|
User talk:NPguy/Archive 1
Your 'correct' interpretationsFirst, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, I am worried that you view all your interpretations and edits as 'correct' whereas everybody else's is wrong. Please remember this is Wikipedia, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to create neutral articles stemming from different interpretations and subsequent debates. However, there are some issues which are simply facts, and your reinterpretation of various treaties (NPT) and UN laws gives rise for concern. Please be more open-minded. Third, if you are indeed a genuine expert in this area, please say so. If not, then please recognize that there may be other editors out there which base their knowledge not on just what they read in newspapers or other news sources, read on opinion pages and the internet. Jsw663 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
List of states with nuclear weaponsI think you might find this interesting if you have not seen it already. KnightLago 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC) List of states with nuclear weapons, reduxThe consensus on the talk page was that we shouldn't just go and remove all those countries again, which you pretty much completely ignored in removing them. Please don't just remove things against consensus like that and tell people not to re-add without consensus. It's insulting to all the other participants. You're welcome to engage on the talk page and shift consensus if you can get support, but edit warring on the page itself is not good for the project. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) The thing to remember is that some countries may not have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean they don't have components of nuclear weapons, or facilities for nuclear war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.252.34 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Edit warsYou're making valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I'm posting this in the hope that you will continue to do so. One of the frustrations of trying to contribute to this entity is getting emotionally involved with strange people who have already gotten emotionally involved in reverting your perfectly reasonable edits. Please do remember that when the articles you are editing are important ones (and you seem to have excellent taste in choosing out such articles), those articles will still be there for you to edit in a week, in a month, in a year. The weirdo who has decided to revert your perfectly reasonable edit will have lost interest in the important article you are trying to improve in such a length of time, and will have gotten involved in edit warring with someone who is trying to make a perfectly reasonable edit to an article about a video game or a teevee show, if you can just wait, and move on in the meantime to some other important article that the weirdo who is currently frustrating you hasn't taken any notice of. Keep up the good work, and let the weirdos drop off your hide. You can review your edit history in a week's time, in a month's time, in a year's time, and see the old edit wars where someone once tried temporarily to frustrate your efforts to improve Wikipedia. It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. I've been trying in my own small way to improve Wikipedia for years, as have many other editors. Although indeed one can engage in many heated exchanges over the course of a few hours here, this is really a slomo process, and improvements come slowly, but steadily. Illegitimi non carborundum. And by the way, I know it doesn't have much to do with nuclear proliferation, but Boiling water reactor is in a sorry state of affairs, and seems to be attracting zero attention from edit-warring weirdos. --arkuat (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Indo-US civilian nuclear agreementPerhaps, fair enough. I can't even access the source, but I was going on your last comment for the edit. Just b/c it had 1 source was nto valid to detail. But can you by any chance post the unreliable sources just to confirm it is in fact invalid? Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Reply to comment on my talk page (Canada eager for nuclear cooperation with India (?))I was agreeing with you when I said "fair enough" the first words ont here. im not asserting either way. I was simply asking if you could post the stuff here since I couldn't access the file. I didn't even seek to edit this after your kind explanation. i even said it was the first DESCRIPTION that seemed dodgy. But i took your word on it when you went ahead to explain. Why you getting defensive? I was not attacking you in any way, i was in fact supporting your civil explanation. The location of the press articles doesn't have to with the facts. Its not a nationalistic press wikipedia looks to, that's why i was wondering what source was dubious. In all likelihood it probably was so, I just couldn't read the article. Anyhoo, your response (the one before) was valid enough. Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) NPT listThanks for contacting me, and further still for all your edits and comments. I've replied as best I can on Talk:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty#Map requested and Talk:List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Feel free to contact me for any reason, and I hope I can work with you to make these articles better. Also, if you have any edits or comments for List of Partial Test Ban Treaty signatories and List of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signatories, that would certainly be invaluable. I will probably move these over to …parties… as well. Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Edit war with Ivantheterrible1234If you haven't done so already, could you leave a message on Ivan's talk page warning him about his conduct on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty article? Then we will have satisfied the requirements to Request comment on a user. Thanks. AzureFury (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Now I'm going to wait to see what happens with the RfC I put on the page. I'm half expecting an admin to become involved and block him. Maybe he'll back down when more editors start responding. Otherwise, we can get his IP, or a range of IPs, blocked for the threats of sock-puppetry and personal attacks. AzureFury (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Hyde Act binding IndiaI appreciate your edits in the India-US Nuclear agreement article. The information about "Hyde act binding India" is quite obscure and probably needs some clarification. I would be glad if you could do something about it or point me to some resources where I can find some information. Out of curiosity, I also wonder if it is possible to get a copy of the agreements between India and US. DockHi 04:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
India US nuclear agreementI have suggested an article split proposal on the article talk page. Could you pls throw in your opinion. thanks. DockHi 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) IranYou seem to know a lot about this. Do you think they want to develop nuclear weapons? As I understand it, they've been willing (recently at least) to more than fulfill their inspection obligations. They do seem to have the more secure argument regarding the NPT and their right to nuclear power. Further, diversifying their energy production makes at least a little sense. AzureFury (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
