User talk:ScottS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome to the Wikipedia!
2 Image Tagging Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg
3 Image Tagging Image:28661 512.jpg
4 Image copyright problem with Image:StaHmovements111.jpg
5 Image Tagging Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg
6 Image copyright problem with Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg
7 Unspecified source for Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg
8 Unspecified source for Image:Builing7.jpg
9 Image copyright problem with Image:Builing7.jpg
10 Unspecified source for Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg
11 WTC video
12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg
13 Pearl Harbor lack of knowledge debate

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, ScottS! And thanks for adding some critical content to the Steven E. Jones article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, ScottS, and have fun! Ombudsman 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:28661 512.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:28661 512.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:StaHmovements111.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StaHmovements111.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Builing7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Builing7.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Builing7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Builing7.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] WTC video

In regards to your recent addition to the Pavel Hlava article stating that there are three videos showing the first impact, I was wondering if you could provide a llink to that third video or a story about it? I haven't heard of another one. PBP 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:109 saed alghamdi training.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Harbor lack of knowledge debate

Thanks for the encouragement. I was getting a bit testy, I know. For awhile there, I just stopped looking at the talk page, 'cause that kind of close-minded, stubborn ignorance infuriates me. Which I should expect from people who look at this issue & refuse to accept the truth. (There's 2 kinds: those who don't know the facts, who are ignorant, & those who do & continue to believe there's a conspiracy, who are stupid.) I've been watching your work on the page with appreciation. It's been the kind of cool, balanced, reasoned stuff I'd want to do, if the whole idea didn't make smoke come out my ears. =] FYI, I del your email from my talk page; best not to make it so public. I understand it's possible to send them privately, so you should be able to get mine. If you've got access to the Cryptologia issues, there's a couple I'd be interested in; let me have a look at what's been posted & get back to you. I'm particularly curious about the NSA POV. (I'm such a techie, I love seeing the guts of how it works, even when I don't really understand half of it. =]) Have you read Friedman's Index of Coincidence? I was frankly surprised it was open source at the time (1920), considering. (Again, not that I understood half of it...) Not really on topic, but there is one thing I do want to see, & my local library says they've never heard of it: (Cdr?) Rollo Appleyard, RN, "Elements of Convoy Defense", c 1917. Thanks for letting me bend your ear. Ciao. Trekphiler (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I've kind of been involved in a couple of big Conspiracies. 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 guys are even worse. Joe (The Stinnett fan) isn't running and a 4 cylinders. He's very fragmented and vague on purpose. (Or maybe not...gulp!) At times I've thought about looking into making the page protected so that anonymous users can't make edits.

Many of the people they use to support their claims don't agree with them. After Stinnett made his book, some of the people who helped were extremely angry and wanted to sue him. Its really a dumb theory once you start filling in all the details, and if you've read the latest article by Villa it doesn't get much better. Stinnett's work BTW was picked up by BrianVilla (former professor University of Ottawa) and TimothyWilford is his former grad studient. I've had e-mail conversations with Stinnett and Villa. Stinnett is at the point where he just foams at the mouth and repeats the same pat replies. I haven't seen anything written from him in a while. I'm not sure if he has the capacity to even address the counter arguments anymore.

I've heard there is some new info coming up that further puts many of these ideas to rest. Should be an interesting year.

Also, the PH attacked board also has some good resources from old posts. David Aiken is also a real stand-up guy. http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=38;t=750

ScottScottS (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty awful. My fave is Stinnett's own source, Whitlock, blowing up his thesis right in the notes of his very book (n8 to Chap2), & Stinnett can't see it. And it amazes me nobody calls these clowns on the underlying, I dunno, racism or something, like IJN was too incompetent to find & attack Pearl without help. (Applies to the replies on PHAND, too.) I'm always torn about actually reading, let alone replying to, this kind of shat (it was allegedly his fave word...), but I do feel compelled to try & answer fully & fairly for the people who don't know. (BTW, in case I wasn't clear, I meant "ignorant" in the dictionary sense, "not knowing".) Good to know there are people out there putting this crud to the test, & I'm not alone. (Sometimes I wonder...) Let me say, keep up the good work. It's been a welcome relief to me to see a sane mind involved. I'm not so sure about mine on the issue; I'm by no means objective, & ridicule (which is what this "theory" deserves) is a bit contrary to WP policy.

Is it deliberate? I suspect some of it is, but I also think it's because the conspiracy loons have no answers, so they distract by introducing tangential junk, hoping nobody will notice. Or they do what Toland did in Infamy, put in every conceivable detail (& name every conceivable person involved) to hide just how thin the real case is (which, I guess, is a variation on a theme). Or what Stinnett did in Deceit, use Yoshikawa's codename, which I suspect was intended to make Stinnett look smarter.

