User talk:MBK004/Anon

USS Kitty Hawk CVA-63/CV-63
You are wrong to remove my posting on the USS Kitty Hawk and that the ship Builder's Plate attached to the hull reads USS Constellation CVA-64. Knowledge must start somewhere and this excuse to pull the posting "Original research" is little more than being arrogant. As a yet developing young adolescent are not the sum of all knowledge military and facts pertaining to the USS Kitty Hawk CVA-63.

I doubt you had ever heard of a builders plate till I posted the comment regarding the ship or even know where to find the object. I find you offensive to presume my posting to be disinformation. To make such rash act and your proceeding comments regarding being "banned", that I as former crew member of the USS Kitty Hawk, Fox Division, FTG-3 responsible for the Phalanx unit on sponson 7 which was located on the starboard side of the island on the 03 level below and aft of the SLQ-32 V3 and later removed, should know less of the vessel I served on then yourself.''There has NEVER been a builder's plate for CVA 64 aboard CVA 63 !!! I ought to know as I am a Plankowner. The builder's plate was affixed to the island, but during one of the overhauls it mysteriously disappeared you could say stolen for want of a better word. near the base of the once retractable mast, there 's a bronze or brass logo of the ship, which was removed for safekeeping by the Curator of the Navy. The builder's plate you allude to was on display also on the ceremonial quarterdeck'' Source for this is from the files of the Naval Historical and Heritage Center, and the Kitty Hawk Veterans Association, and can be easliy verified by contacting them. Pnsy17shop (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, your "permitted" account of the incident in the Sea of Japan 1984 is not entirely correct, as most of what was posted of the event in the preceding news articles, the Washington Post in particular was conjecture from 11,000 miles away and incorrect.

I personally remember the event as the ship I was on at the time, the USS Davidson FF1045 was just aft performing plane watch duties that night when the USS Kitty Hawk hit the Russian sub while participating with the Korean Navy in Team Spirit operations. But then again, you would probably delete my accounting of the event and knowledge of Team Spirit along with events in route to P.I. and out at Gonzo Station since my knowledge wasn't already commonly known to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkmcgraw (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You know
...if I were to edit one page a day on wikipedia concerning battleships and you were to tag that page i think that by the end of next year you and I would have tagged every UTEP designated ISP address. It is a scary thought :) - an unlogged in TomStar81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.49 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Force of habit, you'd be surprised how many admins don't check the WHOIS before blocking some IPs that are clearly schools. Good to see you contributing in any way, remember you're always welcome. -MBK004 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been working non stop since just after 7:00am on a paper and decided that after eight hours and almost nine pages I had earned a little me time. I'm not quite ready to committee to editting uder my screen name yet, but I can still contribute a little as an anon, albeit in a reduced capacity (which in all honesty is probably whats best for me right now). 129.108.97.49 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good for you, I couldn't work that long at once on school. Also, that is probably a good idea to stick as an anon, I don't think many people other than myself will recognize the IP address as you unless they can put two and two together. Plus, when you do come back you will be getting so many yellow new messages notifications you won't have time to do anything else but respond for a bit of time. -MBK004 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...and another one gets tagged. One down, x-2 left to go. And its still a scary thought :) 129.108.225.254 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In cas you are curious...
Its for one of my finals. My laptop and the UTEP computers use different versions of MS Word, so its just easier to dump the text her than have to email and convert it :) Good luck with you finals, I imagine this week is finals week for you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.100 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, my finals aren't for another week! I completely understand and would use the same thing with my sandbox talk page if necessary. -MBK004 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmph. Luck you for one more week of peaceful schooling. Good catch too: I did not figure anyone would be watching the alternate accoutn talk page, yet you got both ISPs both times. I commend you for noticing! Also, I notice that several of Bellhalla's ships are aproaching an FT nom...He's withdrawn support, and you have opposed, but this has shaken my faith in our ability to get the Iowas there first. I have not decided for sure yet, but the unexpected presence of potential ship FTs has made me contemplate returining a little earlier than planned to facility the last push for FT status. 129.108.97.100 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are Good Topics. Remember that FT is different. It's something that was implemented after you took your break. If anything is going to get to FT before the Iowas, it will be the Alaskas. One of the new co-opted coordinators, has them tantalizingly close. He just needs two FAs and to raise another ship to GA. -MBK004 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have actually been watching Eds contributions, and he picks things up quick. He would make a good admin, I think, but at the moment I am not in a position to file an rfa for him (assuming he has even considered going for adminship). I think that the iowa's are far enough along to beat the Alaska's since we only really need USS Iowa and then we can go (as I understand it subsequent articles can be added later as they reach the FA mark, and upon inspection only the class page, the armament page, and the six battleships themsleves are listed in the template. We could argue this to be the initial FT and build up from there as more info becomes avaliable for our respective unwritten pages). I am also contemplating the introduction of a major operation to bring the Essex class carrier up to FA status by this time next year (assuming enough people show interest in the idea). 129.108.97.100 (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to hold off on an RfA until you return. I'm sure that Roger would offer a co-nom as well. Good thinking with regards to the FT nom. Also, if you feel like you need to come back, by all means I won't stop you, but do take your time before deciding to make that decision. It won't be the end of the world if we don't get the first ship Featured Topic. Remember why you took the break in the first place and decide if you've reduced your stress level enough to facilitate a return. As to the Essex class, a great idea on paper, but let's not look so far in the future. Also, have you see this: IWF block of Wikipedia? -MBK004 05:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