hyde act -- india's soverignity and 123 agreementyour edit incorporates "..except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement".. but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing.. further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE ! further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)! i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so, i am intending to either remove the quoted phrase or restore the previous version - after considering your take on this issue..awaiting your response..(pasting the same on the article's talk page) Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
consensus before reinserting controversial editsregarding indo us nuclear deal, please note that consensus has not been arrived at..further your reply does not seem to reflect the grasp of my objections..please go through them and then justify the choice of words used in your edit (as i have done)..though i have not reverted your edits today(allowing you to modify/revert yourself), please dont revert such controversial edits till you can justify them..Cityvalyu (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Nuclear Program of Iran debateHey, I just wanted to give a quick suggestion. Your arguments with the IP user are intelligently crafted, but they're designed more to disprove him than convince him, especially with the moderately aggressive language. Understandable considering how irate he's been, but he's more likely to stop listening and continue reverting to spite you. We know how aggressive IP users can be, and indeed a revert is usually interpretted as a slap in the face. I think in this case we'd better be careful to avoid feeding the trolls or things will get out of hand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Hithanks for always helping out with the India and WMDs article by telling me to add the refs and citations. I wanted to talk about India nuclear arsenal. I have given a source that said 60-250 but u disregarded that. I have underlined the same point on the talk page under the section that u recently added. I guess we can continue the talks there. CheersEnthusiast10 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC) RequestDear NPguy, I have twice requested you to change "Mr ..." in an earlier comment of yours to BF. May I ask you for yet another time to comply with my request? On Wikipedia I am not "Mr ..." and expect that you respect my wish. If things are not clear to you, I do not wish that I or my family get harassed or killed by some deranged MEK members. You may also consider to delete this message after having read it. --BF 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
High-level radioactive wasteHi NPguy. You have come to this discussion a bit late. If you examine the history page for that talk page, you will see J-Star has several times changed his edits there to clean them up. For example, his initial comment, shown as revision (last) of 01:45, 31 December 2008 included the statement "and this is - pardon the wording - bullshit!" Not a great way to begin a conversation with anyone, I think you may agree, to refer to their contributions as bullshit. The 17 million year figure is the half-life of Iodine 129 in the lead paragraph of the article, from a referenced and respected source. Iodine 129 is particularly concerning because it is taken up by cattle and found in cow's milk ingested by infants. All of the information there is from verifiable sources, and the article is heavily referenced to scholarly sources. I agree it would have been desirable to keep the discussion all in one place, which it was before J-Star showed up and started placing hostile comments on my personal talk page, in addition to the article talk page, instead of limiting them to the article talk page. I have tried to accommodate his demands by adding material to the article as described above, including references he provided, but some are not useful. And he was not quick to provide them. J-Star appears to be an advocate or employee of either the Swedish agency or the consultant who prepared the report he refers to (I suspect the latter). An agency homepage listing of research performed for that agency is not a credible source on the issues raised in the research. After all, the agency paid for that research. The methodology of such modeling as is reported there has been questioned for many years by Karen Shrader-Frechette (and others) in a series of scholarly publications by respected publishers (e.g., Univ. of California Press). Actually, she has gone much farther in publications cited, questioning the wisdom and public ethics of making official decisions based on such modeling efforts. Some have stated the methodolgy was created because the agencies charged with finding stable geologic strata were unable to do so, and needed justification for using unstable strata. This article does not say that. Trying to maintain a balanced NPOV stance in this article in the face of such ad hominum attacks has been difficult, but I think it is there now. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleting commentsThere's no reason to delete the user's comments at Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Let it be incoherent, people will ignore it as such. Technically, deleting user's comments is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Reference at Nuclear transmutationYou added a ref for the Soddy-Rutherford interchange, which is good - but I don't think the webpage in question would qualify as a reliable source under WP guidelines. I thought i would re-tag it in the hope someone will turn up a good source for this. But I will leave your ref for now as a starting point. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Bush Administration non-proliferation initiativeHi. I agree this content could use a new article but I am unable to make one. I have temporarily placed it on Talk:Global Nuclear Energy Partnership because it seemed at least slightly more relevant there. I would encourage you to just copy and paste the material in to a new article, and to put a brief summary back in Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or Nuclear power in Iran if you find it necessary.--68.251.187.176 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Moves against consensusHi, please do not revert moves which have been made as the result of a move discussion. If you would like to request a new move, you may initiate another move request by following the instructions at WP:RM. If you feel the move discussion was closed in error, you may ask for review by other admins at WT:RM. Thank you,--Aervanath (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pal
