Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VanishedUserABC (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 6 June 2012 (→Secondary sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

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)

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

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

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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:

• Verifiable
• Reliable
• Sources

Otherwise they smack of Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

I agreed personally with your statements. It was just that without attribution they seem POV as far as Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)