←Anyways, I'm off to bed. I've got class in the morning and an hour drive in front of me to get there. G'night. -MBK004 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh...I leave for six weeks and all this happens!? I all seriousness though I am not suprised about the album cover, several members had a series of large gunfights over the image in the article, some argues WP:NOTCENSIRED, others pointing to the cover as potential child porn. To be honest I don't really have an opinion, but it is kind of fun to watch others who do have opinions debate on the issue. As for my return: I'm not sold on it yet, I am feeling a lot better than I did at the end of October, but I demand of myself that I remain off until at least mid-January. That gives me most of Christmas break to do nothing but relax, and that will do good things for mental health. I may announce my return in January, but I do not think I will start up with the hardcore editting again until February. At any rate, good night to you, and take care :) 129.108.97.100 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My Edits to Bunker Hill and Wasp pages
I figured I'd get slapped on the hand after a while, because I was sure I was making some mistakes. Where do I learn the ins and outs of the syntax? That thing used for Essex class really threw me. Not sure how many of my edits you have seen. Aside from the syntax butchering, are they okay? As long as I have your attention, what do you think about removing that stuff about the Des Moines class from the Baltimore class. I have tried so far to only reorganize and add additional pertinent detail, not delete stuff that I didn't like but thought the previous author may have felt strongly about. To keep me out of trouble while I'm learning, can you point me at some pages that just need fairly simple editing. My biggest contribution was to edit a battleship article that TomStar81 wrote, and he was quite enthusiastic about my work. Anyway, thanks.Busaccsb (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Leopold Busch
Sir:

You posted this on a communication with a gentleman who has made a number of posts concerning Arthur Leopold Busch:

I highly suspect you are related to Arthur Leopold Busch and therefore present a Conflict of Interest which would prohibit you from editing any ship-related article. I have no wish to get into debates with you as you have with other editors who have tried to help you here. I highly suggest you step back from ship articles for good and find something else to edit here on wikipedia because the patience of the editors at WP:SHIPS has come to an end. -MBK004 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suspicions are correct. This gentleman is the great-grandson of Busch, his name is Arthur V. DuBusc of 9312 Main St., Manassas, VA 20110. He is currently in a letter-writing campaign (letters sent to Donald C. Winter (SecNav) and Admiral Gary Roughead (CNO) to have a nuclear sub named after his great-grandfather.

Sincerely, 74.11.220.130 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to South Dakota (1920) class page
The more I look the more I see introductory stuff that can be improved, but I also see that people are sensitive both to content they have written, and to naive editing. I know you are busy, and hope I'm not asking for too much baby sitting, but I have rewritten the text on the South Dakotas and put it on my own workspace. Could you take a look at it before I take the plunge and put it on the real page. ThanksBusaccsb (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok friend, Let's presume that R-7 rocket is not a leap in technology in spite of fact that it was the first ICBM and the rocket which sent the first satelite and human in orbit. Ok! But I can't understand why you deleted everyrhing what I wrote about German contributions in rocketry. If you put away the official traditional American points of view and look more carefuly the history of US space prorgam in 1950s and 1960s you will discover that almost all great minds behind that program were Germans... I don't speak only about von Braun and Curt Dubes. Yes, the money for space program came from American people but the MASTERMINDS behind were Germans. Many people in Europe think that the entire US space program could be called the "German space program" on US financial soil. Of cource this is an extreeme point of view. But this point of view also have a rigt to exist. If young Americans as you deleted from Wikipedia everything what damage the US space image and US greatness only because of nationalistic reasons that will be not an objective Wikipedia. Please don't delete everything that I wrote only because I wrote it!! You don't allow me write even one sentence. That's not the way. I am not German and not Russian - just European. Probably in the future I will restrain to write more on space - there is too much politics inside. Have a nice weekend and God bless you!

Congratulations fron Europe.

Sergei Korolev
I did several minor updates basing on my knowelege of Russian sources in Sergei Korolev article. 1. Korolev was imprisoned for several months (actally, close to a year) in Maldyak gold mining camp in Kolyma( not in Siberia!). He barely survived there. 2. Common sources (even some in Russia!) cite GIRD-09 as liquid rocket. It is incorrect- GIRD-09 is a hybrid rocket (liquid oxidiser and solid fuel). GIRD-X is actually the first GIRD liquid bi-propellant rocket.

Regards.

