Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nard the Bard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 17 June 2007 edit68.48.240.144 (talk) →Criticism of Electric Boat: I'm not always at access to a computer so it takes time in between to contact you. I will continue to do so over the next coming months/years.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:42, 17 June 2007 edit undo68.48.240.144 (talk) →Criticism of Electric Boat: Mr. Busch was my great-grandfather and helped Holland in a very noteworthy way - as Holland openly admitted. The corruption within Electric Boat "circumvented" this.Next edit →
Line 15: Line 15:


Hi (N) it's middim13 and I not very "wikisavvy" so I'm not even sure how to properly contact you. The Plunger was indeed the second submarine built after the proto-type Fulton (of the same size and class) but the Navy choose to name the A-Class boats after the (fourth) sub built (at Crescent) and named it Adder... (SS-2) if I'm not mistaken. Indeed this is somewhat confusing because the Navy assessed hull numbers to submarines sometime ''after'' 1911 and went back to assign these numbers to all the submarines that were built up until that point... about a dozen years worth of submarines developed for the U. S. Navy. (Please check out '''the Naval Historical Centers''' web page for a better understanding of this issue, although I can't say that their "version" is altogether accurate either. But the Director of the center has been helpful to me in the past and his name is '''Gary Weir PhD'''). He has written to me a couple of times and I have donated some early documents to his museum - I don't have my documents handy and so it is "out of my memory". '''But there is no doubt that these first fleet of submarines were indeed called the A-Class/ADDER-Class boats!''' So could you please correct this on Wiki! See: '''www.navsource.org/archives/08/08003.htm''' The USS ADDER (Submarine #3 was later known as SS-3... later to be renamed A-2/of the A-Class boats. '''John Philip Holland's''' primary biographer, and Electric Boat historian, '''Richard Knowles Morris''' is our country's premier submarine historian and helped me to "set ''"this"'' (and other) records straight". Read '''The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics''' to understand why I have these "attacking" feelings... i.e. $900.00 for one "high quality" screwdriver etc. The company has never been honest with the American people and is being run by the same types of individuals that overran Holland's company just over 100 years ago... i. e. corrupt financiers and pettifogging shysters etc. Also see: '''Who Built Those Subs?''' published by the USNI in '''Naval History Magazine Oct. 1998 125th Anniversary''' issue. More than happy to keep a fair and unbiased approach to disscussing this early submarine chapter with you... but I must tell you that I have done my (fair share of) research on this subject and there were all kinds of false claims (made) at the early Electric Boat Company... claims some still make today... and we've got ships named after some of these characters. Contact me at your convienance @ middim13 (at) hotmail (dot) com {{unsigned|middim13}} Hi (N) it's middim13 and I not very "wikisavvy" so I'm not even sure how to properly contact you. The Plunger was indeed the second submarine built after the proto-type Fulton (of the same size and class) but the Navy choose to name the A-Class boats after the (fourth) sub built (at Crescent) and named it Adder... (SS-2) if I'm not mistaken. Indeed this is somewhat confusing because the Navy assessed hull numbers to submarines sometime ''after'' 1911 and went back to assign these numbers to all the submarines that were built up until that point... about a dozen years worth of submarines developed for the U. S. Navy. (Please check out '''the Naval Historical Centers''' web page for a better understanding of this issue, although I can't say that their "version" is altogether accurate either. But the Director of the center has been helpful to me in the past and his name is '''Gary Weir PhD'''). He has written to me a couple of times and I have donated some early documents to his museum - I don't have my documents handy and so it is "out of my memory". '''But there is no doubt that these first fleet of submarines were indeed called the A-Class/ADDER-Class boats!''' So could you please correct this on Wiki! See: '''www.navsource.org/archives/08/08003.htm''' The USS ADDER (Submarine #3 was later known as SS-3... later to be renamed A-2/of the A-Class boats. '''John Philip Holland's''' primary biographer, and Electric Boat historian, '''Richard Knowles Morris''' is our country's premier submarine historian and helped me to "set ''"this"'' (and other) records straight". Read '''The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics''' to understand why I have these "attacking" feelings... i.e. $900.00 for one "high quality" screwdriver etc. The company has never been honest with the American people and is being run by the same types of individuals that overran Holland's company just over 100 years ago... i. e. corrupt financiers and pettifogging shysters etc. Also see: '''Who Built Those Subs?''' published by the USNI in '''Naval History Magazine Oct. 1998 125th Anniversary''' issue. More than happy to keep a fair and unbiased approach to disscussing this early submarine chapter with you... but I must tell you that I have done my (fair share of) research on this subject and there were all kinds of false claims (made) at the early Electric Boat Company... claims some still make today... and we've got ships named after some of these characters. Contact me at your convienance @ middim13 (at) hotmail (dot) com {{unsigned|middim13}}
*Your sources don't back up your claims. The "A" in A-Class does not stand for Adder. -] 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) David, check out Electric Boat's article in Seapower magazine (supplement/advertisement) entitled: Electric Boat, 100 Years of Service to America, by former President of EB, John K. Welch. Go to www.navyleague.org/seapower/electric_boat.htm - There is a small "noteworthy" mention of Mr. Busch's unacknowledged role at the company as others took over his position and credit. Welch's article mentions "Adder Class" as U. S. Navy's first class of submarines. See also: Second page at google under Adder Class Submarines. Look at the book: The illustrated directory of submarines of the world by David Miller ISBN 0760313458. *Your sources don't back up your claims. The "A" in A-Class does not stand for Adder. -] 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) David, check out Electric Boat's article in Seapower magazine (supplement/advertisement) entitled: Electric Boat, 100 Years of Service to America, by former President of EB, John K. Welch. Go to www.navyleague.org/seapower/electric_boat.htm - There is a small "noteworthy" mention of Mr. Busch's unacknowledged role at the company as others took over his position and credit. Welch's article mentions "Adder Class" as U. S. Navy's first class of submarines. See also: Second page at google under Adder Class Submarines. Look at the book: The Illustrated Directory of Submarines of the World, by David Miller; ISBN 0760313458.


