| Revision as of 10:15, 8 January 2007 editStone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,140 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:21, 10 January 2007 edit undoNrcprm2026 (talk | contribs)7,109 edits Thanks and requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| The whole uranium business here is alittle bit overheated and some people insist on things. Both sides have had long hard arguing, about toxicology and radiology effects, even the phase diagram of uranium oxides resulted in endles fight. So try to take it not to personal, that the people bite the new editores on the pages depleted uranium and uraniom trioxide. If you think you are right put your aguments on the talk page and do the edits! I had the same when I first entered the shark pool around the dsert storm illness.--] 10:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | The whole uranium business here is alittle bit overheated and some people insist on things. Both sides have had long hard arguing, about toxicology and radiology effects, even the phase diagram of uranium oxides resulted in endles fight. So try to take it not to personal, that the people bite the new editores on the pages depleted uranium and uraniom trioxide. If you think you are right put your aguments on the talk page and do the edits! I had the same when I first entered the shark pool around the dsert storm illness.--] 10:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Thanks and request == | |||
| Thank you for your excellent work on ]. Please have a look at my proposal at ] for an update to ] -- a huge amount of the stuff in there at present is wrong, and that's an article going out on the CD-ROM versions, unlike the DU article. '']'' 03:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:21, 10 January 2007
Hi. Are you the 62.101.126.212? Ultramarine 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming you are, would you support creating a new article just for the specific historical cases, that is moving User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies to a real Misplaced Pages article? I think it would improve the DPT article which is getting quite long. However, the user Septentrionalis will very probably immediately put it up for deletion and have previously managed to get different earlier versions deleted. See this: regarding a version similar to this: . Do you think that any of these claimed problems remain? As far as I can tell, the main problem that many editors saw was that the earlier versions were not neutral. They did not list many arguments for these conflicts being wars being wars between democracies, mainly because many researchers do not list any arguments but simply state these conflicts as exceptions. However, we have now added many arguments so I hope that this improved version can be seen as neutral.Ultramarine 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would certainly vote for keeping the page Massimamanno
- What would be an appropriate title?Ultramarine 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Earlier versions have been called "Possible wars between liberal democracies" or something similar. Ultramarine 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The current title of the Salix Alba talk page would be best in my opinion because it is actually slightly biased on the opposite side, and would make the whole article more acceptable. Otherwise, one could add a (possible) in parenthesis, like "History of (possible) conflict between democracies", which states that it may, or may not, be happened. I would not recommend "Possible wars between liberal democracies" because it somewhat appears to say too much against the hypotesis. Massimamanno
- Good point. Do you think there should a "(possible)"Ultramarine 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hm? Yes, the title could contain a (possible) Massimamanno
- I will contact some of involved editors to see if they think the current version ok.Ultramarine 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probably better to wait and see what happens with current discssion on the DPT talk page.Ultramarine 02:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hm? Yes, the title could contain a (possible) Massimamanno
- Good point. Do you think there should a "(possible)"Ultramarine 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The current title of the Salix Alba talk page would be best in my opinion because it is actually slightly biased on the opposite side, and would make the whole article more acceptable. Otherwise, one could add a (possible) in parenthesis, like "History of (possible) conflict between democracies", which states that it may, or may not, be happened. I would not recommend "Possible wars between liberal democracies" because it somewhat appears to say too much against the hypotesis. Massimamanno
- I would certainly vote for keeping the page Massimamanno
Hi. Please restore the images. Pmanderson/Septentrionalis will list it for deletion no matter what and it may help persuade some quick voters that this is not a crank theory invented on Misplaced Pages which some seem to have thought previously.Ultramarine 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
On Misplaced Pages
Good work. Have you read this? Ultramarine 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Uranium
The whole uranium business here is alittle bit overheated and some people insist on things. Both sides have had long hard arguing, about toxicology and radiology effects, even the phase diagram of uranium oxides resulted in endles fight. So try to take it not to personal, that the people bite the new editores on the pages depleted uranium and uraniom trioxide. If you think you are right put your aguments on the talk page and do the edits! I had the same when I first entered the shark pool around the dsert storm illness.--Stone 10:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and request
Thank you for your excellent work on depleted uranium. Please have a look at my proposal at Talk:Uranium#Hazards for an update to Uranium#Hazards -- a huge amount of the stuff in there at present is wrong, and that's an article going out on the CD-ROM versions, unlike the DU article. James S. 03:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)