Lucky find
It happens that the Roman military history paper I am doing is located on a section of the library floor renovated from the summer, and I found a few books on Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Jersey which I may be able to use to bolster the material already there from DANFS. Sorta suprised to have found such books since most of what we have out here related to Fort Bliss. -TomStar81 129.108.96.171 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is excellent news! -MBK004 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for archiving the PR for Kentucky and updating the FT page to reflect such. I'd have done the archiving myself, but it would have been a coi issue, hence the message on the coordinator talk page. Also, good luck with finals, since I imagine those are probably coming up soon for you as well :) 75.19.69.107 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom it wouldn't have been a COI issue, Nick just this month archived a PR for one of his articles immediately prior to taking it to ACR. If you feel you've gotten the advice/review you were looking for I see no reason to stop you from archiving the review. -MBK004 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

About external links
Hallo, MBK! Allow me to explain my actions. Wiki pages, devoted to the fighting ships, are very various. One articles are very substantial and detailed, others have not enough information from professional point of view. My resource contains, IMHO, laconically submitted and as maximally systematized information on this theme, compiled of many sources, repeatedly checked up and the most authentic from the point of view of the specialist. But a resource is already enough large, pages are issued under own standard, and altering them under Wiki standards means loss of a plenty of time. Alas, I continue to create a resource and need the time for it. Therefore submission of links on specified pages is, IMHO, the lonely possible method to offer a plenty of the information to readers. That before the latent advertising, on the one hand, vanity is the common sin, on the other hand: how to submit the link to a site without specifying the address of a site? From its part, infinitely respecting with all authors and moderators of Wiki, I undertake to not give more links on my site without special permission of moderators. Ivan Gogin. www.navypedia.org P.S. It`s a copy of letter sent to GraemeLeggett.Iigogin (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AirSpaceOnline
...is dead. We've got no other way of getting in touch with you. You'll find the gang at http://www.gebenus.com/board/potemkin

Your message about citations
Hi, I got your message about citing reliable sources on the KSC LC39 page. I added cites to a few of the statements where it seemed reasonable. I could probably add a reference for every sentence if desired, as NASA/KSC is documented to a nauseating dregree. :) If there's more cites you would like me to add, just say the word! I did read somewhere in the Welcome tutorial that citations should go on material that is likely to be disputed, and none of my adds seemed contentious to me, but I'm new so I'll defer to you on that. Thanks for the guidance! Go For TLI (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Galveston edits posted lacking citations
MBK

Before I enter a long learning curve at becoming an adept editor, I would appreciate a little help. I understand the need for citation, but am uncertain as to what is acceptable under the circumstances.

My interest in the Galveston history resides in my time aboard (November 1966 to December 1968) and my current position as webmaster for the Official USS Galveston Shipmates Assoc. --- www.ussgalveston.org.

There are currently two citations present on the Wiki article. Navy Vewssel Registry which is the source for stricken information that stands without any need for edit, and the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. III, 1968 which is incomplete by the mere fact that it was published prior to the end of USS Galveston's history.

My attempted edits were directed at providing a more complete history of the Galveston including events subsequent to the cited DAFS. In your comments on my attempted edits, you indicated that Cruise Books were insufficient. Is that because they are not in the public domain, because that's not exactly true when they are viewable from the associations website, copied in their original form as prepared by the ship's staff.

Admitably, much of my edit information, including my posted table of all the Galveston commanding officers, was gleaned from numerous sources including Captain letters sent to shipmate homes, obituaries, public speeeches, shipboard published newspapers and other uncitable sources.

However, if the Official Website of the shipmates association could be used as a citable source, the timeline we have prepared and publised onsite supports all edits I have attempted with one possible exception -- I called her a Grand ship in one spot (obviously an opinion). However with reference to opinion, I would like to point to a sentences in DAFS where it was stated that "She effectively supported ..." How does one define effectively?

Finally, I'm more than willing to have my edits qualified as DOD unofficial.

Let me know what I have to do or hopefully we can do together to make this article more complete.

I'm not sure about the signature but will try this Brank (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) and include this email bob@USSGalveston.org

Brank (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit of picture caption on USS Enterpise page
Hello MBK:

You wrote to me "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to USS Enterprise (CVN-65), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability." Although I could have cited myself as a source since I was there and have also been published on the F-14, the reason I didn't was because elsewhere on the very same Wikipedia page the correct information was given, to wit: "On 18 March 1974, the first operational F-14 aircraft of VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters made their maiden takeoffs and landings from the carrier. In September 1974, Enterprise became the first carrier to deploy with the new fighter plane when she made her seventh western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment."

I think the caption as it appears on the page, "Although unable to support them at first, Enterprise was eventually refitted to handle the newer F-14..." is misleading in that it gives the impression that there was some unique situation about the Enterprise that made her unable to operate them. In point of fact, any aircraft carrier designed before a particular aircraft is developed is going to need some kind of modification to operate said aircraft. The caption as written would be true of any carrier about any aircraft. For example, no carrier in the Fleet today can operate the F-35, but that doesn't mean anything, it'll be years before any one of those deploys.

I actually wanted to put a shorter version of what I just wrote (one line) into the edit summary, but it wouldn't fit.

Thanks!

