![]() | 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 |
I was ASKED to maintain the pages LONG before anyone of you showed up and was doing fine. I am an active duty United States Sailor, I know what I'm talking about. I'm taking my information DIRECTLY FROM NATO! The only one who is doing disruptive editing is YOU!
STOP. IT. PLEASE.
-- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (EST)
You also ain't the boss of Wikipedia either, you don't get to make rules. There is no "procedure." I was managing fine before anyone of you showed up. - Battleship Sailor —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Battleship Sailor: will you come and make your comments at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_prefixes_used_by_NATO please and not indulge in this sort of response Lyndaship ( talk) 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that when you edited 373d Fighter Group you added links to a number of US states. Per WP:OVERLINK large geographic areas like states should not be linked (unless there is a specific reason). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liammakey, Just wondering why the move to the 1810 year? It seems to have no particular meaning to her history. She appears to have been Adams from 1807 to 1812, and Queen Charlotte from then on. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Llammakey, have you even checked my sources before editing? That isn't the crew of 'any dutch ship', it's the crew of the HNLMS Holland. This was a big thing in the Netherlands, multiple big newspapers wrote about it. Besides, my source was the official website of the Dutch Defense, and it clearly says: "Crew of the HNLMS Holland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SjoerdvDonk ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Stuart ( talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Stuart ( talk) 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
FYI, The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its second anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you've created or expanded (since November 2016) which you haven't already added to the list. Thanks! – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This class was only so named when Greece purchased them in 1912, in 1911 they were the Argentinian San Luis class. Similarly the individual ships under the Greek names should have a dab of 1912 not 1911 as they were launched under their Argentinian names. Do you mind if I change them? Lyndaship ( talk) 15:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
This maple leaf is awarded to Llammakey for writing the article Battle of Saint-Charles during the second year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Llammakey. 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 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
When you reverted me at HMS Monkey, you also reverted the fixes to citations I had made, which included replacing dead links and questionable links, as well as moving bare external links into citation templates. I have restored those fixes, along with the wikilinks you wanted to keep. - Donald Albury 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As you are aware, there is a discussion ongoing re the use of "the" when referring to ships. Therefore you should undo your recent move(s) of articles whilst the discussion is ongoing, if you would be so kind. Mjroots ( talk) 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, In rating those articles, which I created, you indicated that the articles "contain major omissions or inaccuracies". I am always trying to improve articles so if you could point me to sources that I have overlooked or mistakes I have made, please let me know. I use Google searches and search Lloyd's Register, the Register of Shipping, and other online resources. Are there particular sources you think I should consult? Again, on the errors, please realize that equally reputable sources are often inconsistent. Still, if you have good info that resolves inconsistencies between sources, please tell me. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted your opinion on this article; the title uses "cutting out", and though it's a type of tactic used for capturing a ship, I was wondering if perhaps the more common "capture of (the frigate...) " should be used? Or "Action of..."? Lemme know what you think, thanks - wolf 04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
At Halifax-class_frigate#cite_note-gun_nomenclature-7, perhaps the word calibre doesn't belong, since that means the diameter, as the linked article shows. If there's a basis for the /70 indicating length relative to calibre, please cite it, then this note won't be nonsense. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just curious, why did you add a space after the *? Does not adding a space cause a problem somewhere? I'm just asking so that I'm editing correctly in the future. Thanks! Pennsy22 ( talk) 04:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Howdy, could you take the time to weigh in on the talk page please? Much obliged. MarkMcCain ( talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page you might wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.
The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I notice you've reverted a few of my edits. Just so you know, I'm not interested in a childish edit-war, and the fact that you've left my re-edits alone suggests that you aren't either, which is good. Essentially, I'm going through a few pages changing grt to gt for vessels still in service. As I'm sure you know, gt replaced grt in 1982 and all ships had to be remeasured in gt (or scrapped) by 1994. So, any page saying a ship "has" a grt needs to be changed. For older vessels like some coastguard ships, it's not always obvious whether the stated tonnage is gt or the original grt. For instance, I've tried to cite Canadian Coast Guard where relevant, but for some reason Wikipedia says its a dodgy site and won't allow it, so it's hard to cite the definitive source. So, when CCG says a vessel has a gt and Wikipedia calls the same number grt, then I'll change it, even if Wikipedia won't allow a direct citation. I'm not sure of the value of quoting the original grt figure, but if it's there then I'll leave it alone. I see neither value nor harm in it. As to whether gt should be upper or lower case … that's an argument I really can't be bothered to get into, though as you can see my preference is for lower case, as is common in the industry. Patrick Neylan ( talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's an interesting dilemma. I've changed a few grt references to gt where the official government page cites the same number but as gt; the problem is, Wikipedia won't allow cites to those pages. Clearly it's gt, and the original Wikipedia statement isn't cited. So, do you retain an uncited figure you know is wrong in favour of an uncitable figure that's almost certainly correct? Does an uncited existing reference have priority over an uncitable new reference? Patrick Neylan ( talk) 21:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment in the edit summary here and took a look around. I went through all ships from Vanguard to St. Albans on List of active Royal Navy ships. What I found was that 27 of the ships list articles did not have battle honours listed on the list page, and only 4 did. I also saw Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages which gives no instructions that battle honours should be included on the ship list page. Yet, I've learned from Battle_honour#Battle_honour_board that battle honours from prior ships of the same name are indeed carried forward to the currently serving ship, so what you've asserted makes absolute sense.
