User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner

Welcome

Hello, FormerNukeSubmariner, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Mr. Stradivarius

Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

A word of advice

It's not a good idea to be combative and abusive to those who are trying to help you resolve an issue. Please maintain a civil tone and outlook on issues you are involved in. If you continue to be hostile in your commentary you may have your editing privileges suspended. Hasteur (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly agree. To what specific comments are you referring to? --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Talk:Denver. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little more specificity, please. Thank you. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Hasteur here, FNS. There is no need to be hostile (though it is an understandable emotional response) when your contributions are challenged. We don't include everything about everything when writing here; we have to be selective. In these editorial disagreements it is vital to remain collegial throughout. Failure to do so only aids your adversary, as it makes your actual argument look weaker and may also lead to loss of editing privileges. It's ok, we were all new once (I'm assuming you are relatively new here?) Also, as mentioned in article talk, it is important to log in once you have established a log-in, to avoid the appearance of pretending to be several people, which will also devalue your argument. --John (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was flat-out inappropriate for Orlady to delete the entire section, one laden with valid citations and factual information. Yes, I have spoken plainly, but claim the right to characterize my own feelings without engaging in name-calling...which Orlady has done elsewhere, BTW. I stand by all of my comments, but as you can see in the Denver discussion page am willing to go the extra mile. Nonetheless, color me unimpressed with the process so far. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to be aware of is that things don't always happen immediately here. There is no deadline here. --John (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the question has been asked, do yo mind revealing if you have edited under any previous usernames or IPs other than the two you have already identified? --John (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Not that I can recall, John. Lasted edited here years ago, before I moved to Colorado. Thanks again for your positive suggestions re. Denver. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive contamination in Denver

Hi FormerNukeSubmariner, this is just to let you know that I've closed the thread you initiated at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This is purely for practical reasons, as the discussion at Talk:Denver seems to be going a lot more smoothly now, and it's usually not productive to have two discussions going on in parallel. Actually, I think Postoak's suggestion of making a new article with the content you added might be the best way of resolving this issue - let's discuss it at Talk:Denver to try and work out the details. I'll be watching this page, too, so you can reply here as well. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you for your efforts and suggestions...solidly positive. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon

I saw that you weren't well and I wanted to send you my best wishes for a speedy recovery. --John (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly, John. Am glad to be back in the world of the living, and hope to have had my first & last experience with this kind of illness. Note to self and others: when in the mountains, drink lots of water! --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Plutonium plume from the 1957 fire at Rocky Flats, per Colorado state dept of public health.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Plutonium plume from the 1957 fire at Rocky Flats, per Colorado state dept of public health.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Image moved from Denver to Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Plutonium plume from the 1957 fire at Rocky Flats, per Colorado state dept of public health.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Plutonium plume from the 1957 fire at Rocky Flats, per Colorado state dept of public health.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

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]

Terms in an Encyclopedia

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:

Otherwise they smack of Wikipedia:Point of view.

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]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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]

Secondary sources

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 WP:RS. Anyway, we can talk about it on the article talk page. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Incivility

This appears to be rather offensive and dismissive comment to make to a fellow editor: [1]. I suggest you see WP:CIVIL and redact your edit accordingly. I suggest you reflect on what you would think of another editor who said "You clearly don't know whom you are talking to". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My words were (and are) meant to be taken quite literally...not out of any sense of self-elevation. I don't control other people's perceptions or word-interpretation, but I most distinctly stand by what I said. IMHO, anonymity is a problem for Wikipedia to resolve, and is quite fixable. In the interim, none of us -- literally -- knows whom the 'other' party (if one believes in other parties) is.

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

I too think user:F=q(E+v^B) does deserve it for reasons on his talk page User talk:F=q(E+v^B)#Remember me?. :-) Hublolly (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:MED

Just a note regarding references. We typically follow WP:MEDRS and thus do not use popular press stories. Also per WP:LEAD we do not need to add references there as long as it is supported by the body of the text. With respect to general advice on style we follow WP:MEDMOS. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

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 Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. As noted above and on the talk page, you do not own the article. When editing contentious topics, the default should be to discuss specific items, not to immediately hit the undo button. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your repeated dismissal of other editors' concerns and refusal to discuss major changes on the talk page is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 12 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]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

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]