130.165.200.100 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick (revisited)
Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul link on Trans Texas Corridor is a Porno Site
The reference #21 on the Trans Texas Corridor criticism section is a link to a porno site. That's why I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshm22 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tbates on the Thompson Submachine gun
I can't understand why you would revert even my slightest edit on the Thompson Navy Model of 1928. I have a 2003 "Shotgun News" Treasury Edition that has all the info I added about the Thompson. I can understand it not being cited as why you reverted it but I am new to wiki and am still working on getting the citation proper. At least give me an explination, everything I typed was true, it wasn't vandalism, or obscenity, so why revert good info? Can I even cite from a respected printed magazine such as the Shotgun News? It is a sister magazine to Guns and Ammo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Cruises wiki entry
Forgive any mistakes, but we had some questions hopefully you can answer; 1. recently our group made some changes on the Princess Cruises site that was removed due to a username in violation of policy. The name PrincessPR was chosen in the interest of transparency, but if that is against terms of service, do you recommend making the same changes from a different account? Several of the dates/ship details were inaccurate.

2. regarding sources, several proposed changes to the Princess page contain details that are seemingly only available on the official Princess Cruises web site; is this an acceptable source?

Thanks for your time, Acohen109 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)acohen109

Princess continued: Thanks for your quick response. Given that there are factual inaccuracies (founding date, ship names and launches), what would be the best way to go about editing the page? This is a private account and speaking as a private individual. With the proper referencing, I would think that is acceptable in the interest of displaying correct information on the page, but wanted to check with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acohen109 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas SSN 775
The only reason I changed the date information on the wikipage for the Texas is bc while they are out no specific dates can be mentioned to keep the boat and crew safe. My husband is currently serving on that submarine and they tell us everyday that we're not to give away boat movements. Once the boat arrives then you can post whatever dates you would like, but I would appreciate if you left out specific dates from that page until you see the boat has safely arrived. Thank you. 74.128.216.47 (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually - the article does NOT specify specific dates, it only mentions they left in that week - and then continues to say that the Navy will not discuss exact dates of the warships movements. we would all appreciate if we didnt have to bring the Navy itself into this - I was just trying to be nice, and not vandalize the page - but I want our sailors to be safe. 74.128.216.47 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
What's your problem? I am not breaching any rules. Why are you vandalizing the page by using fraudulent and unrecognized names? You need evidence for this well-documented name? Well, here you go! ,, , , --84.23.140.26 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Tiger (1913) v. Tiger class battlecruiser
The latter page is an abridged duplicate of the former, since Tiger was a one-off (albeit a modified Lion class battlecruiser). Suggest redirect? best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hello, I am brand new to Wikipedia tonight, and I am trying to reply to a message you sent me concerning a edit I made to an article about my company - the article concerned the Conestoga (rocket). I have been reading the how-to's about Wikipedia for hours now and looked around quite a bit before I made my edits, and I am completely unfamiliar with responding to messages, so I hope I am doing this right. You mentioned that I might have a conflict of interest in editing the article because I am a part of the company discussed in the article. I am certainly involved with the company, but the information I posted was accurate and unbiased, and in fact had references - the information previously posted did not have references. The changes I made were not major but they were important. I read your message to me carefully but I am just not familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand what I am supposed to do to post edits to articles concerning our company or our rockets, but I did want to get right back to you at least to tell you that my edits are verifiable and unbiased. I will check in tomorrow to see if there is another message from you, or if I can figure out what I am supposed to do about this. Hcmssi (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Disney Magic Copy Vio
I made some edits to Disney Magic and you reverted them and declared them copyright violations. Can you provide a source from where you think I copied them from? I wrote it myself so it is either a) unintentional copyright violation (possibly influenced by an outside source to the extent that it appears as a copyright violation), or b) mistakenly believed to by copyright violation. 66.161.180.226 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE. N3 battleships
The box containing the specs has several fairly obvious errors.

The 6 inch guns that the link is directed to would certainly not have been fitted to these ships. The model fitted would almost certainly have been the Mk XXII the same as planned for the G3 battlecruisers, which were subsequently fitted to Neslon & Rodney http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mk22.htm.

The 4.7 inch AA is listed as a bag loading gun and the link is to such a model. This must be wrong as the link is to a 4.7 inch BL gun which is wholly unsuited to anti-aircraft use as it has a low elevation. This time I can say without any doubt that the type fitted would have been the same as fitted to Nelson & Rodney 4.7"/40 (12 cm) QF Mark VIII as this was the only AA gun of this calibre in development at the time. Note it is a quick firer not a bag loader.  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-40_mk8.htm  & ships cover for G3s

The reference to the multiple pom-pom as being 32 barrels 4 x 8 can only be conjecture as the weapon was at a very early stage of development at this time. A 6 barrelled mount had been tested on HMS Dragon and the plans for the G3 battlecruiser show a similar arrangement to this. The staff requirement asked for 4 mounts and a total of 40 barrels - in the ships cover for the G3's. Though the mount subsequently fitted to RN warships nearly 10 years later was a 8 barrel mount, there is no guarantee that when/if the N3s were commissioned that they would have had the same mounting. Most probably like Nelson & Rodney they would have had no mountings intially.

