User talk:Ita140188/Archive 3

High-voltage transformer fire barriers
I already asked nicely: instead of tagging, why don't you fix it? Especially the inline citations. I can't get those right and have asked for help on the talk page about that. Tagging is fast, Fixing is divine?--Achim Hering (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as too much detail, there are reasons for this. Why don't you ask instead of tagging?--Achim Hering (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as spelling, I use British English, as in the original, as opposed to a Colonial aberration.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, the tags are not a personal attack. They are just there to indicate that an article needs work. When I have time, or when anyone else has time, this work can be finished and the tag removed. It is a way to call attention to make the article better. About the references: it is not enough to link a regulation or a general document as a reference. A lot of paragraphs are completely unreferenced, so this is not just a matter of turning inline external links to proper ref tags, and a lot of work is needed. As for the excessive detail, Wikipedia is not the right place to discuss specific technical regulations. Also, copyediting does not refer to spelling only, it can refer to the general flow of the article, style, or tone, which should be checked. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I look at Wikipedia article tags similar to tagging, using spray paint in a city. If you take the time to tag, regardless of convention on Wikipedia, I personally believe you can also invest some of it to fix the problem you are highlighting, or to ask the author about it first. did you see that I asked for help on the talk page, for example? About inline citations, converting the external hyperlinks into references would be a good start. Also, are you certain that you can judge whether something is referenced without having purchased the standards that are cited in the text? Everything is backed up in there. The standards are public domain documents but you have to buy them. Not everything in the world is free of charge by clicking with your mouse. Do you own a current copy of any of the following public domain standards: ASTM E119, ASTM E2336, NFPA 850, NFPA 5000, NFPA 251, DIN 4102, BS 476, CAN/ULC-S101? If you do not own those, or if you do own those, but did not read them, then what are you basing your statement on that "whole paragraphs are unreferenced"? Also, who are you to judge whether detail is excessive? Maybe it would be excessive if the countermeasure described were regulated via building codes. Then one would not need such detail. The fact of the matter is, that sellers and users of these walls are operating in an unregulated environment. Think about that for a second from the perspective of national security concerning the power grid of a country. Zero mandatory regulations leads to issues, which are resolvable given the information presented. It is a technical article with references to laws and standards. If your frame of reference were simple subjects, easily and completely understood without looking anything up, like perhaps a Muppet Show character, then yeah, the equivalent here would be if I went into the chemical formula of the plastic used to make the puppet. It's irrelevant. But what you have here is an item in a national electric grid, which is identified as critical national infrastructure. That preceding sentence is unreferenced too but if you demand back-up for that you would also demand that for the Pope being Catholic. Maybe the Pope is a Klingon? If you have not read those standards, I am telling you that you are not qualified to determine what is or is not excessive detail. If you have never designed a fire protection product and run fire testing or fragmentation or ballistic testing on a product of your design, then you are not qualified to judge this. It is easy enough to get qualified, but it takes a bigger investment in time than you took to do your tagging. And your tagging is the first thing anybody sees. Ask yourself this without looking it up: Why do intumescents have endothermic qualities? If you don't know that without looking it up, how can you be sure that you know what you're talking about? About the tag concerning worldwide input: Why do you think I specifically point out what is North American and what is French, as an example? How many articles begin with a slant from the country where the author is located? It does not take your tag for someone who is interested in the topic in Peru or Russia to go in and add what is relevant on his or her turf. Nobody needs that tag. That's like tagging my dog to indicate she likes rubbing behind her ears. It is redundant at best. The article just started, and within hours, you put 4 tags on it and I will bet you dollars to donuts you have never designed an E119 test. Am I right or am I correct?--Achim Hering (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, tags are not personal attacks. That article is not your article. Once you write something on Wikipedia, it does not belong to you, and should follow the Wikipedia guidelines and community consensus. Did you read the Wikipedia guidelines? --Ita140188 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You avoided my questions.--Achim Hering (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your questions were, except for rhetorical questions that don't really add much to the discussion. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Convenient--Achim Hering (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are now 51 inline citations. Would you object to the removal of the reference tag? Obviously more is always better for any article, but I think it's pretty decent now.