--Jack332 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Mohamed ElBaradeiHi, I'm informally mediating a dispute at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei which I thought you may be interested in joining. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.Not one lousy source, all of them. Denying reliable sources (regardless of how many inaccuracies you find) while willingly using propaganda news services to substantiate secondary and primary evidence is extremely frustrating. Especially when users do not provide a rule or guideline justifying their edits. I'm all for "balance." Balance isn't rocket science, we have a rule book on wikipedia that tells us exactly how we are supposed to edit. We must accept the fact that one's personal opinion of a source (or ignorance of sourcing rules in general) should have no effect in arguing balance/neutrality. This is paramount to the entire mediation. We can make plans and organize all we want, but editing-habits have to change if they disagree with BLP guidelines. Does this not seem reasonable, or should everyone be allowed to edit how they wish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Strategic Bombers: indian POV based vandalism of articlesHi Mate Can you please help with protecting these articles from vandalism: The Problem Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M) to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. The above listed articles are continuously vandalized with blatant misinformation, such as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" and "The indian Tu-142 and Il-387 are already fitted with nuclear payload delivery systems", (which we know) are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource. Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M. Please help! For any good reader, this type of systemic misinformation campaign (by large number of indian-orgin users) on an interesting article is very very annoying. Thanks -- Ash sul (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction GA Sweeps: On HoldI have reviewed Iraq and weapons of mass destruction for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Nuclear weapons and IsraelHi, I just saw your last edit on the article whose title is mentioned above. You have deleted a source I provide about that a 1 megaton warhead could easily destory any unprotected electric device in a radius that can cover entire Iran. The source I gave is an obselte one however its estimations regarding the EMP effect of this warhead are still absolutly valid. It seems like you didn't look carefully in it because it contain a figure (in page 30 [1])that show the circle of EMP caused by a 1 MT WH over Iran itself. So, I didn't revert your editing still, but I ask you to come over it again-if it's not too hard for you, as soon as possible, and to return this source. Best--Gilisa (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
former directorSorry about that edit, I had misread the date and thought he was now former. --Curuxz (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC) FYIThe Wikipedia Arbitration Committee unanimously decided on 4 Dec 2005 and on other dates that WP is neutral on the China issue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Principles Quoting ArbCom, As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." and Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China This is FYI, not an argument with you. I am merely the messenger, not the decision maker. User F203 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your response. This is not an issue that I desire to fight over. However, I am interested in following ArbCom's directive. Do you wish to overturn ArbCom's decision? I am willing to discuss this with you and help you find a solution, if you think there is a problem. User F203 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC) NNPT openly possessingHi NPguy. I strongly agree with most of your reverts - recent edits have made it worse by and large. But is this bit you returned really correct: (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970)? France first tested in 1960, China 1964 and I'm pretty sure they had deployed weapons of some kind by 1968. WP China and WMD says bombs deployed in 1965 and WP Strike Force (France) says operational weapons became available in 1964 (though I've not externally checked this). Rwendland (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Range of Agni III'm going to assume you were acting in good faith but for future reference, the range of Agni II is 2,500 km. In addition, the user from the IP area 76.69.xxx.xxx is a chronic vandal with a strong bias who has in the past instated biased and uncited claims while removing reliable citations under the pretense of being "neutral". Vedant (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Khan Labs articleCan you please look at the article again and check the references. None of them back the existence of "Khan Labs", they talk about other topics like AQ Khan's proliferation, etc. After a google search I could find nothing talking about the existence of an organisation within Kahuta Research Laboratories called "Khan Labs". Can I just delete everything in Khan Labs and put the re-direct to KRL? --Hj108 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Luis E. EchávarriHi, NPguy. You removed the Category:International Atomic Energy Agency officials from the Luis E. Echávarri article. I am agree that this category may be someway misleading; however, Luis E. Echávarri is also a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, and therefore by my understanding this category is appropriate. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit to START 2010I've personally met Rose Goettemoeller, and thought her contribution ought to be recognised. But I didn't know the other delegation head's name. So thanks for fixing that. Reading your earlier talk discussions, I'm almost exactly in the same position as you - anonymity helpful. But please do drop a note on my talkpage if you ever want assistance with modern-day conventional armed forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Lead shorteningHi! I posted something here which I was trying to get your input on.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The reactor in DimonaThanks for fixing the grammar here. You also asked for the source to be verified as you couldn't find it online. Here it is in Hebrew online version. I think that what is left, if you want, is another Hebrew speaker to verify it. Regards --Gilisa (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Hey, if you get a chance could you comment on the RFCs at these pages? Thanks! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Revert war on India and WMDJust to make it clear, I have no interest in entering the revert war/content dispute you are having on that page. The only reason I reverted my rollback was simply because my rollback was unintentional. Vedant (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Iranian nuclear. programHey man I just wondered why you keep deleting my stuff from the Iranian nuclear program site, I also wonder why you make personal insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Brazil and weapons of mass destructionHi NPguy. I noticed you reverted all my edits on Brazil and weapons of mass destruction. I honestly do not understand your reasoning, as I added over 20 different credible references to the article. Every single sentence I added was properly sourced. The content of the article was not changed, but reworded - reflecting what the sources state and making the article clearer and easier to understand. It would be more constructive if you discussed any issues on the article's talk page before removing sourced material. Thanks. Limongi (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Niger