== Warning == == Warning ==

Revision as of 19:42, 17 June 2007

Note: This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads older than 7 days old are automatically archived.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Criticism of Electric Boat

Hi (N) it's middim13 and I not very "wikisavvy" so I'm not even sure how to properly contact you. The Plunger was indeed the second submarine built after the proto-type Fulton (of the same size and class) but the Navy choose to name the A-Class boats after the (fourth) sub built (at Crescent) and named it Adder... (SS-2) if I'm not mistaken. Indeed this is somewhat confusing because the Navy assessed hull numbers to submarines sometime after 1911 and went back to assign these numbers to all the submarines that were built up until that point... about a dozen years worth of submarines developed for the U. S. Navy. (Please check out the Naval Historical Centers web page for a better understanding of this issue, although I can't say that their "version" is altogether accurate either. But the Director of the center has been helpful to me in the past and his name is Gary Weir PhD). He has written to me a couple of times and I have donated some early documents to his museum - I don't have my documents handy and so it is "out of my memory". But there is no doubt that these first fleet of submarines were indeed called the A-Class/ADDER-Class boats! So could you please correct this on Wiki! See: www.navsource.org/archives/08/08003.htm The USS ADDER (Submarine #3 was later known as SS-3... later to be renamed A-2/of the A-Class boats. John Philip Holland's primary biographer, and Electric Boat historian, Richard Knowles Morris is our country's premier submarine historian and helped me to "set "this" (and other) records straight". Read The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics to understand why I have these "attacking" feelings... i.e. $900.00 for one "high quality" screwdriver etc. The company has never been honest with the American people and is being run by the same types of individuals that overran Holland's company just over 100 years ago... i. e. corrupt financiers and pettifogging shysters etc. Also see: Who Built Those Subs? published by the USNI in Naval History Magazine Oct. 1998 125th Anniversary issue. More than happy to keep a fair and unbiased approach to disscussing this early submarine chapter with you... but I must tell you that I have done my (fair share of) research on this subject and there were all kinds of false claims (made) at the early Electric Boat Company... claims some still make today... and we've got ships named after some of these characters. Contact me at your convienance @ middim13 (at) hotmail (dot) com — Preceding unsigned comment added by middim13 (talk • contribs)