--Achim Hering (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. I see that the great majority of paragraphs do not cite any source. I tagged a few in the first section to give you an idea. Also it is necessary to specify where these regulations apply. If you cite such specific codes and requirements, it needs to be clear if you are talking about North America, Europe or somewhere else. Do they have the same code requirements in China for example? I wouldn't know reading the article. If the whole article only applies to North America, then the title should be changed to High-voltage transformer fire barriers regulations in North America in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I approached it leaving it open with regards to countries but have inserted North America and France in there, where applicable. This way, should someone in another country see it, he or she can add information concerning their countries. I will seek to find citations for what you have tagged now. The thing is that NFPA and ASTM in particular call themselves international organisations. Theoretically, there is nothing preventing anyone in Peru or anywhere from using American standards and codes, or anyone else's for that matter. But that does not mean that there is evidence they do that. Also, if you belong to ASTM, as an example, you will find folks from the Middle East and Europe attending meetings or, at least, showing up in the rosters. That could be for their domestic consumption, or it could be because they want to sell goods in North America. --Achim Hering (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just replaced your tags with inline citations. You sort of proved my earlier point. You were again asking for confirmation whether the Pope is Catholic. There was enough information already in this page and in Wikipedia, that had you read it, or had ANYONE read it, you or they would not have asked for further back-up. You can bellyache that there is no back-up, but it is abundantly obvious that you have not read any of it. For example, Authority Having Jurisdiction is already a defined term here, and it is also linked in the article. Did you click on that? The fact that fire codes are BASED of building codes, is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Building code and Building permit are defined terms on Wikipedia already. When you repeat stuff, people start bellyaching about that. Ar we writing articles for people who have to be told there are regulations governing construction and who cannot conceivably trouble themselves to look up the fact that this is all defined and explained here already? Are we writing for people so utterly lazy and cerebrally challenged that they need to be TOLD, that when changes are made TO a building constructed in accordance with a building code, that they must comply with the fire code? Would these not be the same folks so completely and utterly simple, functioning on the level of a single cell organism, that they would, for example, discharge a fire extinguisher hanging on the wall and then throw it in the garbage without refilling it, and think that this is OK? Again, you are asking for the completely obvious, which is already backed up here six ways to breakfast in the very article you are tagging, if you would only trouble yourself to read that which is cited. Maybe you should check the back-up before asking. What you tell me that you cannot tell from reading the article, is right under your nose. What exactly is stopping you from referring to those document?--Achim Hering (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really get why you are being so aggressive. It is kind of annoying, so please try to have a normal conversation if you want an answer. Anyway to explain my point better. An example of one of the sentences tagged is "Outdoor structures, such as the transformers and fire barriers that separate them, do not constitute buildings, as defined by building codes. Building codes, therefore, do not typically apply to them, unless buildings are in close proximity and may be adversely affected by transformer ruptures.". This is not obvious for someone who does not know building codes in detail. Also, as I mentioned before, is it true for any building code anywhere? Because if you are talking about a specific building code then you have to specify. I understand your earlier point about these being general regulations that can be followed anywhere, but all these considerations need to be specified. Imagine that Wikipedia is read by people from all around the world. All these things may seem obvious to you, but they are not necessarily obvious for whoever else is reading the article. Also the fact that you can search for the reference misses the point. The point is precisely that it takes time to find a reference, so it should be the writer's responsibility to provide one, rather than the reader's. I am not necessarily questioning the truth of the statements, but should I trust your word? Should I go search and verify myself? This is not how scientific writing works. Of course Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so it's ok to leave unreferenced sentences and imperfect articles, and the tags are to notify that that's the case. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my tone. I get exasperated on here. I quite frankly disagree with some of the policies on here. Certainly not all, but enough. And I am not alone in that, as I have seen enough people turn away from the project altogether with great disdain. But since you try to communicate, so will I and maybe we can have a meeting of the minds insofar as that may be possible considering the mantle of anonymity and limited form of public communication on here. After quoting my passage above, you indicate that the content is not obvious for someone who does not know building codes in detail. I agree with you on that. Here is my point: Building code is a defined term on here. It is also linked internally within Wikipedia articles including the one at issue. Therefore, one can read that article on the topic of building codes, which then has references as to where you can get a copy of one - or Google it or go to the library and see it for free. Furthermore, building codes and the acts of parliaments that make them the laws of the lands they are in, are public domain. Therefore, it is possible, and I would argue: suggested to look those things up. Anyone can look of the National Building Code of Canada, as an example, or the "Musterbauordnung" (federal model code) of Germany, or any of the "I" codes published by ICC