Uranium ForgeriesHey you're right the section as I left it didn't have proper citations. However the version you returned it to is IMO worse because that is an outright false claim. It says the President was briefed on the results of Wilson's trip and that's not true at all. Moreover the BBC reference is the initial stories that were being run when Wilson first went public, and cites Wilson as the source of the knowledge the President was briefed on Wilson. I hope I don't need to explain why that's wrong. The Senate report a year later ended Wilson's political career and proves that BBC reference a farce. I'm just going to pull that whole paragraph, the story is dead as far as I'm concerned and not worth quibbling over. If you feel like adding content back go ahead but make sure it's factual. Not just verifiable, I could produce 50 versions of that in various media forms. There is one truth. Joe Wilson went to Nigeria. The White House was not directly informed of the results and Wilson claiming he knew otherwise is a lie. Thanks for catching my bad edit, FWIW. It was late and I was tired. Batvette (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency" movedNPguy, I have moved your draft, NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to your userspace, User:NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as this appears to be what you intended. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Indo-US nuclear cooperationarticles on laws (which was the basis for, other info is perfectly fine to add to it) are generally names after the official title. (ive worked on a couple of us laws thats why i though so for this) but i wont object to your revert anyhoo.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sanction pageWhy do you delete my addition to Iranian sanctions page and get personal by calling me a "troll"? MUCHERS22 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well you havent told me 1. Why you edited 2. Why you called me a troll. Could you please do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You know you got your view, if I challenge that, that doesnt make me a troll. And that doesnt give you the power to fully decide what should be said on a specific page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Italicizing the “the” in the New York Times in the article on Mohamed ElBaradeiHi, I see you changed
to
in other words, you changed “The New York Times” to “The New York Times,” on grounds that it is the “standard wiki-link format.” On the talk page of the article in question ( here), I just posed a general question concerning the italicization of the “the” in the names of newpapers. I think we should be consistent throughout the article, regardless of whether the name of the newspaper appears in the main text or in the references; the principle of internal consistency, I think, trumps whatever standard there is on wiki-links. And by the way, is there really a standard for wiki-links concerning this issue? You say that there is; could you give a link to the relevant style or format recommendation page? Reuqr (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
O.K., I see—the point was to remove the underscores in the wikilink, as per the recommendation given here (subsection “Link to another Wiki article”). I am indeed the guilty party for putting the underscores, and so I will fix it. As far as italicizing the “the.” Yes, it is part of the official name of the newspaper, but the Chicago Manual of Style says that it nevertheless should not be capitalized (CMOS 16th edition, 8.168); see here for their reasoning. Of course, we are not obliged to follow the CMOS on this issue, or on any other issue; we are only obliged to be internally consistent. But it is a widely-used style, and they put a lot of thought into their recommendations. So, absent objections from you or others, I'll try to make the article compliant with it whenever possible. (Following your lead, I'll mirror this reply on the talk page of the article.) Reuqr (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC) India and weapons of mass destructionHi :) I hope you don't mind me leaving a friendly reminder to be careful not to let yourself get sucked into a slow-burning edit war, as on the above article. I've now blocked Truth1Please for a week and will happily block them again in future if necessary. However, you've made a fair few reverts on that page yourself - I accept for the best of reasons, but edit warring over content is always against policy. If you find an editor won't discuss their edits, rather than feeling you have no choice other than to revert them, try to get more eyes on the situation. You can always drop a note on my talkpage :) Best, EyeSerenetalk 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Can you change India map.Kashmir is part of India.Make same color to whole Map.Dont show difference in India map for Kashmir.Thanks Gunti Pandu (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Hi NPguy. It's not clear to me if you monitor the talk page at nuclear fuel cycle. I made some further, small edits to your rewrite. I know a great rewrite when I see one and I humbly submit to your expertise. I would like to suggest a few additional changes. I will post them here. If you wish we can move the discussion to the article talk page itself. First, I refer to my original, inferior version that you've since transformed. While being mere garbage, my original section does illustrate some points I wish to make:
I think this will complete what, as a layman, I perceive as the most important points regarding the complete fuel cycle. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I see some activities from you, but no response here. Well, I am not sure how you normally work. If you prefer that I make my raw edits first, then you rewrite them, that's fine with me. I will paste my suggestions here to the article's talk page. I will wait until tomorrow before I act again. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wilson and PlameWhy do you keep reinserting this false claim in the Niger uranium forgeries article? " the CIA had warned the President in March 2002 that Wilson's trip had concluded the claims were unsubstantiated." Okay so you have a source that makes the claim (when Wilson first went public) USE YOUR OWN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. It has been determined by the Senate Intelligence Committee and reported in numerous sources, many of which are also referenced in that article, that no information which came from Wilson's trip ever made it to the White House. Moreover, the claim that the President/White House was told the matter was debunked by Wilson's trip as made by your source does not even cite the CIA official, even though it's BBC that article is shifty as hell and the claim HAS been disproven. See- a little literary flair for a rundown of the whole thing.Batvette (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for removing the gramatical errors unintentionally introduced due to my edits onUS-India civil nuclear agreement.Happy editing. Suri 100 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) RequestFirst, I appreciate for your recent edits on nuclear program of Libya. You are doing a great job for making edits and contributions. In end, I humbly request you to start working on Libyan nuclear program.
