Archives

01 02

Good point, I guess it will be listed in the next update. Probably due to the fact it's new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.12.243 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not User:Michael Paul Heart. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for bothering you, but since you participated in AFD discussion, I thought it'd be gently not let you know about a requested move of the page at its talkpage. Userpd (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful contributions to Greyfriars London. There is a strong chance that the administrators will try to delete it owing to who I am (see this [1] e.g.). I would be grateful for any help in building the article into something that the subject deserves! Peter Damian V (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not really think that would fall under G3, it is not really vandalism. A1 would have probably been better. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what "Knowledge sharing behaviours" is supposed to refer to. Calling it nothing but "bollocks" is surely vandalism though? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what it was referring to, regardless, it is back. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's bad form to clump many articles into a mass nomination like this. Unless all of the articles are substantially similiar the nomination will be more trouble than it's worth. Individual renominations of some of these may be taken with less of a knee-jerk reaction, but you will need to tailor each nomination to the individual article and point out the specific flaws that each article. Perhaps give these some time and renominate a few of the worst ones that have multiple major issues. ThemFromSpace 07:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the AfD carefully - I only nominated two articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. By the format it looks like a batch nomination. I don't think I'm the only editor that was confused by that. ThemFromSpace 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Tahash talk page about your good removal of the "esoteric" list from the section on the Talmud. It was no loss! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you wrote it in the first place....--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your last comments on my talk page: the only thing I seem to be disrupting is your own apparent attempt to slant the article Tahash toward one POV—your own apparent conviction that the tahash must be an "unclean" animal, that it couldn't be kosher. (You could have revised the section with "antelope" in place of "addax" instead of "blanking" it entirely.) Your own repeated attempts to do this is disruptive editing and a repeated violation of WP:NPOV policy. See recent Tahash:Talk page entry. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Addax from antelope without any suporting sources is the kind of synthesis you have been repeatedly told is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. To accuse me of POV-pushing is ridiculous - I have no agenda on the Tahash article other than to remove the OR and other inappropriate material you have added. To this end I started a discussion about Addax on the talk page around a month ago but got no response, so removed all mention of it from the article as there are no sources to support it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus is right. The Tahash article is out of control.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Joe407's talk page.
Message added 10:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, thanks for the help on the Joanna Yeates article. I find it really interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits have been helpful to the article, but upon checking the external links, Yeates' family and co-workers do call her "Jo". KimChee (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving this note because I have found your editorial scrutiny to be sound: I made one change back to note the initial treatment of the death as "suspicious" to fit with the article's chronology that it is ruled a murder at a later date. KimChee (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, sounds fine to me.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel like one of two monkeys on typewriters racing to see who will be the first to bang out Hamlet. :) KimChee (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I like your editorial sensibilities. If you have the time, would you mind objectively glancing at Chandra Levy? It is a similar crime topic, though written under American conventions of English. KimChee (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though it's a lot more developed so I'm not sure there is much more to do. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks either way. An objective eye always helps after working on an article too long. KimChee (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

i told in talk page so 25 days ago the problem of the page, but no answers was given. today i deleted all the generalist contents, that has to be put in EPR page end not in NPP plant. elsewere, there are contets POV and WRONG (there are now 4 EPR under construnction, but in the page is sayed that there are only 2, the 2 chinese are under cost and before schedule). i used the correct channel, i told in the object the reason of the reverted, but sachivenga never. best regards (sorry for my english, i'm italian)--Dwalin (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for [2]. On the Jefferies story I am watching you do a good job but I am a bit reluctant to edit much because as it happens he is an old favorite teacher of mine (and very eccentric to the point of attracting attention but in my view charming and probably incapable of harm unless absurdly provoked). Anyway I am probably a bit conflicted by this. --BozMo talk 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add when I say "old" he was my form teacher some 31 years ago... --BozMo talk 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the the first suspect arrested in the Ipswich serial murders case. The media had a field day because he was "a bit weird" but he was released without charge. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were right. Jefferies has now also been released on bail. I guess the Bristol police are just saving face to avoid apologising to him. --BozMo talk 09:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You have removed material from the urban 75 article which would have protected the innocent from the dangers of urban 75 forums. You have, at the same time, calumniously accused me, on my Talk page, of introducing the new material without any relevant discussion on the Talk page. BUT you will now go on to protest your innocence, and get away with your vandalism and calumnies, because you are part of the Wifia.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's purpose to "protect the innocent from the dangers of urban 75 forums". Information in articles must however be adequately sourced, as you were previously made aware of on the article's talk page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is widely known and understood that public forums which permit anonymous debate are subject to widespread abuse and trolling. There may be honorable exceptions to this, but the Urban75 article, as you have left it, depicts a louche, risque website with associated forums described merely as 'popular.' This leaves readers rather in the dark as to how a mere discussion forum historically came to derail a senior policeman in his otherwise promising career.

