User talk:VicDim

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Chernobyl disaster, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked the verifiability that you recommended and I do not understand what precisely (exactly, namely)) I have made incorrectly.VicDim (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are major mistakes in Chernobyl disaster they should be corrected. If you suggest English-language reliable sources that you think should be incorporated into the article to rectify this I will check them and if suitable will put them in. If Medvedev is contradicted by a source of equal validity, both should go in for balance, rather than deleting the one you feel to be wrong. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at WP:V and WP:BLP. Especially in articles about living people, we have strict requirements. Every non-obvious fact needs to be linked to a reliable source establishing this fact. Also see WP:Notability. In general, we only have articles about notable topics, where notability is usually established by the fact that there are multiple independent sources covering the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, you have two claims to me. 1) Why suddenly I do substitute the text, written in the excellent English, to another text in the disgusting English? 2) Why I treat myself so freely with the references to the ultimate sources.

As far as sources are concerned, here everything is very simple. I proceeded from the erroneous assumption, that I should not disrupt the general numeration of all sources of the article, which it is more than hundred. Therefore I did not add, but only substituted references. As it occurs, I completely can this not make. In one thing I am confident, basic information source for circumstances and reasons for Chernobyl emergency is the IAEA Report INSAG-7., it is in English. In the Russian language the most detailed information is presented (technically competently) in the books «Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom.» of N.V.Karpan and «Chernobyl. How it did happened.» of Anatoly Dyatlov. It is interesting also to know the opinion of the Chief designer of reactor RBMK. They should be include in the list of references. I included also two references in this section: to the description of explosion by direct witness (R. Davletbaev) and by the researcher of emergency (K. Checherov).
More complex is the matter concerning the text of article. Let us look, what it is discussed about in the subsection “Experiment and Explosion”. First, it is discussed that what occurred with the reactor during the experiment (during 36 seconds from the 1:23:04 till the 1:23:40), this is the first paragraph. In the second, it is discussed the pushing of the knob of Emergency Protection System - second and third paragraphs. Thirdly, it is discussed the uncontrollable power acceleration and the subsequent destruction of reactor - paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.

All is well known about the experiment, all events and parameters of power unit are registered by instruments, this is caused no disputes, and it would seem, in the first paragraph can and must be presented only facts. However, instead of this are given not facts themselves, but their interpretation from the positions only of one of the disputing sides. Simultaneously are explained the details of physics of nuclear reactor, which is absolutely unnecessary with the presence of internal references and furthermore this is done very incompetently and incorrectly.
The pushing of the knob of emergency protection system and the beginning of a catastrophic increase in the power is also registered by instruments, but since this is fundamental moment in the explanation of the reasons for Chernobyl emergency, very fact of pushing of knob already causes the bitter disputes. But instead of clearly fixing of this situation, assuming no one's of side, contributor itself occurs pulled into this dispute on side one of the points of view.
As far as explosion and destruction of reactor are concerned, here there are no objective registered data, and all which is in regard to this known, this the result of retrospective analysis, data of mathematical simulation and statements of witnesses. On nature of explosion there are several scientifically justified hypotheses, and they all must be represented in this article. One should not, as this is done, to present only one version of the course of events in the manner that as if everything said is unambiguously verified.

I make the last attempt to improve substantially the quality of the article (not linguistically, of course, but meaningfully). I place the correcting into the sandbox on my personal page. I hope, in someone the desire to improve my English and to move this correcting into the region of real articles will arise. Thank you in advance.

I will be happy to look this over but my high-school (средняя школа—more machine translation) knowledge of physics and chemistry isn't good enough for me reliably to make big changes to the article. I will leave it a few days to see if a better-qualified editor has a go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to make decision. To put or not to put corrections into the section “Experiment and explosion”? Since it entered no proposals on my last correcting, I return it in the article.VicDim (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom. has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom. constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Srin ivas 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen. Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom. is this the new article, which I wrote myself. I edited it in my sandbox, but in no way I could perform the simple operation of move. I please to excuse me, if in this case vandalism was appeared, I will not do that more. Possibly you also led into error by the fact that this article was prepared at the same place, where the correctings were done before into absolutely another article. And vandalism from your side with respect to my sandbox was here also appeared