User talk:Busaccsb

Welcome!

Hello, Busaccsb, and

welcome

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome to WikiProject Ships

WikiProject Ships ! Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! Maralia (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

Ship links

When you are re-writing the intros to ship articles, I notice that you are completely deleting the existing syntax and replacing it. Please carefully look at those because when they are templates, they are there for a reason because ship names are italicized here on wikipedia and your edits are going against the MoS in that regards. That means that other editors have to follow you and repair after your edits. Please from now on exercise more caution, Thanks -MBK₀₀₄ 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be brief right now because I'm in-between final exams. The way to learn the syntax is to read as much as you can about the templates used. WP:SHIPS has developed about 20 of them which branch off from {{Sclass}} and {{USS}} for starters. Your edits are exceptional except for this, which admittedly you wouldn't know about. As for suggestions, you'll need to give me some time, but I encourage you to continue your lead expansions just using these templates after seeing what I did to the Bunker Hill and Wasp. Also, take a look at what TomStar81 has written, his articles are generally the guideline for US Navy ships here on wikipedia. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Busaccsb. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. I'm not Ed, but I've answered part of your question for him. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Busaccsb. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yet another one for you. Feel free to remove them if you want! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Busaccsb. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Fishes comment

Please see my comment at

talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

USS Randolph

Hi, thanks for leaving a message on my page. I'd like to point out that I did put a post on this subject on the

WP: Ships

project page and I think there's a consensus for the changes I made. And I've gone to some length to add cites discussing the terminology used for the long hulls. Do some people use the term "Ticonderoga class"? Sure, and that fact and two cites for it are on the Essex class page. In each of the individual ship articles, I included the link to the "long hull" section of the Essex class page.

To me, it's mostly an

Wp: undue

issue. It seems to me excessive to put over and over again, in article after article, that some people call these ships the "Ticonderoga class." You might as well put over and over again that these ships were most commonly known as "long hulls" and that at least one respected source, "Warship" journal, refers to them as "long bows".

And it kind of begs the question of who exactly considers the long hulls to be the "Ticonderoga class." The NHC website shows that, it's true. That said, if you look in Norman Friedman's book, the term doesn't appear even once. If you look at the old "Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet" books, none of them use the term. They actually use other official classifications for the "Hancock class" (SCB-27C ships) or the "Oriskany class" (SCB-27A ships), or the "Modernized Essex class" which don't show up in any of these articles. If we're not going to use those classifications, I don't see why we should use "Ticonderoga class" over and over again.

I know you put a lot of work into these articles and I respect that, but I'd urge you to look at the long hull section of the Essex class page and see if that doesn't adequately address your concerns. Orpy15 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I was able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. All's well that ends well. Orpy15 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh?

I honestly don`t recall leaving you any such message. I`ll get back to you in a few days to figure this out in more detail. DS (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing pages in your userspace: even if you could somehow protect the pages from being edited (only administrators have that privilege), that wouldn't stop another administrator from editing it.

If you include mainspace category tags in your userspace pages, then they will show up on the pages for those categories. That's the way it works. And although Google may not index your userpages, that won't stop mirror sites from copying them... and those copies may get Google-indexed at a later date. And you can't stop pages from being shown in your list of userspace subpages. DS (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Busaccsb. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 04:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fletcher class

You have done nothing wrong, I just try to get everyone to actually edit what they see as wrong rather than just tag it and leave. I am sure it doesn't apply to you but there are lots of folks that think tagging for a living around wiki is helpful. I just ask that if you can contribute a bit it is more helpful than tagging. It is not an argument that I am going to win just a personal opinion and not to be taken all that seriously. You have a great day!Tirronan (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book, I didn't write the article just went to fix it but let me check I noticed them myself but I didn't check them against the book. If they are they are going to have to be removed.Tirronan (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have the revised addition, so no help there but I think that image is going to have to go.Tirronan (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha mail

I don't have any more. If Friedman says different, I'd believe him. I do mean the Type 21 U-boat (which ended up in the

Whiskeys, which were very similar). Hedgehog predated WA, as you probably know; my impression is, there were reliability or performance problems with WA, & Hedgehog, while not better, at least worked. (Why Squid wasn't preferred, I have no idea.) I'd guess the Whiskeys were so fast, most wartime or immediate postwar systems didn't have the range or reaction time to cope, but I really don't know. Sorry I can't help. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delaware Class

The class was designed as a 21 knot class, (Friedman Page 69) re-engining gave the ship that speed and as such would be in another section not in the design section. The fact that some 8 warships in 4 class designs were being based off designs that were not yet tested in the water is a bit extraordinarily but interesting and explains why a whole series of ships would feature casement side mounted 5" guns that were for the most part pretty useless in anything but flat calm seas at low speed. The ships were so wet in rough seas and high speed that it was a bit of a shock. I've cited the sources as for the ship's speed per Friedman but if I have to so so again it certainly can be covered as well. I think he talks about the design speed for the series about ever four pages and looking at the article it calls out Friedman's book twice as relates to speed. As for bad wording, the grammar is incorrect?Tirronan (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the USS North Dakota was 1st engined with a direct drive steam turbine. The technology being rather young, this was a common way to do things back then. The problem was that steam turbines want to rotate very fast and ship propellers need to move very slowly to be effective. In mechanical terms work has to be conserved so work was done on the 1st turbine set and it wore out very quickly as well as having about 25% less range than it's VTE sister ship. As a result it was re-engined with a new turbine set and reduction gearing and I believe that this same engine set went into the USS Nevada when she wore her engines out. Its just before I head off to work but I believe that engine set was more powerful than the engine she came with.Tirronan (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited

Cleveland class cruiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naval History

Ahoy there, 'Busaccsb', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the

Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Busaccsb! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the SarahStierch (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of English history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Congrats!!

	Naval ships
	Thank you for your helping with naval ships. I see you also have an interest in aircraft carriers, so i got you a picture of one. Dallas G. Spencer (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016
: Voting now open!

Hello, Busaccsb. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Busaccsb. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your input in a discussion

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Busaccsb. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USS Roanoke (CL-145)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, as I have not commented on anything in a long time. If I am doing it wrong, please show me how to do it correctly.

On the USS Roanoke page it states that the ship was stored at Mare Island following decommissioning until sold for scrap. This is in fact what DANFS says (I checked), but it is wrong. Roanoke may have initially been stored at Mare Island, but was later moved to Bremerton and moored alongside Worcester. The NAVSOURCE site contains USN photos of the two together at Bremerton in 1970. I would make the edit except that I'm not sure how to do the citation. Busaccsb (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

= Cleavland Class Addition

Nice add, but you need to add a ref to it please.Tirronan (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tirronan, Thanks for the comment. I haven't done any substantial edits in a long time, so i need guidance. That being said, my "specialty" in edits has been adding a little more information to intro paragraphs, hopefully to make the article more interesting to the reader. I never intentionally add any information that isn't already in the article, figuring that if everything I say is already in the article (and presumably adequately referenced) there is no need for references in the intro paragraph. What do you see there that needs to be referenced?

As long as I have your attention I was wondering if you could help me with my problem with the USS Roanoke article. The article says the ship was stored at Mare Island until it was scrapped, and this is what DANFS says, but it is wrong. There is an official USN photo of the two Worcester-class ships at Bremerton in 1970, but that is the only evidence I have of the Roanoke being at Bremerton, so how do I use that? Coincidentally, I was at Bremerton in 1970, and saw the two ships together there, which is why I was curious about the Wikipedia entry in the first place. Thanks Busaccsb (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]