![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello Llammakey,
I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.
I hope to be in touch soon,
Gabrielm199 ( talk) 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"added info" to ships
Thank you for quality articles about ships, such as
HMCS Waskesiu (K330), for gnomish improvements in content and style,
adding information,
fixing links,
improving citations,
copy-editing, -: you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
First, thank you for the work you have put into this article, and others on the War of 1812. I reverted your edit to the caption for the info. box image, because the caption was a verbatim rendition of the original caption to the image, which appears in the mousepoint italics under the picture in the image itself. If you wish to restore your edits, or merely put the links into the caption, or add explanatory preamble, I will raise no objection. HLGallon ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Llammakey, the Navy has many different frigate designs for different purposes. You wouldn't state the La Fayette-class frigates were succeeded by FREMM, just because it is a more recent design. Both La Fayette-class frigates and Floréal-class frigates have replaced D'Estienne d'Orves-class avisos. The two classes were being constructed at the same time also, so neither is a more recent design than the other. Rob984 ( talk) 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you included a template on this redirect, but no target. Thanks, Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
sst✈ (discuss) 12:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)I see you fixed the link I added but I don't understand why or what I did wrong? Can you enlighten me so I don't make the same mistake again? Lyndaship ( talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive edits to the page: Lord Kelvin. These edits are greatly appreciated. Thanks Matthew
Let me know what you think of the image - it's about the only relevant one I could find but I fear it may overwhelm such a short section. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your edit. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Was this an accident? - theWOLFchild 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to contribute more to this page. But I'm unsure of the general editorial position regarding scope and data categories. Is it your intention that the ships listed be in active service, and/or commissioned? From my point of view if the page is about the active fleet, then it should include all serving ships regardless of status (commissioned, cross-appointed, shared, leased, hired, seconded, etc..). The page already more or less reflects this approach, but it does get a bit mixed up regarding categories, as for example, when some ships are listed as commissioned, when in fact they are shared and cross-appointed (as with the carriers Puncher and Nabob, which were staffed by Canadian and British sailors and airmen, paid for by Canada, and served under Royal Navy command).
I'd like to suggest that the page remain broadly focused on the serving fleet, and that the historic section remain divided into the categories by periods (but remove "commissioned") and then by standard operational types (e.g., carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, mine warfare, patrol, amphibious, auxiliary) and that we shove everything into these. Trawlers and other types of vessels would be sorted into operational type, not physical type. "Patrol" and "auxiliary" would get loaded with all sorts, the former with smaller fighting craft, the later with support/harbour/other craft). Whether or not the ships are commissioned would be indicated solely by their titles, and we'd drop in a short note about how HMCS indicates commissioned. What do you think? Robert Brukner ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Llammakey, thanks for filling out the form - could you also freely register so your account can be validated? Thanks, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
In thanks for your advice and carefully edits, which helped take Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy to BL-class. Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) |
for the seventh boat of the Astute Class. It has NEVER been named HMS Ajax.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22boat+7%22
and see my links across its page.
Thanks.
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, I got a bit confused with the coords for a while....;O)) Keith-264 ( talk) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If "the 'insert ship's name'" format was good enough for Captain Broke - see his quoted message - it should be good enough for anyone, MOS regardless. MOS has many faults and is merely a set of guidelines; it is better to have some flexibility. The repeated use of the "the 'insert ship's name'" format within the quotation (which is highly germane to the whole article) makes the guideline rather pointless for this particular page. Urselius ( talk) 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ouragan-class landing platform dock because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
12:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— List of motor yachts by length —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.69.211 ( talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Sherlockh22 is only interested in this article (lost a relative on the ship?). I'm sure that we can bash any additions into shape between us. Mjroots ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | |
Awarded in recognition of your tireless contribution to coverage of the Royal Canadian Navy. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
That wasn't me. That was an impostor User:Linguist1111, who was forging my signature. Linguist 111 talk 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Re this and similar edits. The correct disambiguator in 1921, see Flag of Canada. Please revert your edits. Mjroots ( talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi can you monitor the HMS Defender article as well? User Gary Dee keeps saying the ship is involved in the Air Egypt search when none of his not-reputable sources say so. Thanks. Cantab1985 ( talk) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Policy: "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:..." This is not in accord with your changes. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit work on the
Template:Submarines of the Indian Navy. Could you do the same with {{
Template:Destroyers of the Indian Navy}}?
