Micheal Harrens
Welcome! edit
Hi Micheal Harrens! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
May 2024 edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to French destroyer Milan, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yea sorry. I'm used to the Quora community where you can get away with being less formal. Still getting used to the Wikipedia environment. Micheal Harrens (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Italics for ship names edit
Nice to see another active ships editor. Can I remind you that ship names should always be italicised Lyndaship (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing issues and cite formats edit
- Please start using the same formats as the other cites in the articles. It's a requirement for featured articles and slightly less so for lesser-rated articles. If several different formats are used, match one of them. This needs to happen on all of your edits so go back and fix them all. Please read through the Manual of Style (WP:MoS) as edits to featured articles need to comply with every bit of it and lower-quality articles less so. See the A-class and good articlerequirements for their standards for compliance with the MoS. Failure to do so will cause all of your non-compliant edits to be reverted, repeatedly if necessary.
- The quality of your sourcing is difficult to assess because some of your links either do not work or do not link to a specific page. I could not access your link to the history of Johnston and, while I'm doubtful that the Yamato and Musashi Internet Photo Archive is actually a reliable source by our standards (see WP:RS), all of your links only went to the front page of the website, so I could not actually make an assessment.
- I appreciate the time and energy that you've used to add the information to the articles, but you need to start paying more attention to how the articles are formatted, our policies in general, and the nit-picky requirements of the MoS as nobody wants to spend their time and energy cleaning up after you. I'm sorry to say that you're working in an area of Wikipedia where many of the articles are already at a high standard and the bar is simply higher here than most newcomers will need to match.
- Feel free to ping me if you have any further questions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- sorry, I've only been editing Wikipedia since February, I'm new to this. I'm busy for the time being, but as soon as possible I'll get that done. Thanks for the advice. Micheal Harrens (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits to Teruzuki as I'm not sure why you prefer Hammel to more recent accounts, you added Hammel at the end of the bibliography instead of alphabetically and Nevitt's language attributing the torpedo hit to Yukikaze is more than a bit ambiguous. And you weren't matching the cite formats perfectly; no endash and other trivial issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I should take a break from editing Wikipedia to properly research how to cite stuff. I also wanted to add a note that American records of the battle differ on who torpedoed Laffey, with some even listing Teruzuki as a possible or definitive candidate. However, as indicated by Combined Fleet Japanese records of the battle firmly credit Yukikaze for the torpedo hit (As I quote "12-13 November: First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal; Escorted Admiral Abe's Bombardment Force. Operated with NAGARA; probably engaged USS CUSHING (DD-376) and USS LAFFEY (DD-459), torpedoing the latter ". I can see your point on its ambiguity, but all their pages are like that (besides their aircraft carrier pages) and they are of of the few easily accessible sources with an insight into the battle that are primarily based on Japanese records). However, I could not for the life of me figure out how to do this, not even copy and pasting the Refn command on its template page worked.
- I've kind of just figured you have the same issue of the battle off Samar where American accounts often differed on which Japanese ship hit which US ship due to primarily basing their stories on US accounts without taking Japanese records into consideration. Kongō was usually attributed to the battleship caliber hits on USS Johnston and USS Hoel before Japanese records showed she was blinded by rain squalls until 8:02, and those hits belong to Yamato and Nagato respectively.
- Still, I'd recommend editing Teruzuki's page. She assisted in sinking Laffey, THEN crippled USS Sterret, not the other way around (Laffey was sunk just around 2:00, while Sterett was engaged by Teruzuki after 2:15). I also firmly do not believe she helped to sink USS Monssen. Monssen was sunk by the destroyers Asagumo, Murasame, and Samidare around the same time Laffey was sunk. Micheal Harrens (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have to review my sources for Teruzuki's actions, but they seemed a reasonable account since Lundgren isn't reliable by our standards. I don't have Hammel and figured that I had enough of the more recent sources to be reasonably comprehensive. As for cites, the easiest thing is to copy exactly the format of those that are in the article already. But a good readthrough of WP:RS, WP:V and the WP:MOS would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Micheal Harrens (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have to review my sources for Teruzuki's actions, but they seemed a reasonable account since Lundgren isn't reliable by our standards. I don't have Hammel and figured that I had enough of the more recent sources to be reasonably comprehensive. As for cites, the easiest thing is to copy exactly the format of those that are in the article already. But a good readthrough of WP:RS, WP:V and the WP:MOS would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)