  • Your sources don't back up your claims. The "A" in A-Class does not stand for Adder. -N 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) David, check out Electric Boat's article in Seapower magazine (supplement/advertisement) entitled: Electric Boat, 100 Years of Service to America, by former President of EB, John K. Welch. Go to www.navyleague.org/seapower/electric_boat.htm - There is a small "noteworthy" mention of Mr. Busch's unacknowledged role at the company as others took over his position and credit. Welch's article mentions "Adder Class" as U. S. Navy's first class of submarines. See also: Second page at google under Adder Class Submarines. Look at the book: The Illustrated Directory of Submarines of the World, by David Miller; ISBN 0760313458.

Warning

Cause I don't know the warning that you issued is about the Gunbound article and not about others. OhanaUnited 18:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable licensing

Hey: quick question. This Image:Nara light my fire.jpg is listed as GFDL under the claim apparently that the uploader took the photgraph. Is taking a photograph of a work of art really valid to then say that its an original piece? I am considering listing this for IFD. What do you think? —Gaff 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The only reason that it is not in use, is because I took it down. It has been in use here. Should I put it back up, then list for IFD, or what am I supposed to do with this? Sorry about the headache...I can relate as I have been trying to come to terms with copyright policy now for several days.—Gaff 06:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Prod

Maybe there should be an automated (AWB, so I won't do it) {{prod}}ing of middle school articles; only the ones that are non-notable, that is. « ANIMUM » 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed your comment

Hi. I noticed a pretty important factual error in your comment and changed it. If that's a problem let me know. --Gene_poole 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is wrong. I did not call him a dick. I quoted him calling me a dick. If you're going to make statements, get it right please. --Gene_poole 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Single Letter

Hi N! See here for a group just for 26 of us. :) --(Review Me) R Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You said "Endorse - keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories."

Deletion review is about the deletion process itself, not about whether we should keep or delete the article. We already had an AfD, where statements like yours were made, and a majority of competent editors voted to keep the article. — Omegatron 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with canvassing? — Omegatron 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You posted on like 30 billion talk pages. -N 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It was a fair notice. He posted to me also, and I had voted to delete in the AfD. DGG 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to make new arguments in the DRV, merely trying to point out the AfD was correct because the theory doesn't pass any kind of reliable sourcing. -N 01:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You were acting in good faith and I was not.

Don't worry about it. I'm just frustrated with this whole situation. Apparently asking people to explain their opinions is "badgering" or "canvassing" now.
The VFD had been up for four days without much comment, so I notified the admins who voted in the AfD.

Anyhow, I wasn't making a delete argument, just expressing my belief the AfD was correct. -N 01:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of people in the AfD argued this way, but a small majority disagreed. 19 voted keep and 15 voted delete, by my count, and both sides had a number of administrators amongst them. So you can't claim that the argument for no reliable sources is uncontested, and you can't claim that the people voting delete were meatpuppets or otherwise incompetent users, so I don't understand how the majority for keep can just be overruled like that. Deletion policy is pretty clear that without a strong consensus for deletion, the article is kept by default. The only exceptions are special circumstances like only ILIKEIT votes or meatpuppets or vote stacking or copyright violation, which don't apply here.
It seems to me like the person who closed the AfD ignored the actual discussion and just closed according to their own personal viewpoint. I could have done the exact same thing and closed it as keep instead of voting. If I had, everyone would be up in arms, so why aren't they up in arms about this? It defies all logic. — Omegatron 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Did not know that happened. My computer acts odd sometimes, and other times, accidents happen. I will restore that, if you didn't already. I was voting support so its not like I was doing anything bad.--trey 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:US Army OF11.gif

There is no actual picture because there is no actual insignia. See the article General of the Armies for details. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a notable award

Deletion review Kari Schull et al

The nominator of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|AfD for Kari Schull]] is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at . This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the application of BIO or your new proposal regarding awards, or for the reform of special case notability criteria in general. I thought that this might be on-point to your area of interest. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories: