Talk:SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model

Lead

The current lead (as of this revision) is too complex and does not relate well to the subject of the article. A concise statement of the SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model is required before launching into an exposition about different research paths. Basically, the lead needs to answer the question: What is hydrogen cogeneration and how does this relate to a SWCR reactor? The current lead fails to convey that information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that this article should be merged to Copper–chlorine cycle. This article's contents appear to be a major rewrite of the CANDU reactor information, merged with a major rewrite of the Copper–chlorine cycle information. Since the Copper–chlorine cycle article already mentions the use of this cycle within the nuclear industry for hydrogen co-generation. Since this article appears to be reporting on a single research activity, rather than a technology as a whole, it seems more appropriate to merge relevant content to the target article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fayyazsheikh1 (talk · contribs) wrote the following comment on my talk page, which I am copying here as it is relevant to this merge discussion:

Hi

This article is part of my research conducted for my MASc degree. I am editing it and would come up with the integration background information. Please wait till I complete my editing as I am busy and can only edit during week ends. I hope you understand.

Thank you.

Fayyaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.166.83 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fayyaz -- Wikipedia has a strict policy about not publishing your own original research. Since you have admitted that this is your own original research, the article cannot be allowed to remain in its current state.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't mislead the editor with an irrelevant guideline. If the author has published his research at peer-reviewed scientific venues, it is reliable and thus not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense. The proper that his behavior is Conflict of interest. Dear researcher, you should understand that policy. It advices that you should take great care in this case - it usually means that you shouldn't write Wikipedia articles about your own research. Diego (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Diego, as I pointed out at the AFD discussion, this article appears to be unpublished elsewhere. Althought based on cited facts, it appears to present an original synthesis of those facts in a new design. That qualifies as OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

Ok, if there are parts that are not published elsewhere those parts should be removed. Diego (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)