About your email offer. If you can get "Rhapsody in Purple: A New History of Pearl Harbor" (Cryptologia, July {pages 193-229} and October {pages 346-467} 1982), Jacobsen's "Radio Silence of the Pearl Harbor Strike Force Confirmed Again: The Saga of Secret Message Serial (SMS) Numbers." (Cryptologia 31, no. 3 (Jul. 2007), pp.223-232), or Jacobsen's "Pearl Harbor: Who Deceived Whom?" (Naval History Magazine, December 2003), I'd be deeply grateful. And if you ever see a copy of Appleyard's Elements of Convoy Defense, let me know immediately! =] (I'm asking just about everybody who's likely to see one; it's got to turn up somewhere...) Again, thanks.

Ciao. Trekphiler (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am missing A New History of PH. I have all of Phil's published works. He was a generous guy. If I ever get the time, I would REALLY like to rework the whole page. Its a mess and only slightly touches on the subjects. I'd like to put up pictures but Im afraid to now as them always seem to get removed, I guess I don't know the proper procedure. I'd also like to clean up Lurline and the Radio Deception part.

John Toland is bad also. Toland's story with Ranneft was ever changing. I got my own copy of Ranneft's diary straight from the Dutch. What a load of crap. Why would Turner be worried about the Japanese attacking Manila the day before (6-12-41) if they were tracking ships that close to Hawaii as Toland writes? As others have pointed out, beW means westerly, not north as Toland claims in the hardback. Put it all together has others have, and it likely that it was carriers near the Marshall Islands. Put a fork in that one. JN-25 seems to be dying also of revisionists. Villa and Wilford's main thrust now seems to be on radio silence.

ScottScottS (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're as loony as the PHAND ghouls, I can just imagine what that'll look like. =] Good luck getting the page cleaned up with them around; the dumping in of junk just to contradict is bound to ruin your work. (I tried keeping a flow around the motivations in the first couple of 'graphs & got just that.) DF in the Marshalls makes a lot of sense; it wouldn't surprise me there was traffic there, & without triangulation, Grogan couldn't have gotten more than a rough cut. (And wouldn't the Marshalls be on a bearing near the K.B.'s track, enough you could mistake them?) It's a beaut how the conpsiracy loons don't distinguish between decryption & TA; from Hollywood, I'd expect that. (Cf "Midway", for instance.) Dunno about pix; if you could find repops of some docs from the NA or someplace, put 'em up. (I've got a sample decrypt page from ETO off the USAF page that's free use.) Where are you getting yours from? (Or are they factual & pissing off the PHAND ghouls? =]) Trekphiler (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Villa and Wilford both have upcoming publications. Likely it will be as shallow as the last two articles. Jamaskin is trolling the Amazon boards right now under the name VadeMecum. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3N6AIAXD0IZS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&ASIN=0738868892#wasThisHelpful I've debated him over the years from other boards. I don't know why I talk to him. He's clearly not all there. I got mine stuff from Jacobsen, sometimes from my own research and a few other friends.ScottS (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought. Do you suppose Grogan might've detected msgs from 6h Fleet subs sending scouting/position reports? IJN subs were notoriously chatty. Trekphiler (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Grogan likely heard Japanese commercial ships sending routine plain language radio messages in their specialized Kata Kana telegraphic code. What he heard doesn't match with the location of the Kido Butai either. I'll be posting more on this when I get a chance, but Jacobsen has a good article on it. Also according to John Prados (author of Combined Fleet Decoded) the log was recovered by the Coast Guard not the Navy. The Coast Guard was likely in the area due to the sinking of the SS Cynthia Olson rather than concerns of pre-war traffic. This of course conflicts with the original story that was printed in Farago's postscript. (The Broken Seal) Another funny point was the claim of missing page 3 of "Record for Posterity". This was a missing note page from Tolands research regarding Grogan. Wilford suggested it was incriminating, and included strong evidence. After calling the library where the documents were stored, I found out that they never received page 3 in the first place. They were not happy being mentioned in PH CT theories. Of course Jacobsen found the document elsewhere. It didn't help the revisionists at all. I suspect the original log will be found also. I also spoke to the women mentioned in Stinnetts book regarding the lost log. She wasn't happy either. ScottS (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Scott

Thanks. That just proves I'm as bad with baseless theories as the PHAND ghouls. =] And the "missing page" surprises me not at all. Conspiracy's just way sexier than stupidity. And way better at selling books. Trekphiler (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)