The text mentions the orders for for these ships being cancelled, they were never orderd. The author I am sure meant to say the G3s were cancelled. I DID include the reference for this but you still altered the text back to it's original wrong wording.

The simple fact is that as "no ships of the N3 type were ever near to being laid down" N.J.M Campbell  Warship Vol.1 No.4. My research over the last 20 something years has come to the same conclusion.

I only altered the most obvious mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.120.122 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Light carriers
Did you actualy read the source I cited? I don't think I left any of the information out, but i included a large amount of extra information.

The article without it was a worthless stub.74.138.206.229 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Would you like to look at editing the material with me? its been a stub for some time, and it needs to change.74.138.206.229 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Wondering how you thought my synopsis was. . . looking forward to the rewrite. that article's needed some TLC for a long long time. 74.138.206.229 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) hows it going? 74.138.206.229 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

starting to think that the light carrier page also needs a discussion on how size impacts the number of opperable aircraft, as well as a discussion of the various light carriers brought into commission. (and i've been doing some research on this may end up "vandalizing" the page with more info, this time i'm noting page numbers. :) )74.138.206.229 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? 74.138.206.229 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that in light of disparity between various nations versions of the aircraft carrier, that it may be necessery to seperate out fleet carrier from "aircraft carrier" and reserve the aircraft carrier article for a general discussion of the topic and mentioning the basic overview of the history of all carrier types. the other articles should discuss the history unique to the type. I really think that the parent article should essentialy be a discussion of the general features of an aircraft carrier, the problems and their different solutions, as well as a discussion of the "primordial history" and the general historical details and trends common to all carriers i'd like to discuss this with you in more detail at some point.74.138.206.229 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hello? it seems to have slipped your mind again. 74.138.206.229 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

check this book:

Military innovation in the interwar period By Williamson Murray, Allan R. Millett I've been looking at it, and it seems to explain the reasons for british treating light carriers as an ipso facto option, and americans treating it as a post facto option. (which are, indeed, very interesting, and include not only the fact that the british relied exclusively on storing aircraft in the hangar decks, but on the fact that the british apperantly didn't understand that the americans could get so many planes onto one carrier, and also when not using deck parks, a light carrier holds only a fell less aircraft, as well as the united navy already having a full compliment of aircraft carriers on hand or in development, and essentialy feeling that their job was done and not looking into the matter further. 74.138.206.229 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

hello?74.138.206.229 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

you still working on this? the page is worse than it ever was. 84.229.144.51 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford
ClemMcGann here, posting from an internet cafe in Spain which I do not trust. I have no problem with your mihist interest in the RNLB Mary Stanford. I will be revising the article soon. It was written prior to the publication of Nicholas Leeche's book of a couple of months ago. However, what is the significance in your assessment of "WWII=yes|British=yes" ¿¿ Regards 89.6.180.199 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MS Ryndam
It's hard to site sources for the numbers for the ships when the numbers are based on the plaques on the ships themselves. I've been on almost all the HAL/NASM ships and have acquired the info over many years. SirDeath (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks notice
Good news! It just now hit me that this is my last week of school. Next week is finals and then I should be back. I've got ideas and suggestions and such to take up and I am really looking forward to getting back on here in full force. I also wish to extend a personal thanks to you and Ed for watching my talk page while I have been gone. That means a lot to me. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital Punishment in the United States
The word Rarely used I think should be removed, the death penalty in the US is used often in many states since the US supreme court said Lethal Injection was not unconstitutional. 24 executions in texas in 2009 alone, and several in other states as well. this is a proven fact. if you think I'm wrong please talk to some other admins and consider it at least. used rarely is the wrong word to use. Thanks (talk) 10 December 2009  —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

USS Maryland SSBN-738
Thanks for the messages regarding my edits on the USS Maryland SSBN-738 page. I'm not sure why you sent 3 in 3 minutes, of increasingly agitated words each time, but I'll go through your points:


 * You mentioned that I should not change the date formats, and linked to the Wikipedia policy pertaining to that (thanks btw). However I was not attempting to change the formatting of the date (i.e. what I did was only to wrap it in the #dateformat tag that is mentioned in one of the editing help pages, but without altering the ordering of day month year). I made this change to allow non-military American users or users from other countries to be able to read the dates locally in their preferred format. Apparently autoformatting is a topic of some contention in the Wikipedia community (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_D6) but I'll let you guys work that out. Please note that per the formatting guidelines you referred me to: MOSDATE that American military dates are formatted day month year as I have them (and as they already were in the article before my edit).
 * You left this on my talk page: "We use the British format for US military articles here and that will not change no matter what you want to try." The dripping paranoia is not really required. I've been a registered user for so short a time that I'm having to post this on your anon Talk page so I'm not sure that it's necessary to assume that I'm a regional partisan out to "fix" Wikipedia all willy-nilly (and besides, it is in accordance with the Wikipedia policy you were nice enough to link me to).
 * Finally, in regards to: "Also, 'going crazy' is not adviseable and will only get you reverted, we work off of consensus, based upon discussion.", I can see how my commit message was not super-descriptive, however I believe just viewing the changes in my commit should have been sufficient to convince yourself that I was not, in fact, "going crazy" with all the dates. If dateformat is not in accordance with Wikipedia consensus at this time please let me know and I'll revert, or you can simply revert it. It seems to me that this dateformat template is explicitly designed for this that way the date-linking hack is not required so I would argue that the date-linking discussion I linked to earlier does not cover dateformat. But it's not the end of the world for me one way or another.

