User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw your note on User talk:Sfan00 IMG asking for an interpretation of the above message. To put things in a nutshell images used on wikipedia are either copyright free/public domain or they're not. If they are public domain (PD) then they need to say under what rules/jurisdiction they are PD - this is often called the licence tag - see Wikipedia:File copyright tags for more information and what tags exist. If the images are not in the public domain then they can only be used under the Wikipedia:Non-free content (NFC) policy - the fair use policy - but each image must specify why it is being used and why it meets the fair use criteria. As the file you uploaded appeared to be fair use but didn't have an explanation attached, it was labelled as such and your page posted with the message above. Since then another editor has added a public domain licence tag to the image, it being, as I can see you pointed out, an image created by the Colorado state government.

If you upload any more images I suggest you add details about where the image is from, when and the licence tag using the {{information}} template. For this image the detail looks a bit light, you seem to have put information about where to find out more but nothing that explains what the image itself shows, you might want yo add this detail. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FNS,

Words like: "boldly charted an entirely new course" and "chain-of-command-circumventing" need to be vigorously cited and attributed to known experts in the field.

We need:

• Verifiable
• Reliable
• Sources

Otherwise they smack of

Encyclopedic language would be just to say that: "Nimitz supported then-Captain Hyman G. Rickover's proposal in 1947 to build USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear-powered vessel.

Adding the additional words has you have done, needs good sourcing. Lets try to find some naval historians and experts (in this case more than one) that agree with your assertion (s) and add them to your addition. Carry on. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All in a day's work. I don't think it's an overstatement or "POV" to say that establishing a nuclear fleet where there previously was none is a bold and entirely new course. It is in fact just that. And Rickover did, in fact, circumvent the chain of command by going directly to Nimitz with his proposal. I'm not aware that we need more than one valid citation, or naval historians, regarding Rickover's bypassing of his chain-of-command in pitching his project, but they do exist in Rickover's various biographies. With no disrespect intended, I don't do the "go fetch" thing in general, but most particularly when I've already done so as regards citations. Would vastly prefer to see Nimitz's biography be accurate, but I won't lose sleep over it if it's not. As you were. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed personally with your statements. It was just that without attribution they seem POV as far as Wikipedia is concerned. On here you have to write as if the viewer has never heard of Nimitz, Rickover, or anything about naval history ("writing for audience"). And without mentioning the role of Abelson, Cochrane, Parson, Denfeld, and others, and the interaction between them, it seems to incomplete. Is there an article on here about the transition and conversion from diesel-to-nuclear submarines? (Because it was a big deal). If not there should be. And in that article you could really flush out the dynamics and relationships between Nimitz, Rickover, Abelson, Cochrane, Parson, Denfeld, and others, in moving from area "A" to area "B". Stand To. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In turn, I do apologize for omitting the attribution/citation I thought I'd used in the original edit to the Nimitz article regarding Rickover. My oversight. There is no diesel-to-nuclear article that I am aware of, but it would be quite a show. As you're clearly aware, it was not accomplished without some brute force.

Insha'Allah, it'll one day be written. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry to have been changing your edit twice. But on those biblical issues I would like to be 110% sure. The Luke and John items are probably right, but I am not sure how we determine that they are the only ones. We need something like Bromeily's book that says they the "only" ones. The web site did not look like

No worries. I have in fact now provided two sources -- one more than the minimum required -- as regards the statements re. usage in the New Testament of "ego eimi": (1) Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece", 27th revised edition (a.k.a. "NA27"), Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, July 2006, ISBN: 1598561723, and (2) "The Greek New Testament", 4th Edition with Dictionary, United Bible Societies (a.k.a. "UBS4"). --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be rather offensive and dismissive comment to make to a fellow editor: [1]. I suggest you see

Most to the point: we all deserve respect. It's that simple...which may be a too-complicated concept for some...but not I. Peace. Out. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wan't to drag this out - but only noticed this post just now (havn't been on WP much latley). I should say that (to some extent) - I deserved it =) as egoistic, and don't think its particularly "uncivil". Apologies and cheers again.

q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I too think

User talk:F=q(E+v^B)#Remember me?. :-) Hublolly (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please review the edit summary before claiming that there is not a valid reason in the edit summary. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent thread that mentions NPOV is Talk:Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant#portions_of_the_article_have_a_biased_viewpoint.. Granted, the concerns there are not particularly specific but I would not consider them resolved either. I will follow up in more actionable detail, hopefully later today. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you imply, that's an invalid reference for NPOV. When this first came up, I offered to happily fix any "POV" that the contributor thought existed in the article. Now with over 60 references to the cited facts, and nearly as many then, I didn't receive a single, specific NPOV call-out then, nor was I surprised at this outcome. It's a well-researched, heavily cited article about an historical event that many, very much including myself, wish had never happened. That some people let their emotions get in the way of their fact-finding is completely understandable. It's a tough situation...and it's not going away on any time-scale that we mere humans can comprehend. Please see the article's talk page for the outcome of the third-party review, which was quite solid, IMHO. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, cool. Is there any way you can be a little more reserved with the undo button though please? Nbound's reasoning was effectively the same as mine (admittedly better explained by him/her), and earlier you restored a citation to a source where it pretty clearly did not apply. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. No worries. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

I edit aggressively, but with justifications provided. If you do not agree, take it to the Talk page, and perhaps enlist a third-party for review. We (you) did that recently and it all worked out quite well. And you should also endeavor to assume good faith -- one could easily accuse you very righteously of the very same things you accuse me of. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no templates this time since they are clearly not getting through, and really work better for simpler issues than this anyway. I believe that you are editing in good faith (and do not think I have stated otherwise). However, I think you are very passionate about the mess surrounding the Rocky Flats area. "Passionate" is a reasonable thing to be about plutonium contamination, but articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. I think that in your eagerness to get the message across about this serious issue, you have started to both rely too much on sources from the "green" POV of the issue, and selectively picked the information from the more neutral, peer-reviewed sources (a very clear example would be the misrepresentation I attempted to fix here). What's crazy about this is that the peer-reviewed, verifiable truth about the contamination is already really bad, probably the worst of its kind in the country. There is no reason to weaken the article by overreaching.

But, to reply to your statement above, I edit aggressively, but with justifications provided. If you do not agree, take it to the Talk page: no. Your opinions do not carry more weight than mine, and you are not the gatekeeper for the article. If I flag a passage as questionable, you need to discuss the issue on the talk page until either we agree, or my opinion is far enough in the minority that

WP:CONSENSUS

dictates the tag be removed.

I am happy to enlist additional third opinions if needed, but this should be at most our plan B. Plan A should be discussion on the talk page, genuinely considering each others' views, and attempting to resolve disagreements in a way that is not visible on the article history. VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an example of the kind of "dialogue" you have in mind, I fail to see the merits of it. For now, I'm signing off on the article as-is from my perspective. Please feel free to improve upon it without interference from me. Life beckons. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are threatening me despite the fact that I've incorporated all of your demanded changes? I've now had plenty enough of this. My first reaction to this poor conduct was to get into the RfC cycle of having *you* reviewed as a disruptive editor, which in my opinion is certainly how you are conducting yourself, both in terms of actual edits and commentary, but upon further reflection I'm going the route of the federal government in its stance on Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge: the corrective action is "no action." Done here. I thank you for freeing up my time from editing on Wikipedia. Good day, sir. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, a page you were very involved with, is up for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant/1. Your help to improve the article or give feedback would be most appreciated! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]