KCVelaga
☚╣✉╠☛
12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Once again, I'd like to thank you for your support while I was working to spruce up the various Royal Canadian Navy ship lists. I have a request for your advice and support in resolving an issue. You have far more experience then I and I am out of my depth. There is an article called British Empire in World War II. There was a notice that it was incomplete. I worked to expand it considerably over a couple of weeks. I also altered the title (to Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War| to keep it in line with British English and the "Military history of..." series of articles. Suddenly yesterday an editor rudely pounced on my work, altered the title, challenged the content, etc... I have responded assertively by reverting the original work I did on the original article back to the point of origin, prior to my first edit, and then reverting the changes made to my new article by the aggressive editor. I am sure there are a million rules here, but I know none of them. All my work is done in good faith. But I could use some of your wisdom and help with this. Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thanks for your guidance and input on things military. You've been a great help. Robert Brukner ( talk) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | |
"added info" to ships | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1266 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Llammakey. Your comment here was unsigned, and the bot has not properly attributed it. Kablammo ( talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I am interested about the actions of minor navies. I am currently at the Romanian Navy, trying to bring to light the ships sunk by them. First, I tried working on lists of shipwrecks, but that turned out to be too complicated, and spreading the ships into too many different articles. Based on a similar list about the Japanese Navy ( List of ships sunk by the Imperial Japanese Navy),I crafted this list, until now only containing the surface ships. The Romanians also sank 10+ submarines, which I will add later. For now, please, I humbly request that you publish this draft. Please, I would be very grateful. Draft:List of ships sunk by the Royal Romanian Navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.74.81 ( talk) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I have edited the Page to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Come Check it out Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark32322 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining why you changed the semicolons for the source types, I thought hitherto that it was overkill and took them out. Apols Keith-264 ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you mean to de-link Eritrea? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for blanking temporarily your edits, I got a conflict and then put them back. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether HMCS Thunder should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMCS Thunder .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Abbottonian ( talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've just patrolled an article you created. Having had a look through some of your previous created articles it seems to me that you should apply for the Autopatrolled permission. It would help reduce the backlog at New Page Patrol if articles as good as the ones you've been creating weren't on the list. Regards, Cabayi ( talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
For your work on INS Vikrant (R11). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for fixing this; I was following up on a change by repeating it through all the redirects, and hadn't noticed the caveat in Chelsea's RCN service. Good thing someone is on the ball! Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: I made the same change at List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War; will that be wrong as well? The introduction there says it lists all ships in service, commissioned, non-commissioned, loaned or hired. Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
PPS: Actually, I'll take it back anyway: Sorry for dithering, it's probably too close to bedtime! Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, but User:Vijay rath is only going to undo them in his attempt at destroying the article. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
04:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
You renamed several articles about patrol vessels recently, removing the pennant number from the article's name, with the edit summary, "only ship of name - no need for disambiguation". Yes, I can see that an argument could be made that the names of articles of this type should not contain a pennant number, if there haven't been other vessels of that name. But I think the longstanding convention here is that such articles actually should include the pennant number.
Should I assume that, since you didn't link to a fora with a consensus for these renamings, you aren't aware of any discussion that established support for your renamings?
I am prepared to support either consensus, but I prefer the status quo. May I suggest that you seek the opinions of others before you rename any further articles of this type? How many articles are there, on vessels with pennant numbers, where the pennant number is part of the article name? I dunno. Thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.
Have you ever heard the aphorism: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I think there is wisdom in this aphorism. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liammakey, you have been editing a lot of ship articles I have worked on, describing your changes as "fixed headings for screen readers for the blind". What is the issue? I am asking out of pure curiosity. This sounds like something I should be doing and just haven't done out of pure ignorance of the issue. Please let me know on my talk page. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. Your edits to this article on Dec. 2 were unhelpful. The Wikipedia standard for dates is month, day, year. Also, conversion to Imperial units for armaments produced outside the US/UK is counterproductive and results in broken links. I have reversed your edits. Please get up to speed on the standards for Wikipedia before making any further edits. Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing one Milhist article at ACR during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
14:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Llammakey, I've replied to the message you'd left on my user "Talk" page. (You'd left it ten weeks ago, I apologize for my response's delay. This note repeats the essence of the reply I wrote there.)
Your point was correct—I was in error with my ship class italicization methodology. I have re-read WP:SHIPS and now I will apply what I've learned. Thank you, for moving me to become a better editor.
Catsmoke (
talk)
21:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The place to debate the proper flag used for the RCN in infoboxes is not on a main article. It is at Template:Country data Canada, where it has the flag of the RCN as the blue ensign post-1921. The reason for this is that the blue ensign is more recognizable as a flag specific to the RCN, than the white ensign (there is no rule that it must be an ensign, see Template:Country data United States Navy where the jack is almost always used). If you disagree you should request a change there. Charles lindberg ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Considering the article did not actually follow MOS:SHIPS when I started copy-editing it is pretty obnoxious to revert a 2000+ word copy edit back to a version that does not follow MOS:SHIPS and has the added benefit of being full of run on sentences that took me several hours to fix. Not to mention template_ing me with an obnoxious template about unconstructive editing! There is an article talk page where you can raise issues like this, in case an editor doesn't know about MOS:SHIPS. Please do not assume editors know about MOS:SHIPS. I will go back over it to correct the ship names. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On the evening of 22 September, Jones in Bonhomme Richard (an armed East India trading vessel he had reluctantly adapted for military use), accompanied by the little brigantine Vengeance, had been off Spurn Head, hoping to catch a few prizes emerging from the Humber estuary, but he decided to head northward during the hours of darkness, and rendezvous with his frigates Alliance and Pallas, which had parted company from him further up the coast.— I do care about it, as it takes a tremendous amount of energy to disentangle someone else's thought process and I assume that our readers have short attention spans. We do have a certain style of writing on Wikipedia (including conciseness) and while I don't deny the importance of MOS:APOSTROPHE,but I would first recommend mastering MOS:COMMA. Surely you understand the difference between a major and time consuming copyedit and your own personal quest to impose an arbitrary "consistent" style on all ship articles—unless you want them to all be consistently impossible to read, which is the effect of this prefix rule, but maybe we can talk about that more later. It is not really within the scope of a copyedit. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know which boosk these references refers to? / Saftgurka ( talk) 11:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)
I often see you tidying up pages I have created. I have learnt a lot from watching you but I am wondering if I should be doing the remove redirects and if so what is the criteria and placing the tags on the talk page? Lyndaship ( talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Noticed you just changed default sort on one. I understand that Italian usage is to refer to ships by the family name and sometimes the given name varies even when named in honour of the same person so suggest you leave default sort on family name Lyndaship ( talk) 19:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Pie for you! Behavingnose ( talk) 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your efforts in copyediting Tegetthoff-class battleship, I am pleased to offer you this barnstar. Please know that I’m very grateful for the edits you’ve made. They haven’t gone unnoticed!— White Shadows New and improved! 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for fixing my mistake on USS William M. Wood. My brain was in a disambiguation rut. Leschnei ( talk) 12:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello Llammakey,
I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.
I hope to be in touch soon,
Gabrielm199 ( talk) 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"added info" to ships
Thank you for quality articles about ships, such as
HMCS Waskesiu (K330), for gnomish improvements in content and style,
adding information,
fixing links,
improving citations,
copy-editing, -: you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
First, thank you for the work you have put into this article, and others on the War of 1812. I reverted your edit to the caption for the info. box image, because the caption was a verbatim rendition of the original caption to the image, which appears in the mousepoint italics under the picture in the image itself. If you wish to restore your edits, or merely put the links into the caption, or add explanatory preamble, I will raise no objection. HLGallon ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Llammakey, the Navy has many different frigate designs for different purposes. You wouldn't state the La Fayette-class frigates were succeeded by FREMM, just because it is a more recent design. Both La Fayette-class frigates and Floréal-class frigates have replaced D'Estienne d'Orves-class avisos. The two classes were being constructed at the same time also, so neither is a more recent design than the other. Rob984 ( talk) 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you included a template on this redirect, but no target. Thanks, Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
sst✈ (discuss) 12:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)I see you fixed the link I added but I don't understand why or what I did wrong? Can you enlighten me so I don't make the same mistake again? Lyndaship ( talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive edits to the page: Lord Kelvin. These edits are greatly appreciated. Thanks Matthew
Let me know what you think of the image - it's about the only relevant one I could find but I fear it may overwhelm such a short section. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your edit. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Was this an accident? - theWOLFchild 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to contribute more to this page. But I'm unsure of the general editorial position regarding scope and data categories. Is it your intention that the ships listed be in active service, and/or commissioned? From my point of view if the page is about the active fleet, then it should include all serving ships regardless of status (commissioned, cross-appointed, shared, leased, hired, seconded, etc..). The page already more or less reflects this approach, but it does get a bit mixed up regarding categories, as for example, when some ships are listed as commissioned, when in fact they are shared and cross-appointed (as with the carriers Puncher and Nabob, which were staffed by Canadian and British sailors and airmen, paid for by Canada, and served under Royal Navy command).
