User talk:Nautical

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:


 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PT boat
Isn't PT for patrol, torpedo? Aren't these patrol boats? If not, where would they go? --Sugarcaddy 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, the actual class was a motor torpedo boat but I guess its splitting hairs. That spot is as good as any really on second thought.... Nautical 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing things
Hi, while your enthusiasm is commendable, you're also scrambling things that have been already been carefully worked out. If you don't like something in an article, please use the talk pages to discuss what you want to do, don't just silently revert. Stan 14:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would disagree it was 'scrambled' in the first place. Nevertheless it was hardly a 'silent' revert, I restored the pictures and changed the formatting- its was fixed. This is what you should have done in the first place rather then rather clusmly removing everything. Its no problem though the page is back in order now. Nautical 19:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, you didn't know how to get the formating - just got your comment in the talk page there. Nautical 19:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Please stop renaming ship articles without prior discussion -- I notice you have amended Naming conventions (ships) so that it matches your new practice without any previous discussion on the talk page. This is considered very poor etiquette. Please stop so that interested parties can discuss the matter, otherwise everything will be reverted. -- Arwel 03:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The standards are general wikipedia standards, which take precedence. The examples changed were case examples for the standards. I will of course be happy to discuss it. Nautical 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As it happens, the people who specialize in nautical things here worked all this out two years ago, which included discussion of why the generic WP convention was unsatisfactory. You're free to argue for change at WikiProject Ships, but you're not free to mess up everybody else's multiple years of labor on all this. I've reverted your changes at Naming conventions (ships), and am proceeding to revert your other moves as well. Stan 03:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Those standards are not all 2 years old, and contain inadaquacies, please see my points before reverting. Nautical 03:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at the dates of the old discussion, you'll see it happening in February 2003, not long after I started working on WP. It's generally not a a good idea to move articles around as "examples" - it's more work to undo if the idea proves unpopular, and some of us are already overworked, so to speak. The proposal alone on a talk page suffices, and will likely get a more favorable hearing than if you've irritated everybody by breaking links (you missed some of the double redirs you created by moving pages, for instance). Stan 06:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yea I did go about it rather awkwardly I suppose, something to to note for the future. Nautical 06:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * About the redirects, I actually got every single one save the ones left when the page's got changed back. Nautical 18:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

USS Shenandoah
I noticed that you made a number of edits that changed the article extensively, and deleted or made awkward a lot of information. It's nice to see that you have enthusiasm, but I'd prefer if you leave in the information that's there (as long as it's accurate) and proofread your own work before submitting it to make sure that you aren't introducing new spelling errors or poor grammar for others to correct. Be bold, but be smart. Night Gyr 07:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, though it was hardly extensive. Mostly I re-arranged and condensed the information that was already there. I also applaud you equally notable enthusiam. Nautical 19:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DD(X)
The sections you restored are causing a great deal of heat among the editors, parts have been lifted wholesale from the Iowa Class Battleship page and are merely being repeated again in the DD(X) article. I am going to revert the change back. That section took all of 5 minutes when it was moved to Future Naval Gunfire Support to start bringing howls of POV. As an ex-sailor I understand the romance of the BB but it has no place in that article and should remain in the Iowa class Battleship article. Please feel free to bring up objections in the talk page but these sections probably are not going to work in this article. Tirronan 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been debated before- while the section needs more references and cleaned up, the solution is to allow it to be improved not deleted wholesale. Nautical 03:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please do so do not allow this to stay on the page as is. I do not understand what all that is doing on a developing class its really an independent article what should be under its own heading.  Instead this is a highjack of a page devoted to something else.  I am not intrested in a revert war so I have placed this at the needs imedate expert attention with the Maritime Task Force.  I'll take whatever they say as an objective decision. Tirronan 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear after rereading that section, its very pov, not a little a lot. Unless I see some action on fixing it within 38 hours I will remove it again. Tirronan 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement about the quality issues with that section- I think this about how the issue is solved (which is longstanding issue with the page). I agree with editing out whatever opinions and unreferenced junk  (I would like to do this myself actually but do not have the time at the moment) but not to the point of deleting the entire section. I will see what I can clean up right now- For what its worth  about the NFS issue I am in the middle of the road. Finally, With regards to your time as a sailor, what Navy and era if I may ask. Nautical 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I have thoughts on the matter of NFS myself and having seen the Iowas they are so pretty, its just that as a support platform I am not at all sure it belongs in a technical demonstrator article. Yes the DDX is slated for a NFS mission but I am not sure and I don't believe the Navy is that sure, that it can or will supply the answer.  Its a complex subject that fully deserves its own article where all sorts of answers can be explored.  I know that automated MRLS barges were considered and the Arsenel Ship was another thought (you'll never get that one passed the fly boys though) and other solutions.  Its just with AIP Subs and bottom influence mines a BB is the last thing I want near shore.  You'd need a half dozen LCS's clearing the way for it and an DDG-51 parked nearby to defend it.  I served from 1975 to 2005, most of it in reserves. Tirronan 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled the sections out where it refers to the Iowas and condensed them into a single section with subheadings. These have to be rewriten to stay in the article. The more you condense them the more out of place they look. Take a look and see what is there. Again I will wait 48 hours from this time stamp but if there isn't a rewrite by that point I will remove them an expect them to stay that way.

By the way I was in the U.S. Navy. Tirronan 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement about the need for improving the quality of the sections, so I will make another attempt. However, I don't think its right for the whole section to be deleted- after all it has come a long way even with just our edits. I will try to condense it further though, so perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Great to work with USN, and congrats on your service. Nautical 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the rewrite, the only problem I had with it was that it had way too much Iowa discussion at first. So that you know there is a 5" LRAP in the works for the 5"/62 with a 60+ mile range as well.  Provided that 24lb warheads are enough this would provide enough tubes to do the job.  There are 3 main issues with Littorial combat that have to be addressed that are specific to that environment.

This is why you see the LCS, DDX, and CGX, platforms being worked on, it takes really good sonar, ASW, and Missile, defenses to be near shore, or support platforms with those abilities nearby. DDG-51's are not desirable in brown water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Bottom influence mines, they can't be used in deep water/blue sea areas and they are a 1st class bitch to find. There is an amazing amount of junk in the seabeds near shore, drums, wrecks, and metallic trash, mix in boulders (think of Norway) and nothing short of a high frequency sonar (useless for ASW work) and ROV's works well for classifing contacts and finding the real mines (if they are there) from the trash contacts.  If you don't have that sonar suite you will not find them, if you do have them you will find them and everything that looks remotely like them.
 * AIP/Diesel Electic Submarines, again they don't work so well away from shore in deep ocean, even a Type 212 can only remained submerged for 3 weeks, but near shore you haven't got a range problem. Again they are very very quite (better than nuke boats) ,and as the Swedish found, nearly impossible to find.
 * Land based missles, they can be hidden not activated until its time to use them. Harpoon has been around 35 years and anyone with a decent eletronics based economy can make something as good.  While not small large numbers can be hidden in a coastline.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)