Bottom line - you don't really care. You are a big fish in the little Wiki pond, and have no interest in what you are editing.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the article in question was CSD's already once today. The author simply reposted it. I do, see, however, per this policy, "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)". Sorry I misunderstood that before now. Thanks! Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case no speedy critera apply to the recreated article as it is now about a book. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In this follow-up edit to your proposed deletion, the author removed the tag you placed. I restored it. In a later edit, another editor proposed the article for Speedy Deletion as a hoax (the second paragraph does seem questionable). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 types of deletion tag:

Speedy tags can't be removed by the page creator but only apply in limited circumstances

Proposed deletion tags can be removed by anyone and shouldn't be replaced. They can state whatever reason for deletion you choose.

Articles for deletion tags can not be removed by anyone and can state whatever policy-based reason for deletion you choose.

The aim of the first two is to avoid unnecessary 7-day discusions which are initiated by Articles for deletion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Hope this helps --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was just that he didn't give a reason for removing the information and sometimes that sort of edit can be a bit problematic. Thanks for checking it out and at least no damage has been done. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summary was a bit terse. I just looked into it because I thought it was a bit of a weird edit to make maliciously. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, all's well that ends well. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting observation about this: the source appears to have changed. The details about the flat battery and jump start have since been removed from the source. However, the fact that an editor forgot to change the title bar text ("Joanna Yeates murder: neighbour interviewed by police over boyfriend's flat battery incident") is a telltale sign that it was once there. KimChee (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked for a similar replacement source, and have to concur that the articles I have found so far of the incident mention only the jump leads. There is no Google cache of an older version of the article to compare what has been removed. KimChee (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, your correction to the reference appears to have addressed this. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Definately something weird going on there with the url and article title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another observation: I noticed that Associated Press articles hosted on Google, unlike other major news sites, tend to expire relatively quickly as Google appears to license them only for short windows of time. If their hosting of the UK Press Association article that you just added suffers the same fate, you may want to substitute the original police press release. KimChee (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I replaced the ref. I originally thought to use the police press release but it's kind of a primary source and I wasn't hopeful it would be retained on their website for long either. Would have used the BBC article but it didn't mention the word "national".--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly I've noticed one or two article links change after I've added them recently. I added a BBC link to one of the current events pages a few days ago only for it to change to something different the next day. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call on the most recent edit. I followed the link from an article related to the case and mistakenly associated them. KimChee (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok - I mentioned this on article talk already in case anyone else picks up connections over the next few days when the libel law issue will be in the news more. --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

		Java Award for working yourself into the ground
		Get yourself a nice steaming cup! KimChee (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in - the person is driving me daft. S/he also edited my lead on the relevant section of the Talk page about p.116, but I've reverted it - minor, but a pain. Sitush (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Assume good faith? 178.106.194.176 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) That was me Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I didn't feel to change my !vote despite all your heroic efforts to convince me that I was wrong. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! Where and when why and how long did you go to Russia for? I live in Moscow! How did you find it? And intrigued Alexandre8 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