in the US, and any of their various cousins in civilised nations around the world. What bothers me is when a statement is tagged as requiring further back-up, or as being unreferenced, within less time than it would take to download the document, let alone to read any of its contents. Also, some of those contents cost money. But how can anyone claim that a statement about such public domain and copyrighted work requires back-up when really a trip to the library for example would do it? By inference, does this not mean that the only thing that will suffice to sticklers for Wikipedia policies, that there must be instant satisfaction? Click and the content that might cost money to obtain, OR, might require a trip to the library, where you can see it for free miraculously appears? Sometimes it takes a bit of effort. Not all information is available free of charge. Sometimes you need to go and look. Can you see that point? You say that all considerations need to be specified. My earlier counterpoint was this: Perusal of the test standards as well as NFPA 850 and NFPA 5000, which are all referenced here, which means you can go get those contents, back up what you see. Suppose for a moment, that you had purchased, downloaded and read those documents. I submit your questions would disappear. I did take the time to reference. But did you take the time to read those documents? Just for fun, why don't you have a look? Presume my content is buffalo bagels and prove me wrong. Quote me a passage from ASTM E119-2018, for example, that tells me that a minimum sample size for bearing or nonbearing walls is not 100ft²? One item I do agree with you on is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is best to have as many references as possible and all of that takes time. But if I quote a reference document multiple times, is it too much to ask that you read it before tagging it? --Achim Hering (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure at what policies do you refer to, but I appreciate the patience. However, I have to disagree with you. If you said building codes say something, it is not enough to say "you can go read building codes". It's very laborious and difficult to read all the building codes of each country, and interpreting these documents may be beyond the capability/time (different languages, technical legal terms) available to most readers. Ideally you would need a reference to a third party reliable source that aggregates/review building codes and conclude what you just wrote there. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think the biggest problem with the article is the excessive detail and insufficient context, not the references. Please note that excessive detail is relative to the title of the article. You can have as much detail as you want on Wikipedia (as long as it is encyclopedic), but it needs to be relevant and proportionate to the title of the article. For example, it's probably out of scope to describe in detail a very specific regulation for a certain aspect of transformer fire barriers in a certain country in a generic article about transformer fire barriers. Creating the article for that specific regulation, or an article about those class of regulations in that country would be more adequate. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two options we have not discussed: (1.) The Vulcan Mind Meld and (2.) the Borg Collective. For two people, the mind meld is OK, but as soon as we get everybody assimilated, then everything can be considered with a collective decision, unless HoneyBun, as I call her, overrules it all. And then it can still be crap because she has been known to make a mistake or two in her time as well - plus she keeps coming back even after she has been killed, like some vampires or Kenny McCormick. I'll tell you something too, that is indicative. I once asked a PhD at a plant where they make such transformers, why they don't just switch to silicone oil. After all, that won't burn as easily as the current transformer oil, which is basically still a mineral oil. He said that he had the same idea, replace the transformer oil with something that provides electrical insulation but does not burn. What a novel idea! It is certainly not beyond our species to solve that problem. In fact, as an outsider, one might think that it is pretty idiotic to use a big load of hydrocarbon fuel here as it causes all sorts of problems, which is the cause for all kinds of legislation. I even once visited a nuke plant, where they were about to switch to a "risk-informed" or "performance-based" approach to solve many problems. It's all BS driven by money, in my view. The idea is that you go ahead and count up all the fuel in a place and run a model on what sort of fire this stuff would produce (2 dudes running the same model given the same circumstances do not necessarily come out with the same result... except maybe a lower building cost by trading money against safety), including transient combustibles and then stipulate your fire regime that your PFP and AFP have to defeat, with the sole backgrounder of trying to get out of costly repairs and replacement of Thermo-lag, etc. So in his model, he did not consider the transformer oil from a big, honking transformer in his plant. Then he could drop from 3h ratings to 1h ratings and had to do less work to fix old sins. Nice! Risk-informed huh? Back to the PhD: a safer alternative to regular mineral oil had in fact been invented and tested and it worked. Only one single problem: No customer wanted to pay more for it, despite a test showing two transformers side by side, overloading them and the old one popped and the new one was fine. And that is the essence of fire protection. People do it, pretty much only if there is a gun to their heads. And if it hits the fan, there starts the blamestorming. A bunch of what you call excessive detail shows places to look to verify that the item offered for sale or already installed is actually fit for purpose. There is a reason why we have building regulations. When there is no AHJ, the mice will play, which does not make for an even playing field either.--Achim Hering (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

robe nuculari
faccio questo mega-topic così man mano aggiungo roba, e non si sparpaglia in giro

pubblicazione dei reattori nel mondo della IAEA
fai una richiesta bot per aggiungere a tutte le pagine dei reattori questo link qui? https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/RDS-2-38_web.pdf

io l'ho fatto mettere in quelle di it:wiki, pubblicato oggi, quindi fresco-fresco. tu sei più "addentro" le cose di en:wiki, io non ci tocco mai nulla se non ne sono sicuro al 100%. non mi pare che sia presente, ma se fosse presente sarebbe da cambiare. se fai tu però sono più sicuro che non ci saranno pasticci. tnx--Dwalin (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Grazie del link! Molto utile. Non credo pero' che sia giustificabile l'uso di un bot per mettere un link esterno su tutti gli articoli. Comunque vedo che ci sono un sacco di grafici interessanti che possono essere riprodotti qui. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * io l'ho fatto per le voci italiane, ed al momento ci sono la metà dei reattori in en:wiki. fai tu....--Dwalin (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

aggiornamento mappa situazione nucleare mondiale
tu sai come aggiornare ? io ho chiesto all'ultimo editor di modificarla tempo fa, ma nulla......ci sono da fare tonnellate di aggiornamenti. --Dwalin (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * E' facile: salva la figura, apri con blocco note o altro editor di testo (Notepad++) cerca i blocchi chiamati "g", tipo  ...  Ogni blocco corrisponde ad un paese, identificato dalla proprieta' "id=" tipo it e' italia. Dentro i blocchi sono definiti dei  con proprieta' "fill=" che definisce il colore. Se cambi tutti i colori ti un paese puoi cambiare la mappa. E' un po' laborioso ma semplice. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * non capisco, mi dà sempre la vecchia versione anche se carico la nuova.......--Dwalin (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Io la vedo aggiornata . Hai provato a eliminare la cache? --Ita140188 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI WP:PURGE --Ita140188 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * cache di chrome......--Dwalin (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tra l'altro, non e' illegale anche in Australia? --Ita140188 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Devo controllare. Ma devo cmq togliere l'illegale dall'italia, la legge del 2011 non consentiva la costruzione, diceva chi ne normava la costruzione. È sottile ma è differente, come i referendum del 1987 non vietavano costruzione o funzionamento, ma toglievano poteri e vantaggi inerenti la costruzione.
 * Guardando....niente di illegale, ci sono stati progetti durante tutta la storia, uno a decennio, all'incirca. Ci sono ban sulle miniere, non sulla produzione. --Dwalin (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Secondo me bisogna allentare un po' la definizione di illegale. Se c'e' un sistema normativo che di fatto impedisce progetti, il paese dovrebbe essere nero. Su nuclear power in Australia: "As of 2017, Australia has no operating nuclear power plants and the construction of such a facility is prohibited". Anche in Italia, in pratica e' illegale costruire centrali. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * da qui solo nuovo galles del sud, queenisland e victoria hanno leggi per il ban del nucleare, mentre c'è dibattito a livello nazionale. ma essendo i più popolosi, rendono l'installazione in altre zone improbabile. come lo consideriamo? tutto vietato, o lo stato consente ma i singoli stati vietano? perchè sarebbe come il voto alle donne in svizzera, a seconda del cantone potevano votare molto prima del 1972, ma solo nel 1972 è passata la legge nazionale. in australia la legge nazionale consente, quelle locali no.--Dwalin (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmm non saprei, lascio a te la scelta. Forse in caso dell'Australia si puo' lasciare come e' ora --Ita140188 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Se trovassi il modo di mettere nero e verde chiaro lo si potrebbe fare. Ma si confonde la gente. Ad esempio, anche alcuni stati usa hanno dei ban su costruzione e miniere (forse uno ha centrali, ma ha il divieto di farne di nuove). Ma nessuno direbbe che negli usa (federazione) sia vietato il nucleare! per il momento lo lascio cosí.--Dwalin (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Se trovassi il modo di mettere nero e verde chiaro lo si potrebbe fare. Ma si confonde la gente. Ad esempio, anche alcuni stati usa hanno dei ban su costruzione e miniere (forse uno ha centrali, ma ha il divieto di farne di nuove). Ma nessuno direbbe che negli usa (federazione) sia vietato il nucleare! per il momento lo lascio cosí.--Dwalin (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

