User talk:Wikipager7

New physical principles weapons
Hello,

Thank you for your article about New physical principles weapons. A lot of the content had to be removed because it was just content lifted from the source and then put into quotes. Unfortunately, that does not resolve copyright issues if quoted text is relied upon for the article content.

So, I rewrote the article, using your sources and hope that I got the basic points that you wanted to make about the subject.

It's possible that this should be incorporated with other articles, like Russia and weapons of mass destruction, Military doctrine of Russia, Non-lethal weapon - but I don't know what the right place to put it might be, which would give the topic greater visibility. I am hoping that since I added the link to other articles someone might know and make any necessary changes.

If you have any questions, please let me know. There are also a lot of great places to go to for help like WP:Help and the teahouse.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk please
Please communicate with me at Talk:New physical principles weapons. Click edit on the section with the discussion and type your message. Then, please sign with four tildes (~) — CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much you are seeing of what I am typing: here, on the article talk page, or in the edit summary of the changes. I'm am going to plunge in to address the issues in the comment section above for a little bit... and stop trying to communicate with you (except via the edit summaries in history) until you can communicate with me.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

in use
As stated on the article talk page, I am placed a in use tag on the article so that I can double-check everything and make edits from top to bottom.

If you could give me a little time, that would be great. Otherwise, I need to keep reworking based on your edits and lose my place. It will take much less time if you allow me to do this. Please post any issues that you have, though, on the talk page.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipager7 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, there are a number of minor and major issues, I guess.

The major issue is that the article is by far not completed in terms of information but I do not have the time right now to add, plus I am awating some materials.

There are a number of misprints and in terms of information it is a little bit not right.

Some wordings - New physical principles weapons are non-nuclear weapons, devices, or systems. "Non-nuclear" is totally misrepresenting the concept. Why do you say these are devices or systems? Yes, we should paraphrase but actually not invent anything. Some authors claim that there are simply sets of techniques with some basic technical things which can be included here...

wave, beam, geophysical, psychophysical, and genetic weapons and actually all the introduction. Leaving out the source (just reference is enough) takes out the validity of the statements and turns them into just a speculation.

"is currently used primarily in Russia and a number of Eastern European states." There is no such information under the link - the link says that the first electromagnetic weapons were used by the USA and the USA and Russia are the most advanced.

New types of "weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons" were defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 1975. - This is a misinterpretation - the United Nations General Assembly did not do that. The term is used in UNODA Yearbooks up till now, then a draft resolution was passed only, but... Wikipager7 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Maybe I am not right here - there were a number of resolutions, p. 3 in the recent UNODA yearbook - this also shows which countries ....https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/yearbook/en/EN-YB-VOL-39-2014-part1.pdfWikipager7 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In 1976, the US State Department stated that these weapons are based on "qualitatively new principles of action", which can be new due to the nature of the impact, target to be attacked, method of action, or how they are used The US Department of State did not do it. This definition comes from the UNODA yearbook. What we have under reference is a Cable from the US Diplomatic Mission to UN which simply retold this plus has given some behind the scenes info, which is of course, useful and relevant.

In the never adopted draft treaty of 1975 - we never stated what draft treaty...

I do not know where the Conventions in the United Nations come from and why these conventions or why these only and why there is no mention that in fact most of the things are not banned and even not informed about...

A study was made of the 20th century shows that the "largest-scale vertical and horizontal integration of the efforts of many thousands of people across numerous scientific, engineering and industrial disciplines and areas" of the Russian, American, and German ballistic-missile programs.[13][14] The incredibly complex systems, using "new physical principles", require seamless "integrated de­sign, engineering, production, and testing".[14]

I am sorry, but why do you cite this obscure nonsense from an obscure person who just writes about something...alongside the United Nations Conventions and military doctrines. This is definitely misplaced and a misrepresentation which misleadingly conveys an idea of complexity where it is not obvious...

A Russian military doctrine - it is not "a" doctrine, it is the doctrine in effect which guides half a billion dollars daily of budget...

I would be thankful if you reconsider all this....

Wikipager7 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, I totally got that it is just a start and you have more that you want to add.


