Ita140188

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polymetallic ore on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ita140188, thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. There are several people working on the article about nuclear power, and your intrusion interferes with our work. Could you please stay away from this article for 2 weeks?

Afterwards, and before you make any changes to our text, please post your objections on Article Talk page. What you wrote as comments to your deletion "revert huge text addition in lead. Lead should only summarize content not introduce new content. Addition is also mostly unreferenced and biased. Relevant points may be included in the rest of the article in the appropriate sections" violates several wiki-policies:

1) in particular you wrote "Addition is also mostly unreferenced and biased" in your deletion comment. The proper way to address a concern like this is to NAME your specific objections and use this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferenced

2) you wrote " Lead should only summarize content not introduce new content". It is apparent, that you did NOT read the rest of the article. Most of the points, that we added to the Intro, have been described in greater details below. Some details will be added later. The editors, who are working on this article, are still deciding on what to include. What you deleted IS written as a summary, without details, which are(will be) provided below.

In the meantime, you are welcome to provide criticism and suggestions (especially with good references) on the article talk page. BUT please be specific and detailed. If you write "biased" - you need to support your statement with a VERY DETAILED AND REFERENCED explanation.

Also, please read this policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith . Please do not make assumptions, that other editors are idiots, who have no experience in the subject matter, or that they are deliberately spreading misinformation. It is especially surprising, that you made such irresponsible deletions after winning the Million Award.

• I agree with Ita's removal here. This is far too specific for a general summary and makes the lead too long. The lead absolutely does not need to get into things like uranium in oceans, neutron embrittlement, use of hafnium, and production of tritium, which are not discussed in the rest of the article so this is not an appropriate summary. I further agree that this is excessive content about limitations of nuclear power for the lead and makes it unbalanced. The lead does not need a numbered list like this, and it is a straw man to indicate the limitations of "Meeting humankind's total current demand of 15 TW of power using only Uranium-235 fission process" when that's a far cry from merely building more nuclear power alongside renewables. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Walter Tau: Thanks for reaching out. Regarding your comments:

- Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone. You (or anyone else) are not entitled to 2 weeks of exclusive editing anywhere. See WP:OWN and in particular point 5 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

- Anyone can delete unreferenced statements, especially if they are controversial as the ones you added, see WP:UNSOURCED.

- Most of content you added in the lead is not present in the article. The lead should exclusively summarize content in the article, not introduce anything new, see MOS:LEAD. Moreover, the lead should be proportional to the article size. You doubled the size of the lead, which was already quite long before.

- As for whether I read the article, I was the one that nominated it for Good Article (WP:GA), so I not only read all of it multiple times and edited large sections of it, I also successfully went through a peer-review process on this article (see Talk:Nuclear_power/GA2).

- As Reywas92 pointed out already, your contributions are obviously biased as they are one-sided, suffer from straw-man arguments, and in general I think are based on a poor understanding of how economics and nuclear engineering works.

- Your contributions are full of original research and synthesis. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:OR. All statement (especially if controversial) should be directly cited from reliable sources and no personal "conclusions" should be added.

- Please refrain from accusing me of things I never said. I never called you an "idiot", and never said that you are spreading misinformation. You are accusing me of ad hominem attacks while I only commented on the content itself, never about you. I did (and still do) assume good faith, that is why I did not report you or do any other action that would be appropriate in case of vandalism. We are having a normal discussion regarding the contents.

- Please sign your comments in talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That makes it easier to attribute comments.

Thank you again for engaging in the discussion. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for your comments. Even though I have made many edits on wiki, I stayed away from controvercial topics in the past, and I am still not aware of all wiki-policies: e.g., I have not ran into WP:OWN issues before.

I know, it is possible to create a draft article on wiki. Is it possible to create a draft for improving an existing article, so that we do not manipulate the existing text until the updated draft is ready?

Walter Tau (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Walter TauReply

You can copy the article to your own sandbox User:Walter Tau/sandbox or create a new sandbox (such as User:Walter Tau/sandbox2 or even User:Walter Tau/Nuclear power) and make changes there if you want. Ita140188 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply