User talk:Burzum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Burzum, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CWC(talk) 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Holds

Thank you for your comment here. The http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/s041702.html link is extremely informative. We should consider adding something about these Holds to the Standing Rules of the United States Senate article and using that link. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallujah

Thanks Burzum, but I know the rules. ;-) I reverted because the anon didn't offer any explanation in the edit summary or the talk page. I didn't realize it was a copyvio. Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

As one of the editors to the Iranian Holocaust conference article, I just wanted to say thanks for your recent edits. The user you reverted, Shamir1, even has Iran listed on his userpage as "A country I don't like". It seems to me if one has such a strong opinion on a country or person, one should not edit articles relating ot it. Once again, thanks. Jeffpw 07:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted. May I suggest that if he adds the content again, I revert it instead of you? You have reverted (and justifiably) 2 times already, and I haven't reverted it at all. I don't want you to be accused of a 3RR violation. Jeffpw 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you interest, but I am familiar with the rules. I will not exceed a 3 revert/24 hour limit. I have invited the user to a discussion on the talk page and it is up to him or her to be engaged. If he or she fails to fully justify changes on the talk page and continues to POV push then we will have to follow further steps in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Cheers.--Burzum 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear meltdown

Hi:

I saw that you put the fire information way down the page under design, which makes it far less liekely to be read. According to the NRC, accidental fires are the primary potential cause for catastrophic nuclear accidents. I don't know how many reportable event texts you have read or how many NRC bulletins you have read or to what extent you have worked in the field. I have done R & D for passive fire protection products, trained installers in the installation of firestops and have been a guest at OWFN for proceedings involving the Office of Reactor Safety, where it came to the silicone foam issue. In fact, I ran the ULC fire test, that quantified the burn-out time for silicone foam to be ca. 9 hours. I have also worked closely with a number of people in the field and seen the inside of nuclear power plants in Canada, the United States and Germany. What is it that would have you differ from the NRC's published statements about the causal effects of fire to reactor safety? Fire is a cause and if the fire affects the circuit integrity and firestops in a plant, that is a huge potential contributing factor, which makes it a cause, does it not?

Also, the citation needed tag, I presume is yours, where it comes to the absence of the requirement for product certification for PFP products. If that is the case, I invite you to look up the link to the NRC's listing of circuit integrity measures. If you look up the back-up for the FP-60 and Hemyc products, for instance, you will find laboratories who do not hold national accreditation for certification, which means in plain English, that there is no nationally accredited back-up that the item tested is the same as the item sold and installed. Also, since existing silicone foam firestops are left in place from the old design basis, this means by default, that the old testing is acceptable, which means that contractors who were the test submittors were able to write their own test procedures (instead of using national standards) and fabricate the test samples on their own premises and then ship them to the laboratories. That being the case, it follows that product certification as it is understood in non-nuclear construction, say convenience stores, apartments, etc., is still absent. In summary, the proof for the "citation needed" is already provided in the links.

Best, Achim

Thanks for your comments, but I do not believe that your full addition belongs in the 'Causes' section because fires are already listed as a cause for a nuclear meltdown in the bullet list (though it could be slightly expanded to consider structural fires instead of just core fires). I believe most of your edit should remain in the reactor design section because it is mostly design related (otherwise we will have subject creep in the causes section). I also put the "citation required" tags on, and now I see that it was a mistake. The only change that will be needed is for your section to be linked in the appropriate citation style for the article.
As for your experience, I am very happy to see someone who has engineering experience in reactor fire protection contributing to this article. As a former reactor operator of a PWR most of my thinking occurs from reactor protection analysis requirements and practical experience, not necessarily from regulatory studies.
If you still think that your entire section should remain in the Causes section (instead of just modifying the last bullet to note that structural fires, like the Browns Ferry fire of 1975 are exceptionally hazardous), please respond to this post (or on the article's talk page) and we can continue this discussion. The 'citation required' tags will be removed once I have time to link up ref tags in your addition to your citations provided. Cheers.--Burzum 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'll leave it in your capable hands. I see your point of view and agree with it. Best, Achim
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/r/User_talk%7EBurzum_41cf.html"