User talk:Ronhaner

Your edit of Action of 1 March 1968
Your have significantly modified sourced material without explanation and without citing the material that replaced it and I have unfortunately had to revert your edits. The material you have introduced appeared to be from personal experiences with no published source that can be checked by other editors. This violates several guidelines on Wikipedia relating to original research and removal of cited material without discussing it on the article talk page.

I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the article Introduction to help you understand some of the principles that we as editors must follow. If you have questions, I will be glad to help you get started or find someone that can answer any questions that you have. I regret having to revert your edit, but there are certain policies that editors must follow to edit an article. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was on the bridge of the Androscoggin the evening of 29 February and morning of 1 March, 1968 during this action and am referencing a contemporary journal, log and chart of this event. I would like to add detail and correct some timing and factual information contained in the current version of the article. Ronhaner (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the world of Wikipedia...where what actually happened might not get published on line. This is going to frustrate you to no end. You may have been on the bridge of Androscoggin but you account of what happened is considered original research and may not be used.  If the account in the logs of the cutter had been published in a book, journal, or maybe even on the web it is possible that it could be used by someone else to supplement or correct what is already there in the article. If this is the case, perhaps I could help you, if it isn't, then you might be disappointed.
 * If it is published somewhere can you give me the source so that I may check the account and see how it differs with the article as it exists?
 * While I did not originate the article, I did contribute to much of what is written and I used published sources for my entries. Each paragraph has been cited in the list of citations and a reference listed in the references section. Much of what is cited came from Larzelere, Scotti, Commander, Naval Forces Vietnam (March 1968). "Monthly Historical Summary", and some from Johnson. These are all published sources and can easily be checked by anyone interested.
 * Now...are these sources always accurate? Not always. I have noticed some inconsistencies or confusing text by each of the authors on other parts of their respective publishings. The journal Commander, Naval Forces Vietnam (March 1968). "Monthly Historical Summary" is the official Navy version of events and it is by no means complete in every detail.
 * I am a Vietnam veteran (September 1966 to December 1968) and am always interested in getting the story right as possible. Although I served with the Army there and knew little about the Coast Guard or its mission in Vietnam, my later career in the Coast Guard Reserve helped me gain an appreciation for all of the effort that Coast Guardsmen did in their service. I am the author of the Wikipedia article Coast Guard Squadron One and am gathering materials to write the article Coast Guard Squadron Three. There are only a handful of editors on Wikipedia that have any interest in the Coast Guard; perhaps you could join in the effort to make sure that articles written are presented in a consistent manner and are properly referenced?
 * In the meantime, please look at the basics of editing that I suggested and practice some basic editing in the Sandbox I have set up for you to test your edits. Welcome aboard, Sir. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When I initially edited the article in question I did not intend to delete the citations. I did that in error and emailed Wikipedia to let them know and ask if there was a way to recover the deleted material. In the meantime apparently you already did that. In my edit, I left the references and simply adding mine, but in attempting to add my name, etc. to the citations, I inadvertently deleted what was there.  Oops!


 * So, my intent was to simply add detail and time lines to the current article. My motivation for doing so came after reading the article and seeing an account of the event that didn't square with my memory. For example, the current version of the article suggests that we didn't know what we had (in the vessel we had been tracking for 3 1/2 hours) until we illuminated her. In fact, we knew what we had when we picked her up from the Navy aircraft and starting tracking her in. We didn't see her visually until we illuminated her. I happen to have a chart with all of the time lines, courses, speeds, etc. of this event to supplement my memory. Since this battle was part of what has been deemed "the most significant sea battle of the Viet Nam conflict," I thought it appropriate to add what I knew to the story.


 * There was another interesting event that occurred when we tracking the trawler to the SVN coast. A U.S. Navy ship (Call sign Hambroke Echo) steaming north along the SVN coast picked up the two contacts on their starboard beam on radar, but could not visually see, and began challenging the contacts on signal light with the daily code. One of the contacts was the NVN trawler, the other was the Androscoggin. The trawler got spooked and turned away from the coast and we stopped. We radioed An Thoi, the Market Time command center, notifying them of the Navy ship. They, in time, identified the ship and had them cease the signal challenges and clear the area. My recollection was that is was a supply ship heading for Da Nang.  When Hambroke Echo cleared, the trawler resumed her course toward the beach and we closed on her, ultimately challenging her when she was well within SVN coastal waters.


 * I would be happy to assist with the Squadron Three effort in any way I can. I am also, as you might expect, keenly interested in finding some way to credibly improve and correct the current article as it involves the Androscoggin. Ronhaner (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The section that the Androscoggin was mentioned reads as follows:

Forty miles from Chu Lai and six miles off the coast, (map reference #3) USCGC Androscoggin intercepted a third trawler designated in U.S. Navy records as the Quảng Ngãi Province Trawler. Androscoggin signaled the trawler to identify itself at 0112 but there was no response so Androscoggin shot 5-inch star shells into the air to illuminate the trawler. It was then that the trawler was positively identified as an SL class North Vietnamese trawler so the Androscoggin opened fire at 0120 with 5-inch high explosive naval gunfire and .50 caliber machine guns. The trawler returned fire with a recoilless rifle, laid a smoke screen and turned into Androscoggin's direction but one of the cutter's shells hit the after starboard side, so the trawler turned reversed course and headed for the shore. As a result of a civilian junk passing through the battle area the Market Time ships had to cease fire. Two United States Army helicopters were directed engage the trawler with rockets and miniguns at 0129 and after their attack a reduction in the amount of fire coming from the trawler was noticed. At 0140 Point Grey, Point Welcome, PCF-18 and PCF-20 were ordered to take the trawler under fire with mortars and machine guns at close range because the trawler had moved too close to shore for Androscoggin to maneuver. Point Welcome struck the trawler twice with 81-millimeter rounds. The trawler then grounded 50 yards off the mouth of the Tha Cau River at 0210. At 0220, the North Vietnamese tried to scuttle their ship and failed but a second attempt at 0235 succeeded in destroying the vessel in a 500 foot fireball. The explosion caused some damage to the pilothouse of Point Welcome and the deck was littered with debris but no casualties were reported.
 * Citations


 * References used

________


 * There may be enough wiggle room in the wording of the cited references to include some of the details that you claim. I suggest that you write your version of the event as you have in your logs and charts on your new sandbox page that I have set up for you here, squaring your version with what has been written in the paragraph above as much as possible. Your version should not be much longer than what exists, if that is possible. It should be encyclopedic in style and content. When that is done, I will review the new paragraph and see if we can include the changes in the actual article without compromising what is already referenced. This will give you some experience in editing and may lead ultimately to change in the article.
 * On another note, the article Coast Guard Squadron Three may be written at sometime in the future but I am on several other projects currently both on and off of Wikipedia. I could use the help and would be glad to have some assistance. We need to get you up to speed on Wikipedia's editing features before that can happen, thus the little exercise I have suggested above. This will be good experience for you. In the meantime, gather any published references you can find on the history of Squadron Three together; Biblographies, web links, etc. and post them here and I will compare that with what I have gathered so far. This Squadron Three project will take some time to put together into a readable piece so don't get discouraged. The article Coast Guard Squadron One took me well over a year to complete and get to "Good Article" status working on it in my spare time. You might review it and see how it is constructed and written. I am told that it is well written by other editors who reviewed it. I know that I learned a lot about the editing on Wikipedia as well as an appreciation of the history of Coast Guard operations in Vietnam by writing the article. I wish you good luck and good writing on your "assignment", should you chose to undertake it. Semper Paratus, shipmate... Cuprum17 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)