Hello, Birdseyemaple, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Birdseyemaple! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)
{{unblock reason=apparently there is an overlap on the wikipedia entry for the Ocean ship Ocean Voyager between myself and a discredited user dunkmack. That is curious because that user and the Master of the ocean voyager perhaps share the same name, or similar. My interest in the Ocean Ships built at Richmond shipyard #1 has to do with a family member who was instrumental in their construction at Yard 1. This family member was instrumental in the construction of 18 out of the 30 Ocean's built there. I am not going to give his name or title, but these ships would not have been built without his expertise. The production of the Oceans at Richmond allowed for the transition to Liberty and Victory ships there to be produced at a phenomenal pace, thanks to techniques developed by my family member. Of the 17 Oceans he was directly involved in only the Ocean Voyager was destroyed by enemy "fire" during World War Two; that explains my slight interest in Ocean Voyager and intense interest in the Oceans built in Richmond As Ocean Voyager was the only Ocean my relative was involved with destroyed by the enemy, details of its demise is well known to me. My family member also was instrumental in developing techniques at Mare Island during the War that allowed for submarines to be built that were exceptionally strong and able to withstand pressures well beyond design depth. The USS Tang was the first of the Subs that incorporated his fabrication innovations into its design. It was also a sub with an exceptional war record, and an interesting demise--thus my interest. I chose to use USS Tang article to press the point that sub's are called boats, not ships because I worked over 20 years with military subs and know quite well that anyone in the vicinity of a military sub who calls it a ship will be asked to leave the area immediately for their own safety. Although I never crewed on a sub, I was asked to share my expertise over those years, and was known by sight at Mare on my way to the Vallejo pens. Working on nuclear submarines and weapons I became quite even more interested in all things atomic, including the history of the atomic bomb. Apparently dunkmack was also interested in this arena of interest. Greg Herken has written the only updated book on this subject in what, 30 years, and is the only writer to have had access to declassified doc's while writing it. As the head historian at the Smithsonian he put facts together in a quite readable book. I do not think that using this reference to explain why Ernest Lawrence did not testify at Oppenheimer's loyalty hearing, where a "citation needed" was asked for is evidence of anything; nor is using his book as a reference is in the least bit unusual. The person you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet of seems to have had a much deeper agenda than providing citations where requested on wikipedia, or correcting minor squirmishes of fact. Do I really have enough edits that you can put together anything convincing as far as innocent until proven guilty, as I read somewhere as a WP ethic? As far as my comments on the Talk Page of pearl harbor conspiracy, (the only thing even slightly controversial) that article which is a joke, apparently written by two or three biased editors. They seem to believe that since it has been nominated for deletion numerous times (and they think it is a joke) they can put whatever nonsense they desire there. My addition of reference to The United States international agreement on China known as the Open Door Policy is thoroughly relevant, and it is likely because of the biased editors on that page that Open Door Policy is never mentioned, just the code stuff and some reference to Day of Deceit running prominantly in the article. The Open Door policy on China is directly related to Japan's attack on US military because as of Nov 15 1941 Japan had no more fuel to run its military except for what it had in storage or could squeeze from China, thanks to the forward thinking of FDR. Japan knew war was inevitable with the US at this point, so why not do it before they ran out of gas? And I did not write anything nasty about the editors on that PH Conspiracy article as someone has claimed on my arraignment form. I merely pointed out how their actions (readable in history of the things they deleted for very questionable reasons) were evidence of their bias. Please read their discussion on the talk page of that PH Conspire article if you think I am making this stuff up. And read their summary comments on the article history when they deleted others' edits. It shows thorough arrogance and disregard for civility on Wikipedia. The talk page reads like a cross between a comic book and an interview with an emotionally disturbed child. really! In reviewing dunkmack edits, etc I do not see any of the same pages edited, or even any similarity in opinions, as I have edited or discussed in any way. I am sorry, but however you came to the conclusion I am someone else is quite flawed, and maybe you should get another vendor. That is what I did quite recently when I got fed-up with my internet provider and went with a well known company. I believe you can compare my IP addy with the other party's (you claim I am) during the last week, when I discovered editing on WP, you will find they are two distinctly seperate IP addys, and that dunkmack is using a different ip now on Wiki. Supposidly my new provider gives a changing ip address to the subscribers as myself, though I have not noticed it having changed; but not sure about that. Sorry for the lengthy discussion here, but I just do not understand what is going on here. I think the most important point is that although I may have some similar topics of interest (aside from Ocean ships discussed first) but upon reviewing what I could about who you think I am I find no similar point of view, and not even any articles in common, and certainly a different temperament. I woud like a different group of people reviewing this than reviewed dunkmack, as obviously that user rubbed you people very much the wrong way, and I want nothing to do with it.Birdseyemaple (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