Contributor Ironboy-II edit warHe NPguy and Johnfos, I spotted your discussions on the talk page and the reverts in the main article of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although the discussion on the talk page is good (you may want to look into other forms of WP:dispute resolution, it shouldn't be amended by continuous reverting. So I am urging you to stop that, as it is considered WP:edit waring (which holds even if -I didn't assess- it is strictly within the 3 revert rule. Thanks! L.tak (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Nuclear power/nuclear energyThere is a discussion about usage of nuclear power v nuclear energy. As an experienced editor in this field you are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Why would you not want to say why? It seems important.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) India's three stage nuclear power programmeHi NPguy, I appreciate the edits you have made on my initially, shall we say, "jingoistic" comments in the article. I think your edits substantially improved the quality of my own contributions. Unlike you, I am not a nuclear power expert and am only doing this because I think it is critical from the sustainability point of view, besides being quite shamefully far below the mainstream public radar. Anyway, I will be looking to provide more information on the topic in the coming weeks. Hopefully, you will keep editing the contents in a ruthless manner (I mean it) to give it a neutral and expert point of view. Thanks a lot in advance. :) Nashtam (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your consistent high quality edits on this article. I sorely need feedback on this topic from the community and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be many people like you around. I am planning to put in this article for a peer review with a view of obtaining the GA status. Do you think the article is ready yet? Please do give your views on the article's talk page. Thanks again. Charminarin (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Sanctions against Iran -- not reflecting sources
"The United States immediately issued India with a threat of sanctions." "Despite the country's reduction in imports of Iranian oil, India's agreement with Iran that allows the former to pay for nearly half its purchases from the latter in rupees again came under public pressure from Hillary Clinton, who said India was undermining American-led efforts to isolate the country, and argued Indian energy concerns were not merited because replacement sources for Iranian oil were available." That is OK now, yah? Unusually, I didn't like your alteration to the Nuclear program of Iran either—has someone hacked your account? I toned down on both articles as well, let me know if there is still a problem so we can come to an agreement. Best etc.
Nuclear program of Iran IAEA section and subsectionsThanks for cleaning this up. I agree with a past comment of yours that the article is "deeply flawed" and a former edit-war "battleground," but given the news of the world, many people are turning to Wikipedia to provide them with factual information, and having a well-organized article that doesn't have a lot of "tag-cruft" that this section needs this or that kind editing attention helps make Wikipedia look like a more reliable resource on a rapidly developing technical topic of interest to many non-technical readers. Joel Rennie (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) AdditionYou seem to be the person in charge of Iran's nuclear program and some associated articles. Would it be possible for you to add the effects of the sanctions against Iran if you think its relevant?