Thanks. Mpyne (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replaced my changes sans dateformat based on your feedback. As far as the invitation goes, I'll have to decline for now due to other commitments, but I'll leave it on my Talk page to remind me to join once I have more free time. Thanks. Mpyne (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

USS LOUISVILLE SSN-724
Hi, I see you undid my changes to the LOUISVILLE page. I made the entries directly from the Welcome Aboard pamphlet, in a manner similar to other Naval Ship entries (see USS KENTUCKY for example). How do I properly enter and source the info? Thanks. 96.241.127.229 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier sections
The aircraft carrier articles, for all the good information in them, need a systematic organization. There is a special page for super carriers, light carriers, and escort carriers, but as yet only the escort carrier page is really worth mentioning. Not only that, the division between many of these categories is unclear, and it is also unclear as to which carriers should be included in which. The "light carrier" has tended to be the major theme, and so might be called a fleet carrier, yet the only real even semi traditional fleet carrier is the charles de gaul, while the kuznitzov despite its massive size, almost sufficient to be a full size carrier, is a STOBAR carrier, with a small compliment, etc.

But i think that the articles need to be broken down into a general article which should contain:

Introduction to the general topic,

Introduction to the topic of naval aviation (basic introduction to the history, etc) a discussion of the problems common to all carriers, such as the influence of size, the general problems surrounding it, etc. such as the minimum values, and the diminishing returns principle that operates there, the problems of launching and landing aircraft, and a basic discussion of organization and logistics. Also the discussion about increasing size of all aircraft carriers due to the introduction of jet aircraft. along the way to basic limitations on carrier aircraft should be discussed.

From there we should get to a discussion of the basic parts of a carrier, such as the flightdeck, island, communication, aircraft, catapults, etc. Introduction to launching and landing systems, etc. Features of carrier aircraft, etc.

Then we move onto a discussion of the different solutions to these problems as a prelude to introducing the different types of aircraft carriers, and a very brief synopsis of their typical features. From here people should be refered "for more information, see the relevant article".

as is the information is way to piecemeal.

then the three (four) articles under it, the light carrier, the escort carrier, the fleet carrier, as well as the super carrier (the latter two are heavily intertwined and difficult to seperate. the supercarrier became a necessity on account of jet aircraft. even previous fleet carriers might as well have been CVLs after that.) All should have a more indepth discussion of the history peculiar to them, as well as their own unique trends. We've already dealt with the history of the light carrier, and most of the escort carrier's history, but we've yet to really discuss the fleet carriers as something by themselves, as well as discussing why they turned into super carriers, although the information is scattered. From there we should devolve into a discussion of the defining characteristics and problems of the type, and the typical solutions. (large size, ski jumps, arresting gear, etc.) as well as a look at the future of the type.

But i really think that these articles need to be standardized. 74.138.206.229 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sea Fighter
I have reintroduced the material about this vessel being a British design together with a link to the company's technical specification for the project. Perhaps this may persuade you that my earlier additions were accurate. I felt it appropriate to consult Nigel Gee Ltd before quoting their design specifications. It is worth noting that the person with whom I corresponded at Nigel Gee also seemed to be unhappy that articles on the Internet that he had read both quoted incorrect technical information and failed to credit BMT Nigel Gee Ltd. I may, at a later stage, compare the technical information in the Wikipedia article and that in the designing company's material. I, specifically, have been given permission to quote other BMT sources in the Wikipedia article.

86.16.134.133 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
I was not being bad, I was wrighting the truth.

it said "This makes the Royal Navy the largest navy in the European Union given the combined total of ships, aircraft and personnel.[citation needed]"

however this is wrong!, the royal navy is NOT the largets in the EU in terms of personel!!!! France is, the Royal Navy is the largest in the EU in terms of numbers of ships!!!!! and that is what I wrote, to make it more accurate. 194.46.236.75 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Passenger Services Act of 1886
I edited the SS United States page and you reverted it back to the previous incorrect information. The restriction of passenger carriage from one US port to another is not the Jones Act of 1920. The Jones act does deal with cargo but not passengers. I have worked for Norwegian Cruise Lines for 12 years and I am aware of this common mistake. Even many NCL employees still erroneously refer to the Jones act when explaining why passengers on a foreign flagged vessel can’t embark in a US port and disembark in a US port without an intermediate stop in a foreign port. The PSA is a matter of public record and even has a WIKIPEDIA article that explains the act. Thanks W7six W7six (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt Sullenberger Edits
Hey there. Thanks for all of your contributions to Wiki. Seems like you are a super duper power user. Anyway, when I added in the line about Sullenberger dining at Hudson, I put in the notes (the second time) the source for the information. If you Google Sullenberger and Hudson restaurant, you'll see it was quoted in TMZ, Wall Street Journal, The Hill, the Washington Post, New York Post, etc. Those are all extremely reliable sources. There is no doubt that he ate there. Did you see that reference in the notes? How can you say that there was no proper source? Also, in terms of the relevancy, I think that it is extremely relevant, that in the first public appearance of Sully at the inauguration, he chooses to dine at a restaurant called, "Hudson". How appropriate and amazing is that? The fact that he chose to go there is extremely relevant and something that readers should know.