hinkpey point C
tu hai la newsletter della WNA? in quella di oggi: ''Valinox Nucléaire SAS, a subsidiary of Vallourec, has signed a contract with Framatome for the manufacture of more than 47,500 tubes at its Montbard site in Burgundy, France for the eight steam generators of the two EPR Hinkley Point C units under construction in Somerset, England. The tubes, which are the only interface between the primary system and the secondary system in pressurised water reactors, transfer heat from the reactor to the secondary loop to produce steam that drives the power generating turbine.'' ok, qui mi sento preso per i fondelli. PRIS dice NO. WNA sulla sua pagina dice NO. WNA-NEWS dice SI. checcazzo!!! (cmq rimane NO fino anche non lo dice il PRIS...). cmq qui dice che è stato dato il permesso per colare del cemento. e dice However, the start of construction of a nuclear power plant is usually taken from the date of pouring the concrete of the reactor basemat, which for Hinkley Point C 1 is scheduled for 2019.. qui che la costruzione è iniziata il 30 marzo 2017. ma credo sia come vogtle, hanno iniziato prima la zona non nucleare, ma si considera iniziato solo dal momento in cui iniziano la zona nucleare vera e propria. quindi lo stanno costruendo ma è come se facessero le turbine di una gigantesca centrale termica, quando inizieranno la centrale vera e propria, sarà una centrale nucleare. --Dwalin (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Credo che la tua analisi sia corretta. Come dicevamo prima, dipende da cosa intendi per costruzione iniziata. Comunque non cambia molto, in pratica non credo che si possa piu' decidere di abbandonare la costruzione di Hinkley Point C, per cui in pratica si puo' dire che e' iniziata la costruzione. E' anche vero che quando si parla di centrali nucleari tutto e' possibile. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

VVER
da questa modifica non sarebbe meglio unire anche queste classificazioni qui?--Dwalin (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Si, grazie del link, appena ho tempo aggiungo --Ita140188 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * non è però meglio mettere solo i modelli e non gli esempi di centrali? io stavo rielaborando qui quella tabella. --Dwalin (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Scusa se rispondo solo ora, mi era sfuggito questo messaggio. La mia idea era di prima o poi unire le due tabelle in VVER, quindi mettere le centrali e i tipi di reattori insieme. Secondo me e' utile mantenere le centrali perche' da un'idea di quanti ne siano stati costruiti di ogni tipo, dato che ci sono differenze significanti. Inoltre e' utile sapere in quali paesi sono stati costruiti. Un'altra opzione e' fare una tabella con i tipi di VVER con colonne "anno di prima connessione", "totale reattori costruiti", "potenza", etc, senza andare nei dettagli delle centrali. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * cioè fare come ho fatto in it.wiki? ho messo la tabella generale col modello, POI volevo mettere questa tabellina ridotta prima delle varie tipologie per far capire di che generazione è ogni modello. non ti pare più ordinato così?--Dwalin (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Si', pero' la mia idea era di fare una tabella piu' approfondita dei tipi di VVER, con anno di prima attivazione, numero di installazioni, potenza etc. Comunque si', forse e' meglio tenere la lista centrali separata dalla lista di tipologie. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * molti sono però modelli singoli, come quelli armeni, o buscher1. cmq possiamo fare due cose differenti in due wiki, eh!--Dwalin (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

summer
ma tu hai capito sta cosa?. si, tagliano quello che può recuperare di tasse dall'abbaodono del progetto, per così "punire" la compagnia. ma l'obiettivo è quello di avere la compagnia che torna sui suoi passi? o c'è altro?--Dwalin (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Non ho seguito la vicenda, ne' conosco la policy a riguardo negli Stati Uniti. Cio' che mi sembra evidente e' che tutta questa storia rendera' la prospettiva che un'altra azienda privata consideri la costruzione di nuovi reattori estremamente remota. La morte del nucleare negli US. Vedi anche --Ita140188 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