Fanzine999 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Here's one for the South Korea subsection:
Fanzine999 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Citation TemplateThanks for the notice, I will make sure to do so in the future. --Activism1234 02:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Nuclear_fuel_cycle". Thank you. -- Jpritikin (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Restoring unsourced contentThe material that you restored, on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction, (and that i removed) was not supported by the cited sources. The additional source that was added was added just 2 days back and does not work. You gave no reason for restoring the material. It is a direct quote from a person, and as such, must be very credibly sourced (a citaton needed tag is not sufficient). Hence I am reverting it, unless you can provide a reliable source to back it up. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Puppettheater's editsHi, I saw your comment on User talk:Kurdo777 about Puppettheater's edits. I met User:Puppettheater in real life and I believe that his intentions were good and that he understands the mistakes that he made. His request for unblocking was declined, however. I cannot be totally sure that all his edits were good, because I don't know anything about this topic. So I prefer not to restore his edits myself. It seems, however, that at least some of them referred to acceptable sources, so if you are familiar with it, it would be nice if you would restore the good parts. Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Denied?Where has it been denied? Ha'aretz and Israeli defense minister talked about it, and a "denial" from Washington doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that the wording would be tweaked to "According to Ha'aretz..." I've tried googling it - can't find a denial. Doesn't mean that's not true - just want to see the source... --Activism1234 02:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Iran Task Force/reportI don't have an issue with removing them from being subsections, but the Iran Task Force isn't actually part of the report, so putting it under there is misleading. If you don't want two subsections, I'd suggest making them into two different sections. --Activism1234 03:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear power by countryCategory:Nuclear power by country has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC) SidesWhile I can see your point (re: New START) referring to the two parties of a treaty as "sides" does carry the implication that they're in opposition to one another, I find. You're right, "party" is a better word, I just felt that as it was it read like it was talking about a Cold War-era treaty negotiation. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) India and weapons of mass destructionI have some comment about the changes you reverted at India and weapons of mass destruction. I don't think it is to much of a stretch to include civil nuclear assistance by the soviet union in the early days of the indian nuclear program, as such contribution is always dual-use. More importantly, the cited articles say so. Also, the section clearly mentioned it as a "CIA claim". It only makes the article more comprehensive, so can be included there. Secondly, in your edit comment, you said that the mention of assistance in nuclear propulsion technology "duplicates material in a previous section (submarines)". I am unable to find any such mention in the sections on nuclear submarines. Can you help me spot it? If it is not there, then it must be added. I have more citations, from the PM Manmohan Singh's speech, that acklodegded and thanked the russians for help in the Arihant Nuclear program. Thanks! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Update: I made some new additions. I skipped the mention of the assistance to the civil nuclear program, and added the missing info about contribution to the nuclear submarine reactor program in the relevant sections. I hope this will be acceptable to all parties. Thanks! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 14:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC) You are engaging in an edit warBy deleting the points of view of reliable sources without discuss them on the talk page & undoing reverts, you are engaging in an edit war. If you disagree with with well-sourced material please discuss them on the talk page of the article. And read about Wikipedia etiquette. You can be blocked from editing for engaging in an edit war. KhabarNegar (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) June 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Hossam Mohammed AminHi, I recently came across the article Hossam Mohammed Amin with edits claiming that WMD were found extensively in Iraq and the guilt of Hossam Mohammed Amin added to this article. I initially reverted some of the edits. I subsequently removed the obviously false claims (according to sources) that violate WP:BLP, but I think there are still problems and I noticed that this kind of topic is right up your alley, so do you mind taking a look? Cheers.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I've discussed with another editor about taking User:KhabarNegar to WP:AN/I. Just waiting for her to give us some diffs, advice, etc. If you recall any aggressions diffs or have any comments before we talk with the admins, please let us know. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not hear that Waltz died last month, may he rest in peace. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
what [India] mean??hey npguyy i dint really understand the way of quoting india in '[]' brackets.....!! rather india in bold India seems good enough to understand the stress in the context Alurujaya (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Smiling BuddhaWhy do we not go to mediation? I think we need someone to help resolve it. BernardZ (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your correct and kind behaviourI translated for you some KEY WORDS of the citation about the article "List of the countries with nuclear weapons".I'm not able to present this claim/statement.I think you are more able than me in doing it in the related articles of the nuclear sector.Thanks again.Glc72 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I translated the MAIN WORDS.Deputy says in very clear way the functions at that time in 1969 of the CAMEN and one of them was to produce nukes.So Italy has produced them.0 other possibilities in these official acts.Now it's time to update this claim.Thanks for your very professional and kind acting.Glc72 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC) We must consider only the information of the Deputy to the Minister of the Defence that are official Acts of the Italian Parliament ,the rest is BLA BLA BLA.Thanks.Glc72 (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I will post ACTS OF CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI of 23/01/1969 ,then end of your opinions.It's THE claimGlc72 (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) THESE ARE THE OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI OF 23/01/1969.Now the evidence is even on official documents.Glc72 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Hi NPguyAre you an editor or administrator? I need some help with a page mentioning the cold war and the anti-nuclear movement. Would you be willing to assist? Thank you. 24.251.41.161 (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi NPguyThe Ribbon International was invited by the United Nations exhibit committee, after several meetings, the committee requested an exhibit of Ribbons for the Conference being held in Geneva, Switzerland for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in 1990. (Susan Macafee (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Have you looked at The Ribbon International page? [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Macafee (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Yes. I'm sure it's notable for participants, but I can't see that it had any impact on policy. NPguy (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Agni 5It seems almost all the sources call it an ICBM...so I wonder how the INF treaty comes into place now.