User talk:Macquigg

License tagging for File:ThorCon Can.png

Thanks for uploading File:ThorCon Can.png. 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) 04:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ThorCon Can.png

Thanks for uploading File:ThorCon Can.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThorCon nuclear reactor (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nirmaljoshi was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add independent sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

nirmal (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Macquigg! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! nirmal (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThorCon nuclear reactor (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mako001 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The IAEA source seems to be just a report that ThorCon themselves have written, so it doesn't make it any better. Also, I have a couple of points to address. First, the modelling was done based on an 8-ton jet turbine hitting the structure at 200m/s, not a "jumbo jet with 9 ton engines". Second, 19.7% enriched Uranium is usually only used in research reactors, and is four to five times more enriched than is usually used for power generation. In addition it is just 0.3% below the threshold to be considered highly enriched. Why does it need to be so highly enriched? If such points aren't mentioned in the article, then it is not adhering to WP:NPOV. I'm certain I am not the first person to ever raise this point.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ThorCon Can.png

A tag has been placed on File:ThorCon Can.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing article for the reactor

See TMSR-500. We already have an article about the reactor. You can add more information there. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Macquigg! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Regulatory agencies as a reliable source, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft

Hello, Macquigg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:FC-MSR nuclear reactor

Hello, Macquigg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FC-MSR nuclear reactor, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft

Hello, Macquigg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:FC-MSR nuclear reactor

Hello, Macquigg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FC-MSR nuclear reactor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linear no-threshold model

I found this article in doing research for a discussion in the FaceBook forum Renewable vs Nuclear Debate. It seemed to me that the article was biased, that merely listing all the agencies and organizations that have a policy on LNT, and stating their positions, is just reflecting the anti-nuclear bias we see in these agencies and in the general public. I posted on the talk page of that article, urging others to focus on the data, not official orthodoxy, to resolve the debate. I got no response, so I made a bold edit, linking what I believe are two reliable sources on the anti-LNT side. My edit was reverted, because it was "inconsistent with ... the latest positions of the major scientific organizations". Yes, that is the point.

Wikipedia needs a better way to handle debates. We have FaceBook and other similar forums, but those tend to endless debate, with very little focus on reliable sources. Citizendium has Debate Guide pages, which summarize the strongest arguments on each issue that remains after the facts in the main article are agreed on. Here is the summary of a debate on LNT and Radon. I would like to see a better source for the pro-LNT data plot. David MacQuigg 14:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems backwards. You're presupposing a conclusion and looking for a source to support it, which isn't a good way to develop articles. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I haven't communicated clearly, or maybe you WANT to misunderstand what I just said. I am NOT presupposing a conclusion. On this LNT and Radon debate, I have on the anti-LNT side, an easily understood and well-sourced data plot. I have on the pro-LNT side, a confusing and poorly-sourced data plot. CZ does not choose sides like WP. We want our readers to see both. David MacQuigg 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Linear no-threshold model are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. VQuakr (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], WP:NOTFORUM is policy. Inviting editors to off-Wiki discussion is not an appropriate use of an article talk page, and the purpose of article talk pages is not debate about the subject itself, either. VQuakr (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the purpose of article talk pages is not debate about the subject itself. That is why I attempted to move the discussion to a more appropriate forum. You then deleted my link and called it "spam". I re-read WP:NOTFORUM, and I see nothing that would prohibit me from inviting another user, on their own talk page, not the article talk page.

Here is a quote I found in re-reading the rules: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles." What is the principle you think I have misunderstood? David MacQuigg 14:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first principle of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. This isn't a strict interpretation, this is the basic foundation. We're neither a hub for debate for new ideas nor a place to advertise such debate elsewhere. I'll not protest about a limited amount of conversation/linking from user or user talk space, but please keep it out of article and article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I tried to do - move the debate OUT of the the article talk space. I provided a link to do that, and you called it "spam". David MacQuigg 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to "advertise" anything. Please assume good faith. David MacQuigg 22:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

After the request above to keep this stuff out of article/article talk space, you did this. Please review WP:USERGENERATED for expectations on source reliability. VQuakr (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after digging deeper I see this is a long term issue [2], [3] so consider this a final warning before a block is pursued to prevent further disruption. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like VQuakr likes to fight over rules. He took this debate to the Administrators Noticeboard and lost. David MacQuigg 08:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you find that you think have poor sourcing or other problems

Hello! I just wanted to say that I am interested in pretty much everything in the nuclear subject area, so if you come across articles like ThorCon nuclear reactor where you feel the article has problems, feel free to use the Talk page to explain what you think the issue is and ping me with this command: @Avatar317:, which will notify me with an alert. It takes much less of an editor's time to remove poorly sourced content from Wikipedia than it does to PROPERLY add new content: which is to read and then paraphrase sources. As a new editor, you may be cautious about removing content (which is good) so feel free to notify me and I'll have a look at whatever content you think is problematic. Thanks! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 Thank you for the kind words. It seems WP is full of hostility. I don't spend much time here since I got busy with Citizendium. CZ has the same rules, but much more intelligently enforced. I also really value the Debate Guide pages. When there is controversy over an articles content, we let each side summarize their argument on the Debate page. We insist that they make their argument first in a forum like Renewable vs Nuclear Debate where we can see the response from the other side. Then we summarize the arguments, allowing each side to use their own words. I hope my link here doesn't trigger the V-man for violating his "final warning". Is there really a rule about not having discussions outside of WP? If not, you can contact me under my real name on FaceBook.

As for other articles with problems, you are already onto the problem with the Linear No Threshold article, so I'll leave that one alone. If you want to make a major improvement in the ThorCon article, copy whatever you like from the CZ version. Also your critique of the CZ version would be welcome. The article itself is ThorCon's response to the questions raised in https://citizendium.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reconsidered, so for balance, we have allowed extensive criticism on the Debate page. The debate in the WP article over online fuel processing was originally copied from the CZ debate page, and it was nicely balanced. Then the pro-nuke side was deleted, along with everything else of any importance. Anyway, don't get me started on the problems with WP. :>) David MacQuigg 04:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 One more article I am working on could use your critique: [4] This was copied from WP, under the Creative Commons license, then simplified and improved on CZ. My interest in this topic relates to the question, raised in Nuclear_power_reconsidered#Weapons_Proliferation "Some molten salt reactors start with uranium enriched to 20% U-235, and that might provide a head-start to a country wanting to enrich all the way to bomb-grade." How much of a "head start"? Does this add anything to the risk we already have with uranium enriched to 5%?

@Avatar317 I have an independent source that might be useful in resolving the debate over UCS statements about ThorCon. It has the UCS statements quoted verbatim, and responses from experts. If this debate were published in the NY Times, there would be no problem citing it in WP. What are the chances you could get Citizendium approved as an independent journal? It has no connection with ThorCon, the UCS, any nuclear company, or any advocacy group. We do our best to fairly cover both sides of any debate. https://citizendium.org/wiki/ThorCon_nuclear_reactor/Debate_Guide.