User talk:Lodestoneman

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Beloved Freak  21:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Conway
You can't add bits like The loss of this historic ship became folk law to the Jones family - that is unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is based on verifiability more than anythingelse. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now if you have references to most of the additions you have made (other than your own website) this is well on the way to being a much improved article. NtheP (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB
Lodestoneman, you can't use your website as a Wikipedia source. See WP:SELFPUB for the reasons why not. I would suggest a good read of Verifiability to understand what constitutes a suitable source. If you want any help or advice, just contact me at my talk page. It may take a day or two for me to respond, though, since I'm a bit busy in real life. Shem (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

REPLY:-
Thank you Shem1805 for your interest. You will appreciate that the loss of this ship carried political overtones leading to the wilful concealment of the facts. To this effect the Report of the (in-house) Official Enquiry (which at the time was termed a 'whitewash') was deliberately and cleverly misleading. So you are not going to find anything written down anywhere which remotely resembles the truth.

My website (which has no commercial value) is the result of several years research, and is essentially information and documents gathered from such sources as the Professors of Oceanography and Estuarial Research of the University of Wales Bangor, the Caernarvon Harbour Trust, the Trinity House Menai Strait pilots, HM Stationery Office, both the Admiralty and Anglesey Pilot Books, the Met Office and B Bidston Observatory, N'''

Bold text
'''ational Maritime Museum, reports by well informed eyewitnesses such as the Marine Manager of the towing company and participating ship's officers etc etc (please see 'Acknowledgements' page 15), which information is only publicly available on my site which has been described as "The most definitive investigation there ever will be" (see 'Comments' page 15). My site provides all the verifiable information needed not available anywhere else except on my site to enable anyone to arrive at theit own informed conclusions in a way which would otherwise take them many years, if indeed at all.

If my site doesn't meet with your criteria, then there isn't anything else available to the public which will. All the other external links you do allow in this article rely exclusively on my site for their technical information. To deny Wikipedia access to my site is to deny access to any reliable information at all. No use adding 'citation needed' if you don't allow the only citation anywhere available.

Please also note that I have changed my site structure and edited Wikipedia 'Links' accordingly, but that edit has been removed. I have now yet again edited the URL on the 'Links' page, otherwise you will not have been able to access my site.

Captain David G Williams Rtd.
 * Captain Williams, thank you for your reply. It seems odd at first, but the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  One gets used to it after a while!  If your website contains facts, they must have come from somewhere - what were the sources? Use the sources to reference particular statements.  A general acknowledgement at the end isn't good enough. If you're still interested, have a read of "No original research" Shem (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your change of Nile's launch date back to 1839 once again. Not only is the date given in HMS Nile (1839), but I've now referenced the date in the Conway article. Please don't change it again without discussion.  Where did you get 1830 from?  According to  she was ordered in 1826 and laid down in 1827, but not launched until 28 June 1839.  She was commissioned straight to ordinary about 6 weeks later.  I've also replaced the citation needed tag that you removed.  I would have formatted your reference attempt properly, but the website you gave doesn't include any reference to Conway that I can find.  I'd like to help rather than keep reverting you, so if you tell me at this page what source you want to use a a reference, I'll show you how to format it correctly.  Shem (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

REPLY:- Thank you again for yours. Re date of launch please see The Admiralty Ship List:  Re the two citations you request, very well I'll try again, but for reasons already explained I can't promise too much. Anything you want to know about it it's me you have to ask. There isn't anybody else since Capt.Pari-Huws died and I'm no chicken. However your first request is easy. I learned about it from the Menai Pilots, but it's widely known locally and is published by the Royal Welsh Yacht Club and the Caernarfon Harbour Trust (see their link 'Swellies' on their home page), but please do explain how to format this link correctly. The second one is not so easy. All I can do is point you in the right direction and give you the right information (various) and anybody can do the necessary calculations and arrive at the obvious conclusion. However I'll see what I can do to 'wangle' it instead for the sake of complying with your requirements.

