Talk:USS William P. Lawrence

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :USS William P. Lawrence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "STR":
From USS Spruance (DDG-111): http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01111.htm/
From USS Milius: http://www.milius.navy.mil/
From USS Benfold: 
From USS Mustin (DDG-89): 
From USS Fitzgerald: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01089.htm
From USS Lassen (DDG-82): http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01082.htm
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:USS William P. Lawrence]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on USS William P. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg110/Pages/PastLeadership.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please see Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)#Freedom of navigation in ship articles for a centralised discussion of the matter as it relates to at least both these ships. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the discussion at the McCain talkpage, the participants at that discussion formed a consensus that inclusion of the PRC's reaction was justified. I sought two separate opinions from Milhist coordinators who also agreed that the inclusion was reasonable. As a result of you ignoring that consensus, I have blocked you. A further note is at your talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of navigation in ship articles 

message: I've removed this material until an agreement on at least its wording can be arrived at.  do not misrepresent what was arrived at on the McCain discussion page, and at least answer the questions that I posed to you on that talkpage in opposition to the arguments that you seemed to refer to in your edit summary to justify your Lawrence revert. There's no need to give every perfunctory shit (yes that is what it is) that the fascist government of the PRC (yes that is what it is again) puts out there in reaction to the FONOPS special attention just because...why? Is it because you think that the #1 enemy of the USA is the PRC? Wingwraith (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the discussion at the McCain talkpage, the participants at that discussion formed a consensus that inclusion of the PRC's reaction was justified. I sought two separate opinions from Milhist coordinators who also agreed that the inclusion was reasonable. As a result of you ignoring that consensus, I have blocked you. A further note is at your talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction discussion