power plants. A1000 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittent power source

Hey friend! As you can see, I gave it a little while and took another stab at that article. I know I was a little rash with my first comments, but I make a point to just on the talk page and write my first impressions of an article I'm new to, without going through the article's history, just so I give the "new eyes" view of it.

I was surprised to see a lot of active editors working on that, so I'll try to help it along a little more. In particular I'm interested in adding info about peaking units and a decent section on hydro. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make me smile. -- Johnfos 07:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Power companies

hi Theanphibian, i fixed a c&p error in Shikoku Electric Power Company can you check the jap. characters ? btw: the picture in Template:Japan nuke plant map contains an error you omitted the 'hokuriko' area and merged it with chubu. A1000 08:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join projects related to the Energy Portal

Hi Theanphibian. I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the energy portal. If you wish to show your support (and to automatically add yourself to the list of Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal), you might also like to paste one of these user boxes onto your user page (according to your colour preference!):

Paste this text...

...to get this tag

This user is plugged into the Energy Portal.

Beagel 19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace

Why are you deleting Greenpeace from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant article? They are not there because they add a reference, they are there because they are notable. 199.125.109.46 07:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M Nuclear Science Center

Hi there! Thank you for writing this article. We at WP:TAMU (which you are more than welcome to join) appreciate it. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

There is a reply to a topic at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Infoboxes.3F. — Tirkfl 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeling erroes at Talk:Trans-Mediterranean_Renewable_Energy_Cooperation

Per WP:TPG, I've reverted your corrections. I know you meant well, but sometimes even the errors convey useful information. In this case, they show that the writer obviously is not a native speaker of English -- and thus, quite possibly, is related to the subject of the article with the WP:COI implications that follow. Raymond Arritt 03:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move

the czech page was moved... as you requested --Whitmorewolveyr 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

electric utilities map of Japan

hi, you have a nice working speed much faster than mine :) but on your map sado is light blue = Tokyo Electric i guess that is a mistake ? NTL thanks for the map. A1000 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for formatting the ANS article

This is the first time I've edited anything on Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure of the formatting. You made the ANS article look really good. Again, thanks!

ANS staffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.45.190 (talk) 23:26, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 06:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]