Thank you again.

Capt. David G Williams Rtd.
 * Interesting about the date of launch. Fortunately Rif Winfield, the author of the text is also a Wikipedian; I'll ask him about the dates.  The statement you're trying to reference from the Caernarfon Harbour Trust is "Had the ship gone through at the proper time with the tide behind her as the pilot had advised, the accident would not have happened".  The website (including the "Swellies" section) doesn't refer to Conway at all, just the mechanics of choosing the right tide for the transit.  That isn't sufficient for the statement, I'm afraid.  What we need here is a clear statement from a suitable source that supports the statement as written. If you're saying that such a published statement doesn't exist, then in time the article will have to be re-written to match the historical record - correct or not - since it's verifiability, not truth that's important here.
 * Give me a chance to look at the details of your website, and we'll work together to improve the article. It will take some time, but then there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Shem (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Capt. Williams, I've been asked to comment on the launch date of HMS Nile. The Nile was launched from No. 1 slipway at Devonport Dockyard at 6 pm on Friday, 28 June 1839, the anniversary of Queen Victoria's Coronation Day. The naming ceremony was performed by Miss Warren, the daughter of the Admiral Superintendent, Rear Admiral Frederic Warren, and it was estimated that upwards of 50,000 people witnessed it, according to Devonport Dockyard's own records. I recognise the 'website' page you are showing as being a simple photocopy of page 190 of Brian Lavery's "The Ship of the Line", Volume One. Brian's book is an excellent study of the development of the ship of the line, which I hold in high regard. However, it does contain a few mis-prints, as I have pointed out to Brian. The launch date of the Nile is one of these - showing 28.6.1830 when it should show 28.6.1839.
 * I'm afraid the other "sources" you mention (including, I understand from your text above, the Royal Welsh Yacht Club and the Caernarfon Harbour Trust - being a Welsh resident myself, I have great disappointment in learning of their errors) have all simply copied the error from Brian's book. I understand fully how such a simple mis-typing can occur (the "9" and "0" being next to each other on the keyboard) and sadly, things like this slip past the most diligent of proof-readers all the time. Unfortunately, once a book is published there is always the danger of someone simply duplicating the mis-typing ad nauseam without re-checking the facts. Regards, Rif Winfield. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

REPLY:- a) Rif Winfield, very interesting. The referred item was sent to me by the National Maritime Museum and I would have put money on the Admiralty knowing best when their own ship was launched. I also have copy from 'Ship-of-the-Line' and will study it more closely, but I fully accept what you say and I will alter my own site accordingly.

b) Shem, you embarrass me by the trouble you are taking over this. Of course there's no mention of a sixty year old incident on the Caernarfon Harbour site, but it's corroborative evidence of local practice. Once you understand the oddities of the Menai Strait tides it will be perfectly obvious to you why the eastbound transit is made with the last of the flood, not with 'The Slack' as Capt.Hewitt insisted on doing. (I won't call it 'slack water' because it isn't). Equally obvious is that if the ship had indeed gone through with the last of the flood (as the pilot naturally advised - verbally, Emrys Jones, Caernarfon pilot) she would not have met the ebb which overpowered the tugs and drove the ship ashore, so "the accident would not have happened." It's plain as the light of day and I really don't understand why this is giving you so much difficulty even if it isn't written down in the Holy Bible. If everything was already written down there would be no need to repeat it on Wikipedia.

Since the entire content of the sections "Loss of the ship" and "Reasons for the loss" comes drectly from my website, I'd be very glad if you did look at my site, and if you continue to consider it such an unreliable source you'd better delete the lot.

Kind regards again,

Capt. David G Williams.


