Talk:National Atomic Energy Commission

message: Recent vandalism in this article has been unstoppable, please discuss changes here before editing the article. All edits with no consensus will be considered vandalism and removed without any advise. Thanks. --OneEuropeanHeart 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you try to carry that out, I promise you that you will get into trouble. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read this before editing the article

message: In order to enforce the above, I've just protected the page. This is a total protection (no users except administrators can edit the page). Comment and discuss here. Sign your posts properly, be civil, and settle this as soon as possible so that the page can be unprotected. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unprotecting. There has been no discussion since it was protected, which was a couple of weeks ago. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep this page on your watchlist, so you can see what happens.  may have been harsh above, but he's warning a repeat vandal that masquerades under a lot of IPs (see Talk:Huemul Project, as well as history and contribs of anon users with IP starting in 200.43.*, 200.45.* and others). If you choose to unprotect Huemul Project also, please keep it in your watchlist too. I think a semi-protection against vandalism is the right thing to do. This is a very serious problem and I can assure you it's not a POV dispute. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's back.  And  unprotected Ronald Richter and the vandal started immediatly to edit.  Oh God... --OneEuropeanHeart 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is a mess right now, from the strictly point of view of coherence, and it also should be clear that this vandal has some sort of grudge against the CNEA. A large part of the text should be elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the patience to research and put together a coherent article on the history of nuclear power in Argentina, especially since I know it will be vandalized like this one. Each editor is to be held responsible for what s/he inserts into an article. Now, try removing any of the biased or misplaced statements in the text, and see what happens. I repeat, this is very serious, not something a couple of us made up to accuse an innocent anonymous user of vandalism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pablo Flores, some sort of protection is needed in this and related pages. I have done some editing to correct  minor mistakes (e.g. date of creation is 31 may 1950) and to introduce some new facts and a little organization to the material. Luzu 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your collaboration. I still think the paragraph about the U.S. nuclear agencies is irrelevant, at least as currently presented. It seems that the editor is trying to make a point, but it's not clear what it is. I'm not into that kind of politics and don't understand what section is doing in this article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: My dear anonymous, you won't get your rage against CNEA and Balseiro into the article. You need to start writing clear, objective, well-sourced, and well-contextualized information, and you need to discuss it and get consensus, rather than dumping it into the article breaking that flow of text and confusing the readers. We've been through this already. I'm not going to try and dig up the facts from your text and tidy it up for you. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest.  --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again? 

message: CNEA was created in 1950 by decree 10936. The need to count with an official organism to provide an administrative framework to the level of investment to the Huemul Project, dependent so far upon the Dirección de Migraciones administrative branch, was evident to government officials around that date. In practice CNEA had only four members (Perón, González, Mendé and Richter; González left CNEA on april 1952 and was remplaced by Iraolagoitía) until 1955. After being assessed by two review panels (only the first panel visited the Island and meet Richter, the second panel based his conclusions on the reports written by the members of the first one), this line of research was closed and Richter was no longer a CNEA's member. Research in physics and technology continued in its former facilities, but no longer in secret or along Richter's original line.--200.45.150.250 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier History 

message: 200.45.150.250, stop accusing people of bias, and stop reverting said alleged bias without justification (an edit summary is not a justification). Luzu, could you explain why you deleted what you deleted? What I've been doing is removing blatant POV from the article but I can't check all the facts (I don't know all the facts). I'm lost in this sea of contradictory edits, tired, and about to get out of here for good, but I won't hesitate to protect the article again before that; then you can settle the matter however you like, or get another admin to unprotect it. I think everybody watching this page has already seen what kind of "discussion" it generates. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luzu explained below, in "recent edits". Jclerman 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luzu did not explained yet why he deleted what he deleted.--200.82.18.5 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again and again 