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
IISS and undue weightPlease explain how two columns give undue weight to the IISS source? Your edit to List of states with nuclear weapons doesn't appear to satisfy WP:RSUW. There is a discussion at the articles talk page if your interested. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Reliable or unreliable estimatesThere is no criteria for judging how reliable the different estimates are (given lack of access to privileged information), the criteria we have are WP:Verifiability, backed by reliable sources, and WP:notability. In the case of a former president who was in charge of a non-proliferation program, then the estimate is notable (regardless of how reliable we think he is), which is the point of our section (to be a compendium of all the notable estimates - i.e. at least notable enough for inclusion in the section. Avaya1 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"each one WAS, not WERE"Hello, NPguy. It appears you mistakenly reverted my edit on Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Here is the sentence you edited: "Under the terms of the treaty, each party was limited to two ABM complexes, each of which were to be limited to 100 anti-ballistic missiles." I changed were to was, then you changed it back to was, with the ironic explanation "each one WAS, not WERE." It appears you transposed were and was, thinking that you were correctly changing "each . . . were" to "each . . . was," when in fact you were doing the opposite, and I had actually made the correct edit. In case you actually think that "each . . . were" is correct, let me assure you that "each," no matter how it is used in a phrase, is a singular pronoun, and thus requires a singular verb (was, not were). Based on your comment, I'm confident that you made an innocent mistake, so I'll just change the verb back to was for you. Holy (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
SourcePerhaps you've read it, but if no, then Scott Ritter, ‘We ain’t found shit’ London Review of Books Vol. 37 No. 13·2 July 2015 pages 35-38 Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you
Notification of talk page discussionOne problem with the JCPOA article is that people don't use talk enough. In hopes of changing that, I'm notifying several frequent posters of the discussion re the lead here: Talk:Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Lead. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC) noticeI am notifying you, since you've been active on that page, that I have AfD'ed Iran-IAEA side deals. BlueSalix (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Italian NATO sharingBefore than adding dubious -discuss please read before the citations (12 and 13) related.I've set the 2 citation as that you can enter inside and find the news.Learn italian to do it.Italian President speeching is more official than common opinions.Do you want to know about Italy military system more than him?In List of states with nuclear weapons Italy was even listed after The Netherlands that is after after (Italy has I while Netherlands has T or N as you like).There's a strong anti italian sentiment in this section that i already reported in Italy .Thanks.151.40.61.67 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Use italian and find the news in the 2 main newspapers.You can find the citation in Panorama newspaper about the 40 nukes in date 24/04/2013 and about french nukes shared in La Repubblica newspaper in date 22/12/2008 (with Italian President speeching).You have dates so you can find them easily in italian in the web too.to make you easier i post the 2 articles "to clean" to be posted.Try to post them and read the real news.Just good will and good faith. [4] [5] 151.40.59.237 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok you seem against me.Not time to loose.151.40.70.108 (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Links are just below.Now there are 3 main italian links.One is referred to the 40 US nukes and 2 are referred to the french hosted nukes.151.40.64.158 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) [6]
[7] Sources are real. The matter is that Wikipedia at the moment isn't trustworthy. In Italy the real situation about nukes is known in a different way (better without doubt) than in Wikipedia.In Italy were or are managed more nukes than written in Wikipedia. My father was before in AMI (Italian Air Force) and later in SIOS Esercito (Italian Military Secret Services for Army)today AISE. So no tales from Wikipedia to me and to people that know some official Italian Parliament Acts or other things. IF YOU WANT THOSE LINKS WORK WELL. [8] 151.40.35.111 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You are not sure,you say i do not believe,but what he says is more important than what you believe.He says that their use is under just the formal control of the Italian President.Other italian centres of power control these nukes. He says that Italy doesn't want to involve other states that's why the Italian President says "MAY BE".He says about nuclear statal secrets even older than 30 years .He says that there are italian nuclear secrets that aren't neither written or reported.He says it's italian tradition to report nothing or tell lies about this matter.In this sense Italy can be classified as today or even like Israel (that in fact is signatory).Nobody can show this or the opposite.You just reported that Italy produced Alfa missile to launch nukes in early '70s and since that time technology about launchers isn't worsen at all.His speeching reading this it's a YES not only to french nukes but also to other HEAVIER things.Or you didn't read all or you don't know well political italian speeching.Everything you can find it's hard to defy or to doubt about the words of the Italian President(former also President of the Italian Senate, Prime Minister,Defence Minister,Interior Minister and so on;he knew well italian military system).You can find tons of citations.They are 0 compared to his words because he rapresented Italy by his words.I forgot...the second and last links report 40 nukes in Ghedi and not 20....(first citation is 24/04/2013 and second citation is 2015).Numbers (20) about Ghedi are old.Nuclear Power guy seems on holidays.I begin to be worried...... Are you always there?bah... 151.40.35.111 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) [9]