I had to work to find this information. Had I not read the passage in the battle honours section I would still not know. Perhaps we should codify this somewhere so that others might not make the same error as I did? Perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages? What do you think? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey
I see your interest at
List of Royal Norwegian Navy ships and a number of red links under Schooners (Thor, Balder etc). Have you seen the wiki article I prepared a few years ago at
Norwegian Gunships ? There may be something of use there, or a some cross-linking for this group of ten perhaps. regards
Viking1808 (
talk)
19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Noticed you rated that as C. Could you provide more input as what specifically is not covered. Could you also explain why for example this article is rated B? Thanks. Crook1 ( talk) 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't see you corrected the context on the article for the Aloe-class ships. I believe the issue is settled. -- MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 12:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence that the Mod Flower Corvette K486 was named Forrest Hill and not Forest Hill. Could you quote a reference please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subspace1250 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: ). Thank you.
Mediatech492 (
talk)
16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: ). Thank you.
Mediatech492 (
talk)
17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Before I saw your edit note from July 19, 2019, I again removed the wikilink to "Belmont-class" on the USS Belmont page. The reason I removed it is because there is currently no page for "Belmont-class". Given that there were only two ships in the class and Wikipedia already has pages for both of them I think it's unlikely there will ever be a "Belmont-class" page. If one is created then the wikilink can be restored but until then it makes no sense to wikilink to a non-existent page. I will revert my edit and remove the wikilink again but with a more detailed edit note. -- Mox La Push ( talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to look over the revamped Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé and for sorting out my little stumbles. I would however like to ask about the Brazilian ship prefixes that you mostly deleted. The Brazilian Navy decided not to use a national prefix like HMS or USS (a "standard ship prefix" as such are referred to in WP:SHIPNAME). But they do officially prefix the ships' names with type-related abbreviations - you can see those in current use at List of ships of the Brazilian Navy, and they are always included in official publications as well as more widely. They are included routinely in many of our individual ship articles (though admittedly not all). We have clear guidance on titling articles where there is no standard ship prefix, but unfortunately nothing on the article text in WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship names in articles. I am certainly very reluctant to exclude these important designations. How do you think that we should best handle this? Davidships ( talk) 22:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to meet you ~ |
~ Thanks for your edits on Villefranche-sur-Mer ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Quebec (1781), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japanese cruiser Chōkai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ROV ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Llammakey - could you help me remove the italic title from C-class lifeboat please, and let me know how to do it. I think it's a parameter in an infobox but I can't work it out. When you've shown me, I can do others (D-class etc...). Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Re your changes to my HMCS Onondaga or Okanagan photo: 1. Just as you're not considered to be in the Atlantic Ocean if you're tied up in (the connected waters of) Halifax harbour, you're not considered to be 'in the Caribbean Sea' if you're alongside at Roosey Roads. 2. A submarine is a boat (look up 'submarine' and 'boat' on WP) and one thing a caption is supposed to do, as I recall, is point out the non-obvious (plus I believe I had a link from 'boat' to 'submarine' and a link to 'Oberon-class submarine'. 3. Sorry about the dot in 'Jan.' (I'm new at this), but 'Jan 1969' is acceptable (and shorter - my preference). 4. 'A' is unnecessary and you could have put 'A' of 'The' in any of the many photos in the 'Oberon-class submarines' article. BrettA343 ( talk) 04:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I added the source required on your page assessment on SS Fidelitas. Best Regards.-- Darius ( talk) 13:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you continue to demote Commons links, below even uninteresting (to the majority of readers) notes and references in an effort to hide it away and bury it. Readers would prefer to link through to see other images on the articles not on display on Wikipedia. Do you care nothing for a sister project. Broichmore ( talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Two things: Firstly do you agree that this image is of the Spanish ship San Ildefonso, the date of the sketch doesn't fit in with the prose. Secondly why did you, on a clean-up, delete the word the before the name of said vessel. Thanks Broichmore ( talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't understand your revert. 1942 ships is a subcat of 1940s ships and Country should be added to infobox according to WP:SHIPS guidance Lyndaship ( talk)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Doing a great job on helping proof articles! You're welcome to participate in the Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon with a few articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Doing a great job on helping proof articles! You're welcome to participate in the Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon with a few articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Llammakey, I want to ask you if you can re-rate Dainty's article, taking into account the large amount of information I recently added to complete the article. Thanks in advance. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Llammakey. Thank you very much for your corrections of the formatting of the dual years in the article Theobald Dillon, 1st Viscount Dillon; e.g. February 1623/4 -> February 1623/24. There are probably many other occurrences of this type of mistake in other articles that I touched. I believe you are right, but could you please point me to the corresponding instruction in the MOS or in any other Wikipedia guide. I looked at MOS:NUM and could not find a corresponding instruction. With many thanks Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Tell me, please, what to do? thanks depo ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
You can give me a favour? I need a solicitude of restauration for
1 Bomba de tiempo · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 20:09 438 N/A Registro
2 Plaza Manezhnaya · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 19:39 35 N/A Registro
3 Okhotny Ryad · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 19:18 148 N/A Registro
4 BAE Systems HERTI · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 18:14 1 582 N/A Registro
5 BAE Systems Mantis · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 18:07 967 N/A Registro
6 Business Tower Nürnberg · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 16:05 3 586 N/A Registro
7 Niederwalddenkmal · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 15:37 738 N/A Registro
8 Mahnmal Bittermark · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 15:27 975 N/A Registro
9 Fischbrunnen · (Borrado)
articles in wikipedia spanish.