message: Because I read some adjectives that don't belong in an encyclopedic article. Not even in a tabloid. Stop writing demeaning comments on those you hate for reasons unknown to us, register with a non offending user name, explain your edits, discuss those which lack consensus, and talk as your peers do. Introduce facts rather than opinions unless attributed to a verifiable source. Jclerman 22:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which ones?--200.82.18.5 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '' Why did I RV 200.*.*.* ? ''

message: I have performed some minor edits, to correct erroneous facts and irrelevant information, introduced by an anonymous user. The justification is the following: Balseiro was incorrectly credited as the leader of the commision when in fact he was just a member, the second comission (Richard Gans and Antonio Rodriguez did interview Richter) and it is largely irrelevant that his research was not in "nuclear" physics, he was a respected researcher with publications in related fields. Luzu 19:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recente edits

message: Gans and Rodriguez were cited on october 20 08:00 AM to Mendé's office at the Pink House. Iraolagoitía explained them the situation and gave them the reports of the previous review panel along with Richter's reply. It took little time to understand the arguments of each party and to arrive to a conclusion without reservations. They concluded the redaction of their report in two hours. So they did not meet Richter in this regard.--200.43.201.109 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gans and Rodríguez meeting with Richter 

message: It is generally agreed that Balseiro's report was the leading one, the cause for which the project was discontinued. --200.43.201.109 17:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading member 

message: This article is about CNEA not DNEA. --200.45.6.171 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNEA 

message: The Pilcaniyeu gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant, located near Bariloche, was built in secret. Its existence was revealed in the '80s with a formal announcement. --200.45.150.61 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if you prefer the deletion Luzu 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you are accusing me of bias, I would like to clarify things. The instance you mentioned of secret research was an anomaly in the general way of doing things at Bariloche. I was working there, was not informed, was apalled at the way it was done. A majority of us rejected this way of doing things, in meetings in 1983 when democracy returned, and these activities became known. The secret research was during the (1976-1983) military dictatorship in Argentina, not really the way CNEA usually operates. But yes, some secret research was done, and some industrial secrets may remain although Argentina now has accepted mutual inspections from Brazil, and signed Tlatelolco and TNP treaties. In order not to enlarge this point, which I think would not be helpful given the degree of development of the article, I prefer you to have your way on this point. However, please accept the corrections of others, when they regard factual information. Thanks in advance. Luzu 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: INVAP is NOT CNEA, and keeps its own industrial or trade secrets, the discussion on this subject is beside the point, but much was written besides the quoted text, and the Argentine Congress approved the deal in the end.Luzu 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no longer in secret" 

message: I have removed the sentence which cites Dr. Bressan as saying thet isotopes could not be produced at competitive prices, I belive it is better left out, until a relevant quotation can be supplied. Luzu 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotope production 

message: Semi-protection should not be used:
*As a pre-emptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred;
*As a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this);
*In the case of a static IP vandal hitting a page (blocking is preferable to semi-protection);
*To prevent vandalism on the day's Featured Article. Semi-protection for a very brief period is acceptable to remove excessive vandalism from the page, or to combat a high number of dynamic IP edits. For a rationale of this, see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles.
*To prohibit anonymous editing in general.
200.45.150.227 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When not to use semi-protection

message: I ask those with knowledge of physics to correct or ratify the changes made by our long-time vandal with respect to units et al. I don't have the time or the patience to sift through libel and bias looking for possibly correct data.  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added editprotected to attract knowledgeable admins to perform the edits.  Have you ever considered creating an account, Sergio?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Not done:  is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it appears you have significant knowledge on this subject.  If you create an account you can incorporate the information yourself.  By the way, articles are not 'owned' by anyone (and the CNEA might run into problems with having a conflict of interest in editing this document).  But I hope this explains my invitation.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our resident vandal 

message: should be name CNEA as is both commonly and official named --Jor70 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: article name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Atomic Energy Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014214149/http://www.cnea.gov.ar/que_es_la_cnea/historia.php to http://www.cnea.gov.ar/que_es_la_cnea/historia.php
*Added  tag to http://www.cnea.gov.ar/en/carem-caracteristicas
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)