User talk:Massimamanno

Hi. Are you the 62.101.126.212? Ultramarine 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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: [1] regarding a version similar to this: [2]. 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)[reply]

I would certainly vote for keeping the page Massimamanno

What would be an appropriate title?Ultramarine 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions have been called "Possible wars between liberal democracies" or something similar. Ultramarine 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Probably better to wait and see what happens with current discssion on the DPT talk page.Ultramarine 02:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia which some seem to have thought previously.Ultramarine 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia

Good work. Have you read this? [3]Ultramarine 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, here is "James", the living nighttmare of the depleted uranium weird community. You know I have been repeatedly accused of being you? What have you done there??? Now, seriously, I am grateful of your thanks but I whish to underscore a few points:

1) I have no predetermined points of view to push. I usually come up and make major changes to an existing article only when I, as a non-specialist but generally informed person can "feel" something really wrong with an article. Depleted uranium was such a case, clearly and obviously biased in favor of tolerance or approval for DU use, and I think it still needs a lot of work; I am just waiting for some kind of feedback whatsoever from the existing editors. In the process I of course learn things by reading papers and if this leads me to change, all on in part, my previous informed convincements, I have no problems whatsoever in making edits in favor of the "opposite" point of view.

2) I have looked at the Uranium#Hazards section and at first sight it seems to me somewhat messy but not obviously biased, nor obviously wrong. At least, it would require to me considerable time in study to determine whether it is or not. Furthermore, as an user called Stone has pointed out to me, the paragraph on hazards of a general chemical element should not have a "life of his own": the content should be balanced with other aspects. This is somewhat different for Depleted uranium because it can be expected that someone looking at such an article, rather than for example Uranium, would be in general searching for information mainly about military use, and possible hazards. So, although I may support you on specific points to add or remove from Uranium#Hazards if you ask me, you add some reference and I am convinced by the reference that you are right and the information, or mistake, is important, I rather would not make this a priority. Actually, at the moment I am fascinated by DU also because as it can be hinted from some papers and communications, there is the puzzling possibility that it possesses subtly different properties from U itself, for example a possible greater affinity for passing the blood-brain barrier, a fact that if confirmed would be a true mystery for the existing scientific framework. (of course I am not going to add any of this semi-speculation to the article at the moment, it's just one of my motivations)

3) Sorry if I ask, but honestly, what do you care about CD-ROM version? The impact of online Wikipedia can be estimated in several hundred million people and, most importantly, millions and millions of students who heavily and daily rely on Wikipedia (be it a desirable fact or not)for their school projects. Loads of students researching information on Depleted uranium and coming out with "Hey, DU is good for you! Why not add it as a dietary supplement?" as it could be expected with the previous version of that article (well, almost) is of far more concern to me that some hundred thousand people shelving their Wikipedia CD-ROM in their bookshelf and browsing it in those rare occurrences when they lose internet access for some reason, even if such CD-ROM contains partial or even partially wrong information on Uranium hazards.

Thanks for writing and for your kind comments - and sorry if maybe my reply in some points sounded less than completely friendly - it probably was just the subconscius drive to make it completely clear that I AM NOT YOU! (sigh) :P :D Massimamanno 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too. I guess I care about the CD-ROM version because theoretically more people might see it if the internet goes down. James S. 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted Uranium article

I don't contribute to any uranium-related articles, but my father mentioned Uranium hexafluoride and that led to the article on Depleted Uranium. I was a little disappointed in the section on controversies regarding DU's toxicity and radioactivity, so I read through the talk page and the Arbitration Committee's judgments, and I was amused by the obviously paranoid accusations of sockpuppetry, impressed by how you carry yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and very impressed with the article's current state compared to how it was shortly after James S. got the boot. dreddnott 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for you, Massimamanno! dreddnott 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do not know if I deserve it, but surely the article was heavily biased and missing important information when i found it. Massimamanno 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium again

Are you still around? Depleted uranium is undergoing change again, and User:TDC is removing some of your edits. ←Ben^B4 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of wars between democracies

I have nominated List of wars between democracies, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars between democracies. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]