 * Dear Capt. Williams, my intervention was purely in relation to the launch date of the Nile, and I have made no comment on other matters. The Admiralty's records - as available at the National Maritime Museum (which I gather uses my own series of books as their primary reference to respond to queries relating to the Navy during the Age of Sail) supplemented by the National Archives, formerly the PRO, at Kew - also show 28 June 1839 as the launch date. As you say, the Admiralty generally know the correct dates of vessels launched (sadly even their records are not faultless, especially during the centuries when their records were maintained by hand by a handful of overworked clerks); in this case their records are unambiguous in giving 28 June 1839 as the date of launch; however I cannot speak for what has been sent to you by the NMM. I should be grateful if you could pass the correction back to the bodies which you mention as having the false date of 1830 in their publications; leaving these errors unchallenged will only result in further repetitions of incorrect date, as has happened in this case. Best wishes, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

REPLY:-

Dear Rif Winfield, We appear to have some misunderstanding. Only the first paragraph of my reply was addressed to you, the remainder to Shem. I fully accept everything you say and I've already altered my own site accordingly. As far as I'm aware there isn't any mention of 'Conway' on the sites of either the RWYC or Caernarfon Harbour, nor is there any reason why there should be. My only contact regarding the early history of 'Nile' was with the NMM. As to the remainder, as I understand it I now await for Shem to have opportunity to look at my site before being able to continue.

Thank you again for your very welcome information.

Capt. David G Williams Rtd.
 * I'm pleased to have been of help. Kind regards! Rif Winfield (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Convenient break
Captain Williams, I think we're all happy with Nile's launch date now, at least! As for the rest of the referencing issues, please don't think that I don't rate your website, which is in fact a very thorough piece of work, and one that I haven't had time to read properly yet, let alone assimilate. What I'd like to do, in due course, and with your help, is bring the article up to standard with suitable references. Given that you brought all the information together, all of it has a source. Where you added two and two to get four, that needs a careful approach at Wikipedia to avoid breaking the "no original research" rule. I am busy in real life, so this will take time, and in the meantime the article is doing no harm in its current state.

If I could make one request, it would be that you sign your posts with "~". This serves several useful functions, including time stamping the comments, and is one of our basic rules. You can of course add your real name as well, if you wish to do so. (In fact, you can change your Wikipedia signature by going to My preferences>User profile>Signature and entering your chosen signature - hence my signature appears as "Shem" although my account name is actually "Shem1805")

Thank you for your helpful approach on this page, and all I ask now is a couple of weeks to find some time, give your website the attention it deserves, and come up with a way ahead. Shem (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

REPLY:-
Thank you Shem for your very constructive efforts. From what you say I'm beginning to doubt if Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for what I have. Sources of hard facts such as weather, tides, navigation and so on are easily verifiable. But the fascination with the loss of this ship lies in the wilful concealment of the facts and the distorted half truths of the Official Report, so there isn't anything written down anywhere remotely resembling the truth, and when I met Capt. Hewitt at a Conway gathering he was not willing to discuss it. Obviously this means any attempt to explain what really did happen is necessarly "original" and obviously not "verifiable".

Anyway, when you get the chance please do look at my site and I will of course be very interested in your reaction.

"15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"

Capt. David G Williams Rtd. Ref: HMS Conway (School Ship)

Benea, I must say I'm astonished by the number of deletions made by Wikipedia in 24 hours, so I can hardly be surprised that you've also deleted mine. I appreciate your difficulties with the sources of my numerous citations. During the course of several years researching this subject documents were sent to me in hard copy by such as HM Stationary Office; the Met Office; Liverpool Observatory, Bidston; University College of Wales; Friends of HMS Conway; Caernarfon Harbour Trust etc. Thus is all first class material which is not available anywhere else so I have scanned it and uploaded to the web where it is freely available to anybody. If this material doesn't meet the Wikipedia requirement then please don't ask for citations when there isn't anything at all available anywhere else. Please tell me what is wrong with the Admiralty Tide Tables 1953, simply because it was I who put it on the web and not the Admiralty.

0113: 08 January 2012 Regards .... Capt David G Williams. Lodestoneman (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Benea, Further to my previous will you accept references to www.hmsconway.org ? Regards..... Capt David G Williams Rtd Lodestoneman (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)