User talk:NPguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello NPguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article Perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Your 'correct' interpretations

First, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, I am worried that you view all your interpretations and edits as 'correct' whereas everybody else's is wrong. Please remember this is Wikipedia, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to create neutral articles stemming from different interpretations and subsequent debates. However, there are some issues which are simply facts, and your reinterpretation of various treaties (NPT) and UN laws gives rise for concern. Please be more open-minded. Third, if you are indeed a genuine expert in this area, please say so. If not, then please recognize that there may be other editors out there which base their knowledge not on just what they read in newspapers or other news sources, read on opinion pages and the internet. Jsw663 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I am indeed new to Wikipedia and a bit unused to the culture. I am also, as you suspect, a subject matter expert. I have been working as a nuclear nonproliferation expert for over ten years. I have dealt extensively with many of the issues I have written on in my professional work. Hence the user name NPguy. How do I make this clear? NPguy 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think I've answered all your queries re the NPT talk + 6-party talk pages so far. We agree on all the main points; our main point of disagreement is about the rights non-NPT states have, on which the international law is silent, as you said. However, I don't think this disagreement is unique to us only - this is also a matter hotly debated by international lawyers for the past few decades (especially by, say, the extent of rights the D3 should have). Up until the US-India nuclear deal, the US complained about how the Pak-Chn + Rus-Irn, Rus- many others deals were undermining the success of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This is why I've decided just to stop reverting what you said last time regarding the 6-party talks page - after all, what was said originally wasn't incorrect.

It is also great to meet another expert in this field; my exposure to this, as you may have gathered from my user page, is more recent than yours (nuclear non-proliferation only, not international relations in general) as I spent my earlier life in the legal sector. Since you are an expert, your contributions + reviews will be of great value on Wikipedia as there are too many self-proclaimed experts rather than genuine ones, hence the need to verify yourself as an expert if indeed you want to edit on Wikipedia whilst carrying the tag (personally, I find this too 'public' so I haven't bothered formally establishing myself as one). Originally, there was going to be a formal method for establishing field experts (see WP:EXPERT ) but this was rejected. However, if you don't mind, then the closest way is simply to post your user page / business (I'm not sure whether you're in the academic, NGO or proper government sector) and carry on like that. It will mean you have to not mind giving quite a lot of personal details on Wikipedia, AND, when challenged, be able to somehow (depending on the situation) prove who you are.

Also, it will be great if we could communicate by e-mail (or other ways, and if you're stationed in the southern half of the UK now then there is a high probability that I will have met you through conferences recently without knowing it!), but I note that you didn't even want to give your e-mail to Wikipedia, or have elected not to receive any e-mail via Wikipedia. Since you seem to be so reluctant to give away more information on Wiki much like myself, I'll simply wear the 'expert' tag seldomly and only when necessary. Experts, however, talk in a way that is slightly different from the layperson, so your knowledge already made me suspect you were one after the talk page discussions. Anyway, if you have any more questions please ask. If you are looking for general editing rules, then reading WP:A should get you started!! Jsw663 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous. I work, as you put it in the "proper government sector," but my views do not in every case align with those of my government. Since I prefer to be candid, I will continue to refrain from posting personal identifying information. I look forward to learning more about Wikipedia and its social norms. NPguy 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I respect your wishes. Any chance of answering these two questions though - 1. Can you say which nation's government you work for? (I'm not going to ask for the Department or section or anything that identifiable), 2. Any chance of me contacting you to discuss more on (current) nuclear non-proliferation issues? Jsw663 10:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Alternatively you can contact me directly without revealing your e-mail address etc. by click on my name in my signature (the jsw663 one), then on the left-hand column, scroll down to 'toolbox', then there is an 'E-mail this user' function. This way you can contact without having to set up an anon. public e-mail account. Jsw663 10:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of states with nuclear weapons

I think you might find this interesting if you have not seen it already. KnightLago 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of states with nuclear weapons, redux

The consensus on the talk page was that we shouldn't just go and remove all those countries again, which you pretty much completely ignored in removing them.

Please don't just remove things against consensus like that and tell people not to re-add without consensus. It's insulting to all the other participants.

You're welcome to engage on the talk page and shift consensus if you can get support, but edit warring on the page itself is not good for the project.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of states with nuclear weapons, Iran

The three-revert rule prohibits any editor from making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. You apparently have crossed this threshold, and I also was close to doing so. Since you insist on the current wording, I have left it; however I have added a tag since I believe that your proposed wording is not supported by the documents given. So that we do not repeatedly revert edits, I think we should use the talk page to work towards wording which we both find acceptable. Thanks, --68.253.50.109 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)