I'd like to suggest that the page remain broadly focused on the serving fleet, and that the historic section remain divided into the categories by periods (but remove "commissioned") and then by standard operational types (e.g., carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, mine warfare, patrol, amphibious, auxiliary) and that we shove everything into these. Trawlers and other types of vessels would be sorted into operational type, not physical type. "Patrol" and "auxiliary" would get loaded with all sorts, the former with smaller fighting craft, the later with support/harbour/other craft). Whether or not the ships are commissioned would be indicated solely by their titles, and we'd drop in a short note about how HMCS indicates commissioned. What do you think? Robert Brukner ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Llammakey, thanks for filling out the form - could you also freely register so your account can be validated? Thanks, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
In thanks for your advice and carefully edits, which helped take Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy to BL-class. Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) |
for the seventh boat of the Astute Class. It has NEVER been named HMS Ajax.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22boat+7%22
and see my links across its page.
Thanks.
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, I got a bit confused with the coords for a while....;O)) Keith-264 ( talk) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If "the 'insert ship's name'" format was good enough for Captain Broke - see his quoted message - it should be good enough for anyone, MOS regardless. MOS has many faults and is merely a set of guidelines; it is better to have some flexibility. The repeated use of the "the 'insert ship's name'" format within the quotation (which is highly germane to the whole article) makes the guideline rather pointless for this particular page. Urselius ( talk) 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ouragan-class landing platform dock because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
12:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— List of motor yachts by length —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.69.211 ( talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Sherlockh22 is only interested in this article (lost a relative on the ship?). I'm sure that we can bash any additions into shape between us. Mjroots ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | |
Awarded in recognition of your tireless contribution to coverage of the Royal Canadian Navy. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
That wasn't me. That was an impostor User:Linguist1111, who was forging my signature. Linguist 111 talk 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Re this and similar edits. The correct disambiguator in 1921, see Flag of Canada. Please revert your edits. Mjroots ( talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi can you monitor the HMS Defender article as well? User Gary Dee keeps saying the ship is involved in the Air Egypt search when none of his not-reputable sources say so. Thanks. Cantab1985 ( talk) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Policy: "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:..." This is not in accord with your changes. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit work on the
Template:Submarines of the Indian Navy. Could you do the same with {{
Template:Destroyers of the Indian Navy}}?
KCVelaga
☚╣✉╠☛
12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Once again, I'd like to thank you for your support while I was working to spruce up the various Royal Canadian Navy ship lists. I have a request for your advice and support in resolving an issue. You have far more experience then I and I am out of my depth. There is an article called British Empire in World War II. There was a notice that it was incomplete. I worked to expand it considerably over a couple of weeks. I also altered the title (to Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War| to keep it in line with British English and the "Military history of..." series of articles. Suddenly yesterday an editor rudely pounced on my work, altered the title, challenged the content, etc... I have responded assertively by reverting the original work I did on the original article back to the point of origin, prior to my first edit, and then reverting the changes made to my new article by the aggressive editor. I am sure there are a million rules here, but I know none of them. All my work is done in good faith. But I could use some of your wisdom and help with this. Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thanks for your guidance and input on things military. You've been a great help. Robert Brukner ( talk) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | |
"added info" to ships | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1266 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Llammakey. Your comment here was unsigned, and the bot has not properly attributed it. Kablammo ( talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I am interested about the actions of minor navies. I am currently at the Romanian Navy, trying to bring to light the ships sunk by them. First, I tried working on lists of shipwrecks, but that turned out to be too complicated, and spreading the ships into too many different articles. Based on a similar list about the Japanese Navy ( List of ships sunk by the Imperial Japanese Navy),I crafted this list, until now only containing the surface ships. The Romanians also sank 10+ submarines, which I will add later. For now, please, I humbly request that you publish this draft. Please, I would be very grateful. Draft:List of ships sunk by the Royal Romanian Navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.74.81 ( talk) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I have edited the Page to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Come Check it out Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark32322 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining why you changed the semicolons for the source types, I thought hitherto that it was overkill and took them out. Apols Keith-264 ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you mean to de-link Eritrea? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for blanking temporarily your edits, I got a conflict and then put them back. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether HMCS Thunder should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMCS Thunder .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Abbottonian ( talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've just patrolled an article you created. Having had a look through some of your previous created articles it seems to me that you should apply for the Autopatrolled permission. It would help reduce the backlog at New Page Patrol if articles as good as the ones you've been creating weren't on the list. Regards, Cabayi ( talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
For your work on INS Vikrant (R11). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for fixing this; I was following up on a change by repeating it through all the redirects, and hadn't noticed the caveat in Chelsea's RCN service. Good thing someone is on the ball! Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: I made the same change at List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War; will that be wrong as well? The introduction there says it lists all ships in service, commissioned, non-commissioned, loaned or hired. Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
PPS: Actually, I'll take it back anyway: Sorry for dithering, it's probably too close to bedtime! Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, but User:Vijay rath is only going to undo them in his attempt at destroying the article. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
04:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
You renamed several articles about patrol vessels recently, removing the pennant number from the article's name, with the edit summary, "only ship of name - no need for disambiguation". Yes, I can see that an argument could be made that the names of articles of this type should not contain a pennant number, if there haven't been other vessels of that name. But I think the longstanding convention here is that such articles actually should include the pennant number.