1994 for a few months, stayed in Moscow - was a very hot summer, then got the train through Kharkov to the Black Sea. The country seemed as if it was still gently emerging from the communist period. Met some nice people from Kalmykia, and from Irkutsk. Haven't been back since but I get the impression I would that things have not gotten better but rather worsened since those times. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that things wouldn't have got better, I think I'm going to lean and agree with you on that. Well from the perpsective of a russian "babushka" the majority of them seem to think that the split of the soviet union was appalling. The main problem is rising prices but stagnant wages. And a flat in Moscow costs more than Paris and London in proportion. Nothing is gonna change here soon 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Alexandre8 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The more I compare their edits, the more I am convinced that Hermitstudy and Michael Paul Heart are the same--they use the same code, syntax, and stylistic things (such as abundant use of italics, copious citation of scripture via template, verbosity); their edits overlap greatly; and Study quit on 4 Otober while Heart started on 23 October. There's nothing illegal about this, of course, but it is odd. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Holy moly, I just looked through the history. It used to be even worse! Drmies (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it used to look like this before he came along. He pops up from his IP too from time to time and talks to himself (apparently the IP is his mother who he let use his computer!) --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of this one--235,378 bytes. It's down to a 100,000 now. I saw in one of your edit summaries that you couldn't see the text for the footnotes, or vice versa--perfectly understandable. It's a mess, and the triple bold print, italicized and in quotation marks, make respectful editing just a hellish job. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch: thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a fly-by :) --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, look where all that cryptozoology led to: Karkadann, now at DYK. Fun! Drmies (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I commented in reply to your comment at Talk:Spark (fire). I hope you can respond when you get a chance (especially if it's to correct me, I always like to know if I'm wrong on something.) Thanks so much for your time, and sorry for bothering you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly, I hope you'll continue to stay involved and possibly reply to follow up questions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If possible when you get a chance, could you respond to my other follow-up question?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the right place for my contribution; I have done as you suggested. McMarcoP (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's really a German word? Awesome! GedUK  23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they like sticking words together to make up new ones. "unfall" means "accident", so it starts out as babelfish-unfall and then the hyphen gets used less, although this one's probably not in the dictionary just yet. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a comment to Talk:2011 Libyan uprising and would appreciate a comment. Cheers, 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your tagging for two reasons — (1) It's only appropriate to tag for G5 when the sock has been proven; an incomplete SPI is not sufficient. (2) Both articles have had substantial edits by others; even if the SPI had been proven, G5 wouldn't apply because of edits by people such as EkoGraf. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the map I inserted (2011 Libya Protests Cities.png) as an alternative to the map which has copyright issues (LibyanCivilWar.jpg) has been removed due to its data being based on LibyanCivilWar.jpg (or so I assumed due to your comment on the map being poorly sourced). I am simply here to state that I am addressing the issue of proper references and should have them soon. Thank you for your commitment to a reliable, well-sourced Wikipedia. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, to remove their casualties from the box just because they are three days old is a little too much. The numbers we have are the only numbers. If you want a compromise solution I propose this. Put 111 soldiers killed (by Feb. 20) and 65 mercenaries killed (by Feb. 19), so that way it will not be missleading. Also those two battles, which in fact are battles since both sides are shooting at each other, should at least be merged into the timeline or uprising article, the information has been edited by many others besides me and that information should not go to waste. Thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Casualties and losses in infobox here - don't just add the information back again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. I took the liberty of copying your above comment there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point! --Rebel Alliance Coalition (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I accept your revertion, but I think Younis is the only clearly recognized leader of the revolt, perhaps for his military charge. I would search for sources, although Im not sure that I could find one that literally states that he's a leader of the revolt, and so does with any other individual. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to state that anyone has lead the uprising, especially in the absence of sources specifically saying so. We can of course discuss his role in the main body of the article, but part of the problem with the infobox is that it is designed for military conflicts in which there are normally two clear sides with leaders. Therefore we can't really place a leader's name there without it appearing that they have led the entire uprising, which no one person has clearly done. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen the two sources for the mercenaries was that in those two incidents 65 died, and there was a total of 325 of them. We have indicated in the article that 65 of them were reported dead and 236 were reported captured, we also stated the faith of the remaining ones was unknown. As for the 111 soldiers killed, you said the source says only 10 died in Benghazi, but this battle was fought not just in Benghazi but also in Derna and al-Baida. Those 111 soldiers killed were for all of those cities, not just Benghazi. So please, I agreed with you on the issue in the infobox in the main article, I didn't put up any resistance to those three other battles being deleted if they were to be merged into the timeline article, but don't be this much conservative over what sources are used. There are NO sources that will state the overall total of mercenaries killed. So we put what we have confirmed, we don't make it up. We have confirmed 65 died and confirmed 236 were captured, and we also stated that the fate of the others was unknown. And that is much more informative for the readers than for it to just say Unknown number of militia killed. We do with what we have.EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok I went over the sources for the mercenaries again. And you were right, the reports say the 50 were executed. Those 15 were probably part of those 50. Ok so we will rewrite that part of the article so that we have confirmed based on one report that 50 died, based on two reports that 236 were captured, and the fate of the others was unknown. My bad on that point, sorry. :) EkoGraf (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

yes i did say it somewhere that it was AGF, but per BRD the reinstatement is not afg. the first one certainly AGF was.Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