Please explain if you disagree. Again, thank you for your Wiki expertise. I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstraussca (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GoldDragon
One year ago, you warned GoldDragon about edit-warring and threatened a block. GoldDragon then stopped editing the page in question and seemed to move on. GoldDragon re-emerged this week to make a similar edit, restoring the same discredited source (a Wikipedia mirror site), a source that you   and others  had told him was inappropriate. 69.159.16.148 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have given him several warnings, including a "last" warning, an "only" warning, and a "final warning" (as have several other editors), but the problems continue. See what he's doing here: . 69.159.28.14 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Than you are more than welcome to take the matter to WP:ANI. My primary concern was his behavior on maritime history articles, of which he has toned down the rhetoric and began discussion. If there are still problems elsewhere, then by all means report it to the noticeboard where non-involved administrators will be able to apply sanctions. -MBK004 02:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AccuPOS wants a wikipedia page
hello MBK,

someone put up a wikipedia page for AccuPOS a few years a go and it looks like you deleted it because of blatant advertising. I have no idea who put that old page up, but we'd like to have a page up for our company, we've been in business for over ten years and have thousands of satisfied customers. I'm going to put up another simple page for AccuPOS and please let me know if you have any problems with it. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accupospos (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello MBK I am meber of the german version of wikipedia, unfortunatly i cant logg in in the english version (even  if i am loggt on in the german version, if i chanche by a articel to english i amout). So this is why i contact you on this way.

its about the Articel over the Swiss Air Force, you have  deletet my informations and updates. Look the English version had a few errors in it also mani informations are missing. Most of the facts are allready  in the german version, so i had only to (trye) to translate them).  So this is a sorce also  i can say i am realy in to it because i work sinc 1995  in the Swiss Air Force, first a Mecanican of the F-5E and F-5F  and now as Identifications Operator at the Mission Controll  by the Dübendorf AFB. I saw befor most  stuff of the Engilsh page about the swiss airbort is   out from the Facts Newspaper, i have to say also that the Facts Newspaper sometimes is not  absolutly objectiv, (also things are  sometimes missing or even some statements are wrong). I hope this explains  the situation to you ( have  a look to the german version, no proplem if you dont understand it, you will see the current state of the swiss air force without understandig the language). By Marco  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.216.37 (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well i knew my english is   not very well but (how well is your German or Swiss German?), may someone can help to but out my errors. What sohuld this  We are striving for verifiability, not truth, So you  support  that there are wrong informations, only because  some lazy Facts reporter once wrot  something .. The articels in german are allready aprovet. I see not why in the English version should stay  wrong informations (like the Number of  F-5  or Alouette III, Berne is a Civil aiport). Or all that missing informations about Buochs AFB Lodrino AFB, Mission Controll at Dübendorf AFB,   the  PC-12 of Armasuisse. Whats all about  the  outpast Aircrafts and Airbases  this is also part of the history  of the swiss air force. I am realy into it  because like i sayt i work   for the swiss air Force so i knew  realy thes topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about Truelove (ship)
Could you help me with this? (Sorry, but I don't really know who to go to). I have written this article, but in finding sources for it, I've come across some conflicting information and I don't know what to do about it. The encyclopedia I have states the ship was broken up "around 1888", and this is supported by "Ship models‎ - Page 64" and a couple of other sources. However, other places, such as   state around 1895, but  "Merchant sail vol 4", gives it as 1874. I don't really know which one is most accurate based on this, as most of the information I've given here seems trustworthy. Cortical (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Carnival Splendor Completion & Launch Dates
You have just undone my corrections to the Carnival Splendor page. I worked on the Carnival Splendor from 1 month before it was launched, to 9 months after it first sailed. I was the senior doctor on-board. The currently stated Launch Date (10th July) along with the Completion Date (2nd July) are WRONG. I am having difficulty finding written or internet evidence of this, but I was there and have dated photographs. I also have the Splendor corporate diary, but this is an internal company document and therefore confidential. The CORRECT completion date is the date the Fincantieri Shipyard handed the ship over to Carnival Cruise Lines - this was on the 28th June 2008. The ship first left the Fincantieri shipyard on the 30th June 2008, sailing to Genoa to start its very first cruise - a cruise to nowhere. What else can I do to prove this, other than to send you my photographs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjwolfe (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of info from HMS Bulwark (L15) page
Hi, I understand your reasoning for removing the additional information I added to the HMS Bulwark page without any references, I have since added a reference. However the information was first hand from family who is a member of the ships company, I'm not really sure there are any better sources than that.

