![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This text is straight from the US Navy, and is therefore kinda biased; calling the ship by an affectionate nickname, talking about being ready to fight the global "war on terror" (an expression I, at least, find to be inherently biased). sadly, I suspect there are several dozen other articles which will have this problem, but I don't have the energy to hunt down all the articles imported from the US naval review and flag them.
one nice thing, though; I found a notice indicating that all the US Naval Review material is public domain unless stated otherwise in the text. the pdf forms of the articles have a bunch of nice photos of the ships.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.124 ( talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006
The text was corrected to reflect the falsity of the claims made to justify the US intervention in Vietnam by the Johnson administration. The link to the Wiki article on the incident has the necessary cites. Tmangray ( talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
On the morning of August 2, 1988 Connie quietly slipped her moorings for a routine two week carrier qualification off the coast of southern California. Things quickly turned out to be anything but routine. The ship had barely cleared the harbor when a JP-5 fuel leak in the uptakes rained down on the One Main Machinery Room and erupted into a full blown conflagration that tore through the uptakes and spread throughout the ship. Explosions rocked the ship and the crew went into General Quarters. Amid explosions and extreme heat, volunteers from the crew entered enclosed spaces to extinguish the fires and preserve the ship. Into the next day, the crew battled the blaze that had reflashed and continued to threaten the entire ship. As Connie pulled back into North Island on August 3, the deployment was the last thing on people’s minds. The ship had been hurt, and hurt bad.
1. The fire detail was knocked out first thing, so it was up to us to put the fire out. 2. The fire started as we where pulling away from the dock. 3. Leak? No, there was a 6" pipe going through the intake into the One Main Machinery room. it was not conected , the workers left it open and they where transfering fuel from aft to forward tanks. 20k gals went into the boiler. Thats where the fire is, no leak. 4. There was no GQ called , it was a Feul oil leak , first, then Fire Fire Fire , was called. 5. Volunteers? No haha, they pulled me not once but twice, once to fight the fire in one main and the second for fire reflash inspections. I saw the 6" pipe and there was aleast a 8" gap between the pipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.161.237 ( talk) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I cut out a contentious discussion that was taking place in the body of the article, no part of which was cited. The talk page is for that kind of thing. Work it out here first, please, and then edit. 192.91.171.36 ( talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was aboard the USS Constellation during the fire of 08/02/88 as a Machinist Mate Fireman in #1 Main. When the fire broke out I was standing thrust-block watch in #4 Main. The use of the word 'explosion' is incorrect though, it was an implosion of the #1 on-line boiler which then resulted in the 'explosion' that was reported. After the fire was extinguished and we re-entered the space later to begin the repair process, there was easily visible evidence of this around the access hatch to the firebox. To the best of my memory, the fires that were said to have started in #4 main were minor; combustables located nearest the bulkhead caught fire but we quickly extinguished them. However, when the #1 shaft was finally locked, I was ordered out of #4 to join the fire party, so I cannot recall if anything after that caught fire in #4. Also, from my PO who was standing MM top watch, he said that the JP-5 poured down from the uptake onto the sides of the boiler directly outside of the Control Room and was instantly ablaze from the heat of the boiler, a literal wall of fire that went from the top of the boiler down into the bilge. During the course of the fire the lower level of 1 main was rapidly filling with water from the fire parties attempts at knocking down the blaze and many of the injuries they sustained were from them receiving chemical burns from wading through the water/JP-5 mixture. The aft Mess decks were converted into a triage area and when I sustained minor smoke inhalation and went there, it was fairly full of injured crew-members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan ness ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to add to this article an important historical period in the history of the USS Constellation when a large group of antiwar activists attempted to focus attention on the ship and achieved much success. Their activity let to a citywide straw vote in late September 1971 with 54,721 votes counted. Over 82% of voters elected to keep the ship home, including 73% of the military personnel who voted. While not a "real" vote, the impact on public opinion was appreciable (many references to this effect are cited). So much so that the commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet was quoted as saying "never was there such a concerted effort to entice American servicemen from their posts." This added material has now been deleted 3 times by the same person User:Anmccaff with coattracking cited as the reason and then good faith edit. I would like to discuss this with User:Anmccaff on this talk page. Please explain how coattracking is involved in documenting a very well publicised and important part of the history of this ship, which by the way led to a congressional investigation of the Captain for suspected destroying of US mail and to 9 sailors publically jumping ship when it did depart for Vietnam. All of which should also go into that article. JohnKent ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
=== COI editing === {{see also|Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide}} Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. {{Shortcut|WP:COIEDIT}}
If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of articles directly:
- you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
- you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
- you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the
{{ request edit}}
template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;- you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
- you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
- you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process.
Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organization concerned.
only ... need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV., it says you are
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. Pointing out that the editing looks like coatracking is a courtesy; it's liable to be eliminated on sight just for the COI. Everyone is supposed to minimize personal POV in the articles, both their own, and others. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This text is straight from the US Navy, and is therefore kinda biased; calling the ship by an affectionate nickname, talking about being ready to fight the global "war on terror" (an expression I, at least, find to be inherently biased). sadly, I suspect there are several dozen other articles which will have this problem, but I don't have the energy to hunt down all the articles imported from the US naval review and flag them.
one nice thing, though; I found a notice indicating that all the US Naval Review material is public domain unless stated otherwise in the text. the pdf forms of the articles have a bunch of nice photos of the ships.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.124 ( talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006
The text was corrected to reflect the falsity of the claims made to justify the US intervention in Vietnam by the Johnson administration. The link to the Wiki article on the incident has the necessary cites. Tmangray ( talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
On the morning of August 2, 1988 Connie quietly slipped her moorings for a routine two week carrier qualification off the coast of southern California. Things quickly turned out to be anything but routine. The ship had barely cleared the harbor when a JP-5 fuel leak in the uptakes rained down on the One Main Machinery Room and erupted into a full blown conflagration that tore through the uptakes and spread throughout the ship. Explosions rocked the ship and the crew went into General Quarters. Amid explosions and extreme heat, volunteers from the crew entered enclosed spaces to extinguish the fires and preserve the ship. Into the next day, the crew battled the blaze that had reflashed and continued to threaten the entire ship. As Connie pulled back into North Island on August 3, the deployment was the last thing on people’s minds. The ship had been hurt, and hurt bad.
1. The fire detail was knocked out first thing, so it was up to us to put the fire out. 2. The fire started as we where pulling away from the dock. 3. Leak? No, there was a 6" pipe going through the intake into the One Main Machinery room. it was not conected , the workers left it open and they where transfering fuel from aft to forward tanks. 20k gals went into the boiler. Thats where the fire is, no leak. 4. There was no GQ called , it was a Feul oil leak , first, then Fire Fire Fire , was called. 5. Volunteers? No haha, they pulled me not once but twice, once to fight the fire in one main and the second for fire reflash inspections. I saw the 6" pipe and there was aleast a 8" gap between the pipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.161.237 ( talk) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I cut out a contentious discussion that was taking place in the body of the article, no part of which was cited. The talk page is for that kind of thing. Work it out here first, please, and then edit. 192.91.171.36 ( talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was aboard the USS Constellation during the fire of 08/02/88 as a Machinist Mate Fireman in #1 Main. When the fire broke out I was standing thrust-block watch in #4 Main. The use of the word 'explosion' is incorrect though, it was an implosion of the #1 on-line boiler which then resulted in the 'explosion' that was reported. After the fire was extinguished and we re-entered the space later to begin the repair process, there was easily visible evidence of this around the access hatch to the firebox. To the best of my memory, the fires that were said to have started in #4 main were minor; combustables located nearest the bulkhead caught fire but we quickly extinguished them. However, when the #1 shaft was finally locked, I was ordered out of #4 to join the fire party, so I cannot recall if anything after that caught fire in #4. Also, from my PO who was standing MM top watch, he said that the JP-5 poured down from the uptake onto the sides of the boiler directly outside of the Control Room and was instantly ablaze from the heat of the boiler, a literal wall of fire that went from the top of the boiler down into the bilge. During the course of the fire the lower level of 1 main was rapidly filling with water from the fire parties attempts at knocking down the blaze and many of the injuries they sustained were from them receiving chemical burns from wading through the water/JP-5 mixture. The aft Mess decks were converted into a triage area and when I sustained minor smoke inhalation and went there, it was fairly full of injured crew-members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan ness ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to add to this article an important historical period in the history of the USS Constellation when a large group of antiwar activists attempted to focus attention on the ship and achieved much success. Their activity let to a citywide straw vote in late September 1971 with 54,721 votes counted. Over 82% of voters elected to keep the ship home, including 73% of the military personnel who voted. While not a "real" vote, the impact on public opinion was appreciable (many references to this effect are cited). So much so that the commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet was quoted as saying "never was there such a concerted effort to entice American servicemen from their posts." This added material has now been deleted 3 times by the same person User:Anmccaff with coattracking cited as the reason and then good faith edit. I would like to discuss this with User:Anmccaff on this talk page. Please explain how coattracking is involved in documenting a very well publicised and important part of the history of this ship, which by the way led to a congressional investigation of the Captain for suspected destroying of US mail and to 9 sailors publically jumping ship when it did depart for Vietnam. All of which should also go into that article. JohnKent ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
=== COI editing === {{see also|Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide}} Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. {{Shortcut|WP:COIEDIT}}
If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of articles directly:
- you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
- you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
- you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the
{{ request edit}}
template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;- you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
- you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
- you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process.
Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organization concerned.
only ... need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV., it says you are
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. Pointing out that the editing looks like coatracking is a courtesy; it's liable to be eliminated on sight just for the COI. Everyone is supposed to minimize personal POV in the articles, both their own, and others. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)