reattori smantellati
è il caso di mettere anche la classificazione "demolished" nella lista dei reattori nucleari? io nelle pagine italiane l'ho fatto. let me know. --Dwalin (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Intendi specificare se un reattore "shut down" e' stato smantellato (decommissioned) completamente? --Ita140188 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Essendo una quarantina (devo fare i conti) anche se distribuiti solo fra 4-5 nazioni (di cui due con solo uno) non sarebbe una cosa peregrina, no?--Dwalin (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ti interessa?--Dwalin (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Scusa il ritardo nella risposta. Non saprei. Il problema che mi viene in mente a prima vista e' che e' difficile trovare informazioni attendibili sull'argomento e soprattutto tenere la pagina aggiornata. Propongo di aprire una discussione nella talk page della pagina. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * si usa il sito della WNA, io uso quello. --Dwalin (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * dal sito NEI--Dwalin (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

lijangjiang
questa è da revertare, il reattore è planned da questa tabella--Dwalin (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Grazie, hai ragione mi ero confuso con un altro nome. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

jaitapur
in merito a questa modifica che si fa? io la toglierei. che benchè questo articolo sia fonte per il dato, questo dice il contrario, ed anzi, dice che non si farà prima del completamento di flamanville 3. oltretutto la WNA dice che sono tutti come proposti (mentre fino a qualche mese fa i primi 2 erano pianificati), e si era deciso di mantenere solo i reattori pianificati (aggiungendo quelli proposti, ma solo se nello stesso impianto o non in cina, per questioni di tabella che esploderebbe)--Dwalin (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fosse per me la toglierei, ma scommetto che l'anonimo reverta. Non vorrei iniziare una sterile edit war per ora. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * allora faccio io. non ti preoccupare--Dwalin (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * cmq, per gli aggiornamenti, lascio fare a te per tutto. ho già le pagine ita da fare (2 settimane fa c'era solo la mappa), quindi io ti segnalo tutto, ma aggiornamenti ed altro è compito tuo :P --Dwalin (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

rancho seco
da questa modifica, me la sta revertendo, e quindi chiedo anche a te un parere per capire di non aver sbagliato.

1) il giornale ha chiuso nel 2014, e non lo trovo fra i primi risultati su google, quindi O era uno di quelli a pagamento (paghi e ti pubblicano) o non era per nulla importante. 2) c'è scritto There are currently no refbacks., e già questo mi puzza. 3) c'è questa risposta che mi pare molto più sensata dello studio preso in esame.

che si fa? io reverterei su tutta la linea. --Dwalin (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ho provato a chiarificare la questione. Cosa ne pensi? --Ita140188 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * io lo avrei proprio tolto. ma se non si può fare altrimenti, ottimo lavoro! --Dwalin (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

List of nuclear reactors
Why would you not want the NuScale reactors linked to their page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nuclear_reactors&oldid=prev&diff=843885236 EdHayes3 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked it in the next edit . I reverted your edit because it broke the table, as I explained in the edit summary. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Move Discussion
Hello, I see that you've edited the article on Rajneesh. I would like to ask you to give your thought on the page move discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for catching my accidental rollback at Talk:Wind power. I remember reading that and maybe shaking my head in a little bit of disbelief, but I certainly wasn't intending to remove the comment. Thanks again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ; ) --Ita140188 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Thanks for the correction- my mistake - too eager. Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem ;) --Ita140188 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear power in Italy
You recently my changes in the table about 2 research Italian nuclear reactors, with reason "only commercial power reactors listed [in the table]". But i cannot find this stated anywhere in the article. Can you explain a bit further? Ankostis (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally, nuclear power is understood here to refer to commercial reactors for electricity production, even though it is not stated explicitly. This is consistent with all other similar articles on Wikipedia. There are many research nuclear reactors in Italy, see List of nuclear research reactors, but the article is about reactors connected to the grid and used to produce electricity. Ps.: please don't overwrite previous discussions when adding a new one. You can use the "new section" button at the top of the page. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will add refs and fix inaccuracies in that article. PS: My apologies for mistakenly overwritting the above question - i searched a bit for the button but couldn't find it, and went manual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankostis (talk • contribs) 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori (NTV) logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori (NTV) logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank
Thank you for your edit Electricity sector in China, but, why don't you edit the page ? it's error Đông Minh (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for noticing the mistake, now it's fixed. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So thank you Mr Ita140188. Have a good day ! Đông Minh (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
@Ita140188 Why did you undo my change on lenningrad 1 ? I just read a article that said it was shutdown please undo it thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeguy (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, the reactor will be decommissioned in 2019. As we are still in 2018, it is still operational as far as I know. Do you have a source that says otherwise? --Ita140188 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)