Regards Henry P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.pearson (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ocean (L12)
Hi,

I have also just seen you have removed all my work from the HMS Ocean (L12) page. As I mentioned on the discussion page for that article much of it is from first hand experience, I also added a like on the see also section which confirms almost every detail I have added to that page. Whilst I appreciate large sections of it may be unreferenced I did spend a good couple of hours adding all that information, and it was a lot of hard work! Please, Please, Please reinstate all the lovely additions that I made. Henry.pearson (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blue Ridge
Sorry, I didn't realize two of us could be working on the same page at the same time. I did not realize I had knock out earlier changes, I thought all the changes were over my link problems. This site still confuses the hell out of me. I add back a little of your edit on the end, doesn't the ship need something for the last 18 years? Or, do you have something to add planned? At this point I had added just about everthing I wanted to, unless there are further problems with the FB links for the two documents, BLUE RIDGE UPDATE. Blue ridge plankowner (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SeaShep ship Farley Mowat reverts
you reverted my edit... i looked back and can only (hope) that it was because of skype so i disabled it then re-edited. hopefully that is satisfactory.68.205.3.74 (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

HMAS TOOWOOMBA
You un-did my "add CO tag" on the basis that it was not relevant &c. and that it was not sourced. If you are going to undo edits/revisions make sure you are consistent with all other RAN Ship pages. HMAS CERBERUS has the name of the Commanding Officer in the introduction; I can only assume that this will be removed too!

131.236.106.30 (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Naval History
Hello there MBK !!! Ron Reeves here newbie to WIKI... I would like to speak with you on the telephone, so please give me a call at (856) 831-8130 so we can discuss this source buisness in detail, and I can let you know where I obtain my information from that which I posted on the Sphinx, Lake Champlain & Tarawa pages, and my comments about Kitty Hawk. Thank You. Pnsy17shop (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing & Additions to Navy Pages
MBK004: I have yet to hear from you it has been 8 days since I first responded to your messages on my talk page. You are hindering me from doing my job, so please be so kind as to respond by email like I asked you to do, or call me. Thank You. 69.248.237.53 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing P. Nespoli
Hi there MBK004. Thanks for your help. I am trying to update this page with more accurate information. Though I am a new registered user I have some experience as a wikignome but it is true I never edited a total article. Anyway, because of my job I know that the info about this person is not accurate enough and I would like to change the existent info and add more about his current assignment. Could you please explain to me the exact reasons why you reverted to the previous version? how can I make it better? Thanks!!! (and yes, I am changing my username)

Superpi.esa (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again MBK004. Thanks for your answer and the detailed explanation. I will follow your recommendations and I will put the suggested improvements on my page so that you can review them first. It's not that I am trying to promote him in anyway, it's only that I have the information and I think it is interesting to offer info about his new mission. My intention is to follow Wikipedia standards at all times, so all your help is very welcomed. I already asked for a change in my username. Thanks for your patience with the rookies :-)12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing MS Queen Elizabeth
I appreciate that my sources were incorrectly cited, and that it would probably help if I registered as a member, however I consider myself a fairly casual and infrequent user of Wikipedia and don't really think it makes sense for me to register.

However, I would strongly encourage you to at least post the correct measurement figure yourself. Poor citations are no excuse for allowing obviously outdated information to remain. As a registered user familiar with the requirements, your edit should be up to standard. 92,000 tons was an initial estimate prepared by Fincantieri's engineering department and Carnival's new builds office and was therefore the figure quoted during the construction phase (in the same way Queen Mary 2 was originally quoted as 150,000 tons). Ships rarely have sizes that work out that even in real life, which on its own is a dead giveaway as an estimate, not an actual figure. Now that the ship has been completed and delivered, the final measurements have been done by Lloyd's Register of Shipping and are publicly available. The ship's final size is 90,901 grt. This figure is readily available from a number of maritime agencies but has yet to make it into Carnival/Cunard's promotional materials.

Crestone Peak
I understand your reason for deleting my entry, but saddened as I was trying to provide pertinent information that could save lives. You are correct, however, I have a conflict of interest. I prefer that people are prepared so I don't have to carry out their body. The page, as written, downplays the technical difficulty of the hikes and climbs, and I feel that someone reading this page for information on climbing or hiking this mountain, or the surrounding mountains may find themselves in considerable trouble. Regardless of my personal subjectivity, the page inaccurately represents the risks.CrestoneSAR (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

41 for Freedom article
Thanks for creating this article. I've posted a query in discussion there about adding to it. Remarks? 75.204.167.180 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

INS Arihant
The edit war from INS Arihant has moved to Nuclear triad I have upgraded this page from a bit over a stub but several users feel the need to elevate India based on their OR and nationalistic feelings and so keep reverting cited content without placing counter cites. I may just be an IP but I have been a frequent editor for over five years and for the most part only post new content with citations. Thanks for the help.