--Rodgerpatterson (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In the Ras Lanuf article, I used the source you found, good work on that part, and cited the claimed numbers of rebel killed in the battle, since one rebel said 5 and the other 12 I put 5-12 killed. Also, separately from that I cited the 20 figure of executed defecting loyalists. Since they were rebeling against Gaddafi it is safe to say they were the opposition from that point on.
In the Bengazi article, you constantly cite only the number of dead in Benghazi, but don't include the Derna and al-Baida tolls. And it has been established that the fighting in those two towns directly affected the fighting in Benghazi, thus they were related and this has been established in the article. I have cited a town by town toll with proper references now in the article with a final toll in the end. I hope this is ok?
In the Az Zawiyah article, I cited all information you said was uncited, and for the sake of the possibility the toll may be out-of-date as you said, I made a breakdown of the dead in the infobox, all cited with references of course. Rebels side - the two-day period up to Feb. 26 when 24 rebels were reported killed, and the 50 opposition killed on March 4, there were no rebel fatalities reported on Feb. 28, however on the loyalist side I referenced and put a toll of 10 killed and 12 captured on Feb. 28. There have only been three clashes at Az Zawiyah, Feb. 24-26, Feb. 28 and March 4. So we are all covered. Are we ok? :)EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I found more sources of higher numbers of dead in the Ras Lanuf battle and cited them all with references. :)EkoGraf (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution to the process of 1. approving and 2. improving the article Morning Cloud. It was much appreciated. The first was hoped for, the second was quite unexpected. I particularly liked your addition of templates and other items to the discussion page. I would not have been aware of all the possibilities in that respect.

You were, of course, wholly correct in your interpretaion that, given a choice, it would be my preference for the article to be placed in WP in its completely revised and re-submitted form (including its title). You have gone a long way to reassuring me that, should a WP user wish to create a new article, then he, or she, would be well advised to use the Wikipedia:Article wizard. I had not, previously, been convinced. I found the dialogue process through which it takes the would-be contributor most instructive and its formatting very clear. Clrfr-03 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I figure I'd take this up with you directly. Even though the sources switch between gray and sievert, the source itself is probably misquoting their own sources, as they are using sieverts in a manner independent of the biology exposed. As to whether the radiation is entirely gamma, note that both gamma and beta radiation have an equivalent Q=1 (and humans have N=1), and that only alpha has Q=20 (with other radiation sources insignificant). Remember that alpha radiation cannot pierce skin and produces no harmful effects except perhaps in extreme amounts well-beyond this situation.

Therefore, I think there is no harm is listing "gray equivalent" in all instances talking about biological exposure, and replacing that one instance of millisievert with milligray when it is talking about measurements taking outside the plant that are not biological doses. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This was being discussed here. I was only concerned not to misrepresent the source in any way. However I'm a biologist who only uses Sv, and as you seem to know more about this than me I am happy to accept your judgement on this. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that I know more about it than you, as I've not even worked with Grays (for historical reasons, in physics we usually use roentgens, of all things). Nonetheless, unit consistency within the article seems important for context, and since most people care about biology, I'm actually thinking we should maybe give Sievert conversions as primary reference for everything instead after every radioactivity mention, along with background level, contamination level, and lethal level. For the "counts per minute" citation, I found a decent approximate equivalent for a handheld Geiger counter at [3] and [4] which gives a useful baseline of 3000cpm ~ 1mR/hr, and other editors have given curie conversions. Therefore we can give an approximation, with full disclaimers that it could be as much as 10x off, of the dose. Luckily, that order of magnitude in error is not so critical on the background-contamination-lethal scale. Also, Oak Ridge National Lab gives 66000cpm ~ 1 mSv/hr [5]. MIT gives safe and background doses, limiting a single event at 3000 mrem (for workers). We also see mild radiation poisoning occur starting at 1 rem.

So I get 1 microcurie ~ 30000 cpm ~ 1 milliGray/hour ~ 1 milliSievert/hour. Oak Ridge gives 66000 cpm ~ 1 mSv/hr. So I'd say we're about right with this conversion. Again, with disclaimer and sourcing Oak Ridge, I will add it in. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This report worries me a little. I don't believe the editor promoted the Church of England at all and we assume good faith so I don't really understand why you would think they're violating the username policy. ceranthor 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy clearly states "Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name" - this is therefore a blatant violation: The C of E - The C of E. I was assuming good faith which is why I did not request the user be blocked, but that someone take the matter further in the appropriate manner. How does my reporting this "worry you" exactly? --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How does that purport to represent an entire group or company? Did The C of E ever promoted the Church of England? Also, by listing a username at the UAA noticeboard is essentially listing it to be blocked. Maybe next time if you have a question about a username you could take it to RFCU first. ceranthor 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you have Frank as an unreliable source. Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

It's an anti-drugs campaigning website, and the material on there is likely to be chosen specifically with that POV in mind. Any information that Frank provides should have been taken from other reliable sources, however it often appears to be pure conjecture unsupported by evidence. For this reason we should link to Frank's sources directly, so we know that the information is accurate. If no other sources are available to support the assertions other than Frank's website, then it's best not to include such assertions in articles.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it has always seemed remarkably neutral to me. The particular items supported by the cites were mainly neutral with one positive and one negative, it seems worth leaving those in. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

I'll see if I can find some better sources when I get a chance, as I'm working on the Japanese nuclear power stations right now.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I should probably bring this up on WP:RSN with examples.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)