I'm sorry that you aren't on holidays.You answered in confused way and not specific about my clear points.It seems you want to ignore what the Italian President says.Have i to translate what he says in the interview?(Repetita iuvant:to repeat helps).You also ignored the citations 2 and 6 where are reported in 2014 and 2015 about the 40 nukes in Ghedi and not 20 as in wrong way in Wikipedia.Or you are anti italian or you agree with the italian tradition to say nothing about nuclear weapons in Italy.May be you didn't read or translate well the second part of the point 4.To deny his words it needs citations with words of same level people that claim the contrary (e.g. Obama).To ignore derives from the latin agnosco that means " not knowing ".People that we'll read this discussion we'll realize well that you are in the wrong side.You can't defy Italian President words,it'd be original for Wikipedia,i'm sorry.Antani and blindi.151.40.120.67 (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Citation 4 is more than sufficient to show my right postion.You just oppose simple sentences with no citations of people can deny Italian President words about nuclear weapons in Italy.Italian President words set this article article in a corner.Also List of countries with nuclear weapons has fallen.151.40.95.223 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) The links still don't work. NPguy (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Number 4 yes and it's the most important.There Italian President says that Italy hides and lies about nuclear weapons.Soon i will use it in the 2 articles.And don't try to explain me what the Italian President says in italian,i'm italian!151.40.95.223 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Hi, JCPOAI added a section of criticisms regarding the deal and its alleged ill effects. I tried to keep it pretty dry and impeccably sourced. Still, I am notifying you personally because, due to the substance of our previous interactions at the JCPOA article, I suspect you might have some objections. Please have a look. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Edit war, bad faith editing, ignoring policyYou know what the red hand looks like so I won't post a template. Just stop ASAP. You need to go read WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
..Rash revertsI don't think it's wise to clumsily delete useful edits without discussion. It suggests either an ulterior motive or bad faith. If you have a valid point to make, please raise it in the Talk Page or by contacting the editor (me). I'm a reasonable person. Your suggestion that "test reactors" are functional in the real world is stretching the facts a little too much. Test reactors are just what it says: they're "TEST" reactors; the reactors in Russia are actually functioning in that they supply real, honest, reliable, functional power to large regions. The Test Reactors you noted, by the way, are Russian designs being developed by non-Russians under licence. Would you like to reply to this so that we can discuss properly? I wouldn't like to think that you're deleting edits in bad faith. Santamoly (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Appreciated. There's a whole lot of mysterious "Server Not Found" stuff at the bottom of this section. Not sure what it is or where it's supposed to lead, or if it's key to this discussion. Santamoly (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Dispute resolution regarding the Iran nuclear deal and threats against IsraelPlease see my application for assistance at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Regards, Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requestedThe Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 May 2016. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Request for mediation rejectedThe request for formal mediation concerning Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Nuclear proliferationI just notice you reverted my edit on nuclear proliferation. You mentionned "a lot of errors" as the reason for the revert without expliciting. I would appreciate further information. --N0osphR~enwiki (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, NPguy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) List of countries with nuclear weaponsI didn't log in over the weekend but saw your comments. 1) Refactored and made the lede and Israel subsections consistent, and with your suggested "has not acknowledged" wording (feel free to tweak if you have improvements). 2) regarding the antisemitism and personal attacks, I am going to semiprotect the talk page if they keep it up. The varied IPs are almost certainly collaborating and you can guess at where from if you look at the list of locations. If I have to semiprotect I'll collapse the hostile conversations under an archive header. The worst individual posts were only somewhat over the line, but the collection is at the point action is justified. I'm warning rather than immediately acting, but... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC) China is yellow...The file was changed on 29 March, and the colors of Pakistan and China was swapped. Your browser may contain a cached version, pressing <ctrl>+<F5> should load the real image. Please stop undoing the edit. Uglemat (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Italian nuclear programItalian nuclear program has reliable sources from the fromer Italian President,to Parliament Acts to other main people.Israel is considered having nukes without declaring.Are you sure that Italy didn't get nukes before 1976?I can't show yes but you neither can show the opposite.People just know that till 1976 Italy had officially a good nuclear military program and nobody can be sure it banned its eventual nukes after 1976 with NPT.This is confirmed by my reference about Italy that in early '80s wanted to develope again its nuclear program under the Defence Minister Lagorio.All what Italy produced before 1976 is covered by statal military secret as reference of Italian President Cossiga reports.He says all is covered by silence or lies in this sector in Italy.He knows more than you.Your editing seemed aggressive and even anti italian.Benniejets (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
{ Speculation|date=August 2017 }Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. NukesI see you reverted be edit on "List of countries with nuclear weapons". First of all, my edits weren't only adding info about states that developed nukes, I also updated stats and you rolled back all edits. Second of all, if the article is only about states that possess nukes as you claim, then why are countries who used to possess them included? Also, there is no article named "List of countries with nuclear weapons programs", so it's only logical for it to be a section of this article then. Reinstating my edits now – please do not roll back without explaining why my arguments above are invalid. Dank Chicken (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ribbon_International#mediaviewer/File:The_Ribbon_International.jpg){kind=link}