Should I assume that, since you didn't link to a fora with a consensus for these renamings, you aren't aware of any discussion that established support for your renamings?
I am prepared to support either consensus, but I prefer the status quo. May I suggest that you seek the opinions of others before you rename any further articles of this type? How many articles are there, on vessels with pennant numbers, where the pennant number is part of the article name? I dunno. Thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.
Have you ever heard the aphorism: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I think there is wisdom in this aphorism. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liammakey, you have been editing a lot of ship articles I have worked on, describing your changes as "fixed headings for screen readers for the blind". What is the issue? I am asking out of pure curiosity. This sounds like something I should be doing and just haven't done out of pure ignorance of the issue. Please let me know on my talk page. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. Your edits to this article on Dec. 2 were unhelpful. The Wikipedia standard for dates is month, day, year. Also, conversion to Imperial units for armaments produced outside the US/UK is counterproductive and results in broken links. I have reversed your edits. Please get up to speed on the standards for Wikipedia before making any further edits. Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing one Milhist article at ACR during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
14:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Llammakey, I've replied to the message you'd left on my user "Talk" page. (You'd left it ten weeks ago, I apologize for my response's delay. This note repeats the essence of the reply I wrote there.)
Your point was correct—I was in error with my ship class italicization methodology. I have re-read WP:SHIPS and now I will apply what I've learned. Thank you, for moving me to become a better editor.
Catsmoke (
talk)
21:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The place to debate the proper flag used for the RCN in infoboxes is not on a main article. It is at Template:Country data Canada, where it has the flag of the RCN as the blue ensign post-1921. The reason for this is that the blue ensign is more recognizable as a flag specific to the RCN, than the white ensign (there is no rule that it must be an ensign, see Template:Country data United States Navy where the jack is almost always used). If you disagree you should request a change there. Charles lindberg ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Considering the article did not actually follow MOS:SHIPS when I started copy-editing it is pretty obnoxious to revert a 2000+ word copy edit back to a version that does not follow MOS:SHIPS and has the added benefit of being full of run on sentences that took me several hours to fix. Not to mention template_ing me with an obnoxious template about unconstructive editing! There is an article talk page where you can raise issues like this, in case an editor doesn't know about MOS:SHIPS. Please do not assume editors know about MOS:SHIPS. I will go back over it to correct the ship names. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On the evening of 22 September, Jones in Bonhomme Richard (an armed East India trading vessel he had reluctantly adapted for military use), accompanied by the little brigantine Vengeance, had been off Spurn Head, hoping to catch a few prizes emerging from the Humber estuary, but he decided to head northward during the hours of darkness, and rendezvous with his frigates Alliance and Pallas, which had parted company from him further up the coast.— I do care about it, as it takes a tremendous amount of energy to disentangle someone else's thought process and I assume that our readers have short attention spans. We do have a certain style of writing on Wikipedia (including conciseness) and while I don't deny the importance of MOS:APOSTROPHE,but I would first recommend mastering MOS:COMMA. Surely you understand the difference between a major and time consuming copyedit and your own personal quest to impose an arbitrary "consistent" style on all ship articles—unless you want them to all be consistently impossible to read, which is the effect of this prefix rule, but maybe we can talk about that more later. It is not really within the scope of a copyedit. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know which boosk these references refers to? / Saftgurka ( talk) 11:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Llammakey. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)
I often see you tidying up pages I have created. I have learnt a lot from watching you but I am wondering if I should be doing the remove redirects and if so what is the criteria and placing the tags on the talk page? Lyndaship ( talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Noticed you just changed default sort on one. I understand that Italian usage is to refer to ships by the family name and sometimes the given name varies even when named in honour of the same person so suggest you leave default sort on family name Lyndaship ( talk) 19:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Pie for you! Behavingnose ( talk) 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your efforts in copyediting Tegetthoff-class battleship, I am pleased to offer you this barnstar. Please know that I’m very grateful for the edits you’ve made. They haven’t gone unnoticed!— White Shadows New and improved! 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for fixing my mistake on USS William M. Wood. My brain was in a disambiguation rut. Leschnei ( talk) 12:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|