Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nuclear target structures"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(User:EJamesW Removing References and Deleting Majors Sections Unnecessarily While Adding Just 1 Sentence)
(Responses from Other Editors)
Line 48: Line 48:
 
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 18:45, 19 January 2015 (EST)
 
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 18:45, 19 January 2015 (EST)
  
==Responses from Other Editors==
+
==Letters of Last Resort==
 +
 
 +
Hello TAR, I see you've used some of my improvements in the wording and format of this article. Don't worry, I'm not going 'bust ya ass' about this. And as for your name-calling, I forgive you.
 +
 
 +
Now, don't go ballistic but I've added material about the British response to a nuclear attack. I've added a section and also a new article. Do you know if American submarine commanders have similar instructions?
 +
 
 +
[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:03, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 15:03, 23 January 2015

I've read through this article a number times and I'm baffled by it! TAR - here's a few questions and observations...

1. Why use the word 'structure'? Wouldn't calling it 'Nuclear target protocols' or 'Nuclear weapons targeting' make the purpose of the article clearer?

2. Your description of primary, secondary and tertiary is pretty clear but then you've added another section '____ the Nuclear-Weapon State: A Likely Nuclear Target Structure' with poor formatting. I'm sure this could be merged with the previous section to make a more coherent article.

3. What is your reason of including the Randy Newman lyric quote? Maybe you could expand your reasoning here?

4. Your two references to [1] were excellent but then there are a great deal of links to external 'prepper/survivalist sites'.

I'm also interested in this subject and if you would like, I'd be happy to collaborate to make this article far more readable and clearer.

EJamesW 15:14, 16 January 2015 (EST)

EJ, you can take your little digs at The American Redoubt's work. I would encourage him just to ignore you and to tell Karajou if you begin to try to make multiple minor changes to the article like WSchact did. VargasMilan 15:51, 16 January 2015 (EST)
Yikes! Please don't tell on me to Karajou! Only joking... I haven't made any changes to this article - I merely pointed out that it doesn't make much sense with it's present wording and formatting, and suggested changes that would make it clearer and more coherent. I wasn't lying when I said I was interested in this subject and I would be happy to help improve this article. EJamesW 16:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, I'm sure TheAmericanRedoubt can answer for himself. EJamesW 16:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)
Wrong, you did actually make numerous changes and deletions as I describe below. TheAmericanRedoubt 18:51, 19 January 2015 (EST)

User:EJamesW Removing References and Deleting Majors Sections Unnecessarily While Adding Just 1 Sentence

Again self-identified British atheist liberal editor EJamesW, under the guise of "improving things" removes my whole section titled ==Department of Defense De-Classified TR-82 "High Risk Areas" Report== which listed the references from where all of this material is coming that I will be distributing across all of the 50 states articles. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nuclear_target_structures&action=historysubmit&diff=1133441&oldid=1133433

He adds one sentence ("This attack procedure is for using nuclear weapons in the event that a hostile threat that cannot be subjugated by using conventional forces or that a hostile nation has used weapons of mass destruction against a sovereign state."), then he removes much he disagrees with. He removes the standard formatting of the opening line. From now on I will simply revert without comment his trolling of articles I submit. I integrated his one sentence into the article. He simply deleted some of my sentences without discussion as he wished. I knew I should have made this an Essay to avoid the liberal trolls.

I also added a Comment suing "<!"NOTE to Editors: User:TheAmericanRedoubt requests that you please DO NOT change, remove or rename any of the existing Headings (==Primary Targets==, ==Secondary Targets==, ==Tertiary Targets==) below since they are used for Bookmark Redirects from many other article pages especially each the 50 states will have links going back to this article. Thank you.

Here are my changes, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nuclear_target_structures&action=historysubmit&diff=1133442&oldid=1133441

To each of the 50 states articles I will be adding a heading, as I already did to most of the Category:Nuclear Target Structures articles to justify their inclusion in the Category that so irks Mr. EJamesW.

Here is my boilerplate text I will add to existing articles:

____ the Nuclear-Weapon State: A Likely Nuclear Target Structure

This nation is considered a "nuclear-weapon states" (NWS) since it has nuclear weapon capabilities making it one of the primary nuclear target structures in a possible nuclear war[1].

Of course, I will modify it to refer to a particular US State versus a NWS states such as Pakistan#Pakistan_the_Nuclear-Weapon_State:_A_Likely_Nuclear_Target_Structure

Samples References

  1. Nuclear Country Profile, Washington, DC: Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Last updated: May, 2014. Accessed January 15, 2015

TheAmericanRedoubt 18:45, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Letters of Last Resort

Hello TAR, I see you've used some of my improvements in the wording and format of this article. Don't worry, I'm not going 'bust ya ass' about this. And as for your name-calling, I forgive you.

Now, don't go ballistic but I've added material about the British response to a nuclear attack. I've added a section and also a new article. Do you know if American submarine commanders have similar instructions?

EJamesW 16:03, 23 January 2015 (EST)