 * I am really getting confused, especially about the UNODA and General Assembly - you had said that it wasn't the UNODA, but the General Assembly in the Talk:New physical principles weapons section. I read the material and is came out of General Assembly sessions. Same thing with the draft from 1975. That wasn't my addition. Please word it the way that you think it should be worded, according to the source(s).


 * Non-nuclear and devises came from the sources. Some things seem to be devises - like the blinding equipment. It's no big deal, though, I removed it. Putin for one has made the statement that the NPPs are advantageous because they are not nuclear weapons. I think that is a good point. What is wrong with that one? The wording? I removed it for the moment.


 * Regarding doctrine, I was stuck... I couldn't find the year for that specific doctrine version anywhere in the source. I get your point and removed "A".


 * As far as finding other sources, I was responding to your point about not having a Russian-centric view. It's very hard to find material that is not focused on Russia. I am not sure that I would agree that he is a non-consequential person, but please go ahead and find good sources. It is better if we can find some that are secondary sources, though. Relying on primary sources will likely get the article tagged for cleanup. I added some links to news and book sources on the bottom of the talk page if you want to look at them. There's no hurry take your time.


 * I don't understand at all what you mean by wave, beam, geophysical, psychophysical, and genetic weapons and actually all the introduction. Leaving out the source (just reference is enough) takes out the validity of the statements and turns them into just a speculation.. Sources are not needed in the intro if it's discussed and cited in the body of the article. I already posted something about that on the article talk page. If you're saying the intro should be a summary rather than restatement, that's fine. I did a bit of rewording to the statement in the intro.


 * I'm not sure why you are questioning wording that you added - like the Eastern European states. I didn't add that. If I remember correctly, I tried to figure out the translation and coudn't, so I assumed good faith that it was covered in the source. I removed "Eastern European states". Is there more than one person using the Wikipager7 user ID by chance?


 * There's a lot here. Hopefully this is a start and I'll regroup later about the other points.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * About the ID - I have no idea but some of the materials on the page were not mine.
 * Regarding LaRouche - he just mentions the term but he does not give any references to whatever he writes - the whole idea conveyed that this stuff is incredibly complex - I will give you an example why it is not obvious and simply not true. Check this device, for example https://www.amazon.com/Sonic-Nausea-Electronic-Audible-Device/dp/B004MTL3O2. For 17 USD and a couple of AA batteries the effects are stunning. Please consider removing this LaRouche nonsense. I have a lot of materials in Russian - do you read Russian by the way. I will give you the references to the doctrines and co later, I am just a bit too busy now. Thank you for the time and effort! Wikipager7 ]]&thinsp; (talk)  03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the La Rouche info after reading his article and the one for EIR. I had included the info because it looked as if he had been an adviser to one of the presidents, I think Reagan. But, based upon what was said in the EIR article, particularly by the Washington Post, the content should be deleted.


 * I'm not sure what the point is about the gag/toy item at Amazon (that commenters said did not work)


 * I am actually fine with the article being centered on Russia, because that's where the sources lead. There are plenty of English articles to build the article upon, as stated on the article talk page. That is not a requirement, but helps with WP:Verifiabilty. Focusing on Russia seems to be a different opinion than The weapons are being developed all around the world and I would not really put any country into the centre. that you stated earlier, but again, I don't have a problem within it based upon the source info that I was finding. I'll leave it alone at this point and check back when you've added content.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This content was copied / moved to the talk article for continuity with previous discussions and to allow others to comment on the conversation.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page formats
There is some helpful information for talk page format and indenting conversational threads, but here are a few quick tips based upon what I am seeing:


 * If you are addressing a specific person, you can type their name. If you want them to be notified that you have addressed a comment or reply to them, you can:
 * use either u or ping templates at the beginning or in your comment, they will be notified. (It only works, though, if you sign using ~ at the end of your reply. If you don't sign, they won't be notified.)
 * For instance, you may have seen that at times I have addressed a comment to you. I typed, which produced , at the top of my replies to you.
 * Then, please see the thread topic for indenting. Generally, each comment is indented using ":" for each indent and you just add one more for your reply to the previous comment in the thread.
 * After you have finished your reply, add ~ at the end of your comment. It is used for format your signature and create a date and time stamp, which is what I used to create:— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)