User talk:Bassmadrigal

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Bassmadrigal! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:02, Thursday, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Your change of my edit to the "Manhattan Project"
You misinterpreted what the word "development" refers to in the sentence. "Development" refers to the development of uranium-235, not the development of the gun-type weapon. This is obvious because the next two sentences go on to expand about the development of uranium-235, not the weapon. So I'm changing it back to the way I had it, but seperating the weapon from the uranium with a comma for clarity. UConnHusky7 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The first sentence of the paragraph states:

Two types of atomic bomb were developed during the war; a relatively simple gun-type fission weapon was made using uranium while a more complex plutonium implosion-type weapon was designed concurrently.
 * I feel the next sentence is used to further clarify that the gun-type weapon required uranium-235. It then goes on explaining what is required to get uranium-235 from uranium-238. I wonder if a rewording it to the following (or something similar) would be better:

Two types of atomic bombs were developed concurrently during the war; a relatively simple gun-type fission weapon using uranium and a more complex implosion-type weapon using plutonium. Developing the gun-type weapon required uranium-235 (an isotope that makes up only 0.7 percent of natural uranium), which was difficult to separate from natural uranium-238 since they were chemically identical and had almost the same mass.
 * I think that leaves nothing to interpretation and covers everything. What do you think User:UConnHusky7? And I'll throw a ping to User:Hawkeye7 since he has a lot of experience with this topic. Feel free to weigh in. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "development" always referred to the gun-type weapon, not uranium-235, which cannot be developed. I have re-worded the paragraph:

Two types of atomic bombs were developed concurrently during the war; a relatively simple gun-type fission weapon, and a more complex implosion-type nuclear weapon. The Thin Man gun-type design proved impractical to use with plutonium so a simpler gun-type called Little Boy was developed that used uranium-235, an isotope that makes up only 0.7 percent of natural uranium. Chemically identical to the most common isotope, uranium-238, and with almost the same mass, it proved difficult to separate the two. Three methods were employed for uranium enrichment: electromagnetic, gaseous and thermal. Most of this work was performed at the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

In parallel with the work on uranium was an effort to produce plutonium. After the feasibility of the world's first artificial nuclear reactor was demonstrated in Chicago at the Metallurgical Laboratory, it designed the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge and the production reactors in Hanford, Washington, in which uranium was irradiated and transmuted into plutonium. The plutonium was then chemically separated from the uranium. The Fat Man implosion-type weapon was developed in a concerted design and construction effort by the Los Alamos Laboratory. Hope this makes everything clearer by separating the uranium and plutonium efforts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better than my version, and immensely better than the current version. Exactly why I figured you'd be helpful here. Thanks! --Bassmadrigal (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole
I hope you have enjoyed reading the Wikipedia articles on the Manhattan Project. I encourage you to review articles like Project Y, which is under review at FAC (as is, since you said you like space, Alan B. Shepard), and S-50 (Manhattan Project), at A class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David L. Goldfein, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages T-37 and T-38. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as David L. Goldfein. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I was not aware of that requirement and had not noticed it in any other CSAF articles. However, I had not adjusted any text within the section you adjusted. I only added the education and assignments section (which, I admit, is copied from the official page) to mimic other CSAF pages and reworded a poorly constructed section. But I'll keep this in mind for any future articles I adjust.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)