Talk:Nucleus Limited

Wikipedia is not a place to air views

Assertion about Nucleus Holdings removed - unsourced and one person's view - Wikipedia is not a blog - please refer to WP:Not for overview of policies on things that may or may not be included--Golden Wattle ^talk 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are "airing views" since you are not interested in fact! You completely disregard the Corporate Affairs Records that clearly state as a matter of fact that Nucleus Holdings PL was incorporated in 1967 and not 1965 as you assert on this entry. You could see refferences to that regard but choose not to. Is this an attempt to obfuscate true facts? There were two Nucleus companies as recorded with the public record of companies in Australia. Are you familiar with the public records of companies in Asutralia? signed viv (unsigned comment 08.33 20 March 2007 by 203.217.77.137. PLEASE refer to WP:NOT)58.166.33.96 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Golden Wattle misreprecenting factual Corporate Affairs Records

Golden Wattle I suggest you obtain copies of the Corporate Affairs microfish records of the company Scientific and General and see that the facts mentioned in the discussion by the previous contributor are facts and not opinion. Trainor had his solicitors change the Articles of S&G giving him sole control over share issues and then devalued Hatfield and Lancaster's shareholdinhgs in 1970, that is fact not opinion. This is fact as is the fact that they left shortly thereafter. All recorded on the Public Record. Do you Golden Wattle have a hidden agenda in that you are working for Trainor interests? The public deserve to know the facts. If so declare your identity and agenda!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.46.212 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC+11 hours)

• I decline to provide my identity, I prefer to remain pseudonymous. My wikipedia identity is in effect the sum of my edits: Golden Wattle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - draw what conclusions you will but I cannot think that anyone other than the most deluded could think I was "working for Trainor interests". I live in Canberra and have had nothing ever to do with any of the firms Telectronics, Nucleus Holdings, ... not even so much as owned a pacemaker nor known somebody who has. I do not propose to explore Corporate Affairs records or do any other research of non-published material on the matter. I am not quite sure that your and my understanding of the public record and what is a published source coincide. The relevant wikipedia policy is expressed at Wikipedia:Verifiability and it states:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
• Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

A further relevant policy is Wikipedia:Civility - please read it. Please also review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically noting that:

• Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Self-promotion: It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

I regard your comments as advocacy and thus inappropriate, I also believe you are breaching the guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography with reference to the article on Noel Gray. My comments are based on your edit history which is in part at least from the IPs: 203.217.46.212 (talk · contribs) 203.206.239.116 (talk · contribs) 203.158.49.47 (talk · contribs) 203.217.69.189 (talk · contribs) 203.166.246.245 (talk · contribs) 203.206.246.31 (talk · contribs) 203.158.50.23 (talk · contribs) 203.158.42.25 (talk · contribs) 203.158.62.70 (talk · contribs) 203.214.152.212 (talk · contribs) 203.217.69.38 (talk · contribs) 203.217.74.13 (talk · contribs) 203.158.62.208 (talk · contribs) 203.158.35.129 (talk · contribs)

As someone who has now been contributing to wikipedia for a year (since 17 February 2006 at least), and has been reminded before, please in future sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Insult to the founder of Telectronics

Unless you publish an appology to Beth Gray Robyn Gray and Christopher Gray that their father Noel Gray was not recognised for the founding and financing of Telectronics Pty Limited within your time frame the public will remain uninformed about the true identity of the founder and the sacrifices made by him and his family without which Telectronics would never have existed. The sovereign must be informed about his and his family's contribution to the founding of the pacemaker and Telectronics medical electronics industry. Others would have you believe otherwise. Please inform the sovereign with respect that Noel Gray founded Telectronics. Also that he was a loyal soldier serving in the development of RADAR and a secret mission to record and report enemy activity on an island behind enimy lines and placed there by US submarine. He has been overlooked because of media reports that credit others with his work. His former collegues at Kriesler prove that he was an innovator in rocketry adnd printed circuits. Thewy are still alive and I would suggest that giving him a postumous award would be accepted by the family. (Chris Gray)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.159.157 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Insult to the Sovereign, to the Governor General and to the Order Of Australia

203.214.154.112 wrote, in the Article Nucleus Limited, at 9.46 21 March 2007 " You too can lie to the media and receive a gong from the Austradlian (sic)government. Do they ever check the facts?"

This constitutes a gross insult to the Sovereign who is Patron to the Order Of Australia and to the the Governor General who as Chanceller represents the Sovereign as Constitutional Head of The Order. Awards or Appointments such as the Appointment of Paul M. Trainor as an Officer of the Order of Australia are NOT made by the Government of Australia. The Order Of Australia is an Institution empowered by an Act of Parliament of 1975 to grant Awards or Appointments to Australian citizens (or honorary Awards to non-citizens) in recognition of a person's contribution to Australia or to Humanity At Large. Awards or Appointments are made by the anonymous Council for the Order Of Australia which comprises of eminent Australians appointed by the Chancellor. Following Nomination of a person considered to be deserving of acknowledgement the Council reviews the multiple References provided in support of the Nomination and verifies, by outside reference, the authenticity of all references and then makes recommendations to the Chancellor, who lays the the approved recommendations before the Sovereign. For further information please refer to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au.

The matter of the publication of the statement made by 203.214.154.112, whose identity can be established by the Australian Federal Police, will be referred to the Chancellor should an unreserved apology to the Sovereign, the Governor General and the Chancellor of the Order Of Australia and the family of the late Paul M. Trainor A.O. not be published on this page within seven days. 58.166.33.96 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an insult to the people of the sovereign that Noel Gray has not been acknowleged as the founder of Telectronics. Paul Trainor was not the founder as is reported in the media. Nor is Keith jeffcoat. Nucleus was not founded in 1965 but 1967 and there were 2 Nucleus companies. To sugest that the Soveriegn was mislead is correct. Published material is misleading and souuld be chesked with the official records of all companies involved. Nucleus Holdings PL was founded in 1967 Telectronics was incorporated in 1863 and the first pacemakers implanted by the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital were made in 1966 as recorded in the Medical Journal of Australia. Trainor and Nucleus had nothing whatever to do with this. This was funded by Noel Gray and family and Harold Duffell and nothing here can change the facts. If you wish to challange these facts then go ahead and you will show how the Australkiuan public can be mislead by manipulation of media! If the federal police wish to proceede go ahead.

Source Material

Does anyone know of where we could obtain any original documents from/about Nucleus? My wife is prepared to do some leg-work on this if anyone has some suggestions/material? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You could start with ASIC records who took over from the Corporate Affairs Department. They have on microfish all rcords of both Nucleus companies. Nucleus Holdings Pty Limited 1967-80 the company that defrauded Noel Gray out of control of Telectronics and then Nucleus Corporation Pty Limited tyhat became Limited and stole Telectronics from the French company Synthelabo. The prospectus of Nucleus Limited is also available on ASIC records and fails to dosclose the Founder of telectronics. The newspaper articles are also available and also show a failure to disclose the true name of the founder of Telectronics indeed they show Trainor passing himself off as the founder of Telectronics. I think the investing public have been duped by this man but he did have a plan when he became a shareholder of telectronics. Like Napoleon he never had bad press. (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.75 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)