Jump to content

User talk:72.196.202.60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (72.196.202.60) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (72.196.202.60) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Pennsy22 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

[edit]
Thank you for the edits to USS Jade (PY-17), I made some changes but not because anything you did was wrong, just wanted it to conform to other articles a little better. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about joining?

[edit]

You've been editing pretty steadily for several months now, why not create an account? It's free, easy, much more private and offers many benefits. Check it out, give it some thought. - wolf 05:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Your comments on the project talk page did not reflect a neutral point of view BilCat (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd that you see a clear statement of fact as "canvassing" there. But ok. I just find it difficult to remain "neutral" when a discussion is flying in the face of facts as that quotation form UNCOLS demonstrated. There is entirely too much amateurish view of the meaning of commissioned ship in articles here and apparently lack of simple research by many commenting in such issues. The removed statement might have been of some value to project ships folk in deciding how to address any "warship" issue. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without even looking at what the debate is about, I can tell you this; the post at WT:SHIPS#RfC at Talk:Warship Comment was a standard and properly written notification to the Wiki-Project that the article falls under. It doesn't matter if the RfC has any merit or not, Madrenergic added a neutrally worded notice without any actual details and certainly without any opinions. You posted an angry rant that was intended to carry a dispute from one page to another, and in the process to try and sway the judgement of those who happen across your comment and/or to draw in (or 'canvas') as many like-minded editors as possible, all to impede consensus or tilt it in your favour. So it was absolutely correct of BilCat to warn you that your behavior was inappropriate. - wolf 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Canvassing doesn't just involve where you post notices, but how they are worded. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the relevant definition in the UN treaty brought up as the very authority for making a change in that RFC and noting that basing an RFC on a misreading or non reading of the document cited as basis for the change — clearly refuted by the document itself — is a "bad idea" hardly seems an "angry rant." It was not intended to be. It was simply an attempt to give "Ships" people a heads up to the document's wording before they plunge into a discussion and fall into the same little pit. Or was it my observation all too many editing U.S. naval related articles have a very poor understanding of exactly what "United States Ship" involves? My apologies if that seemed "angry" but it is evidenced in article after article and particularly when yard craft and other bits and pieces of Navy floating property become "USS" Something. I will admit the fact that my good faith effort to make sure "Ship" people don't blunder in without relevant information was misinterpreted has me bit irritated. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I guess it came off as angry mostly because of the bolding. And because you restated your whole case. And you ended with an "emphatic no". And as you say, you were a bit irritated ;-). Anyway, I shouldn't have called it a rant. - wolf 00:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The bolding is of the four legal, international law and treaty, components that are required to be classed as a "warship": 1) national distinguishing markings, 2) under command of an officer commissioned by the national force, 3) that officer being listed by the nation as such, and 4) having a crew under the nation's military discipline system. Basically, recognizably as a national ship under the nation's military discipline and not a pirate or privateer or just plain outlaw if taking a military action. A lot of people fail to realize that fine distinction between a ship owned by a national military service and one commissioned and authorized to take action — to attack in the name of the nation or, if attacked a distinct act of war. The ship is not a "pirate" or "privateer" or just plain outlaw if a "national" ship and so marked with a listed officer commissioned by the nation to take military action and a crew also under military discipline. Any that have spent time aboard ships of both types can attest to the distinctions in practical effect regarding privileged status, say entry into a foreign port, between a USS vice USNS ship for example. Customs and immigration don't run up against armed Marines protecting any sensitive spaces for one thing. Keeping them out is more "diplomatic" than "Hell no!" There is some really interesting history that I find fascinating. For example, the prize money and "points" for promotion for taking a national ship, a warship, was more than that for a privateer or armed merchant ship. Even back in the days of common piracy, privateering, company armed ships, and armed auxiliaries/merchants there was a distinction. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw

[edit]

You should consider creating an account, if you're going to continue editing, even infrequently. There's benefits like a watchlist, confirmed status, notifications, etc., as well as the increased privacy/anonymity. Give it a thought. - wolf 00:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had one on a computer that went dead long ago with an ISP whose IP went bankrupt about that time and email dead, of if changed to an account I no longer monitor. If I ever remember the account information maybe. I prefer largely to just dig into ships and maritime history for my own entertainment with some of the bits and pieces making their way to ships whose "history" is not well covered — or just DANFS copies for a sliver of time in otherwise more interesting histories. I rarely cover "warships" leaving that to navies and fans. For an example, look at before and after USS Owera (SP-167), one that is also a fascinating tangle of name versions, service in two navys and not well titled "USS" because that was perhaps the least noteworthy part of that vessel's history. Or the "harbor entrance patrol craft" of little USN note that was the first diesel yacht in the nation and in the kinship tree of the WW II PTs. Those Section patrol boats and the intimate ties to Gilded Age yachting is pretty interesting. Some real characters building those! I also have just over zero patience for the interminable "discussions" that often discount factual reality for opinion and emotion (memorials are much treasured by some) and are never resolved. Ignoring my don't get into the damned things got me into this I see. Ha! I see you are embroiled in some idiocy over there where I said (for damned good and specified reason) "No. Absolutely no." Enough fun. Back to other things and maybe digging out that interesting Maryland "Oyster Navy" that got taken in whole to the USNR to get a bunch of "USS" stubs here. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar, but different situation. I just edited via whatever IP I was on, where ever I was at any given time. I finally registered in 2010. Last year I had some young fellow with a case of ABF claim I hadn't been on WP for 10 years or more, only seven. So I had to work backwards, trying to remember articles I had edited, then dig thru them looking edits that I knew I had made. I did managed to find some going back to mid-2006. I found what what appears to be my first edit. I know the exact edit, so I have what I consider my WP start date. I wish I had registered earlier, but I'm also glad that some of those early edits are anonymous, they are too close to home and would give away too much info. There are some pages I would never edit with my account. But that aside, it is better to have an account than not. - wolf 05:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small US Navy vessels

[edit]

Hi You made a valuable contributrion to the question of retaining content when these small articles are considered for deletion, in this discussion. Sadly, nothing came of that at the time. I have raised the subject again, following a similar AfD, here, and am keen that we make better progress this time. I hope that you will contribute again. Davidships (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Martin Howard for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Martin Howard, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.196.202.60&oldid=1001285316"