God bless you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Generación identitaria (
talk •
contribs)
21:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
can you update that article, now there are 4 elderly people die in Covid-19 on that ship. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.207.134 ( talk) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
COVID-19 Barnstar | |
for updating all the ships related to the pandemic, I found your work helpful to the readers including myself. |
References
Hello, thanks for moving Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá. On the whole, the move is a positive and you are to be commended. Having said that, WP:NC-SHIP very clearly says that the name of the vessel needs to be in italics. Furthermore, WP:NC-SHIP says "For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers," which in this case is GC-23. Namely, you failed to move the article to Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá (GC-23). Would you kindly fix this error. Thanks. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Theres a current news about 150 people on board who are tested positive from the virus, (which is huge) which there might be lot of sources will appear in a day due to the passengers state on the ship. Do you think we are able to create an article about that thing.? 222.105.154.87 ( talk) 08:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You stated in /info/en/?search=French_schooner_Belle_Poule that "The vessel was constructed in 1932 as a replica of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland for the French merchant marine school". It is obviously wrong. This boat was ordered for the french naval school ("Ecole Navale") and not for the merchant marine school.I corrected this twice and you undid my edition twice. This kind of vandalizing is unacceptable. Please restore my text or I will report the incident.
PS. if you can read french, just look at the official description of this boat on french navy official website at: [1]
they clearly state (in french) that "L'Étoile à été mise en service le 20 novembre 1932 et la Belle-Poule le 20 juillet 1932". Which means in english that Belle-Poule was commissioned into the French Navy (Ecole Navale) the day the day it was delivered that is the 20th of July 1932. No way it could have been ever commissioned by french merchant navy.
Plus, this boat is somewhat different from french fishing schooners, its hull lines are much narrower and designed for higher speed. It could be qualified as a sail training vessel inspired by XIXth century Dunkerque's sailing schooner which mostly operated off Newfoudland and not off Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.194.143.124 ( talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello Llammakey, I have recently made a request that the HMCS Vision article be moved or renamed, since every source I've come across says the name of the ship was 'HMCS Vison' McMuff ( talk) 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that link that you fixed is correct. How could it cover the ship's loss with a date of 1906, a year before she blew up.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, re your page move. I wish you hadn't. I realize that there is no disambiguation needed, but the move throws away information that a naive WP user might find useful. The year situates the vessel in time. I suspect that we get a lot of genealogists, local historians, and others that use WP to find out about some vessel and that little bit of extra info may help them in their search. I had a ship article Blendan Hall (xxxx ship) that some officious person moved to "Blendan Hall" on the grounds that there was no other WP article about any Blendan Hall and so no disambig was needed. That change destroyed two bits of information - that it was a ship, not a building, and the location in time. Net-net, that the disambig is not needed does not make it useless, if not helpful to you or I, it may still be useful to some naive user. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I was ASKED to maintain the pages LONG before anyone of you showed up and was doing fine. I am an active duty United States Sailor, I know what I'm talking about. I'm taking my information DIRECTLY FROM NATO! The only one who is doing disruptive editing is YOU!
STOP. IT. PLEASE.
-- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (EST)
You also ain't the boss of Wikipedia either, you don't get to make rules. There is no "procedure." I was managing fine before anyone of you showed up. - Battleship Sailor —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Battleship Sailor: will you come and make your comments at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_prefixes_used_by_NATO please and not indulge in this sort of response Lyndaship ( talk) 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that when you edited 373d Fighter Group you added links to a number of US states. Per WP:OVERLINK large geographic areas like states should not be linked (unless there is a specific reason). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liammakey, Just wondering why the move to the 1810 year? It seems to have no particular meaning to her history. She appears to have been Adams from 1807 to 1812, and Queen Charlotte from then on. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Llammakey, have you even checked my sources before editing? That isn't the crew of 'any dutch ship', it's the crew of the HNLMS Holland. This was a big thing in the Netherlands, multiple big newspapers wrote about it. Besides, my source was the official website of the Dutch Defense, and it clearly says: "Crew of the HNLMS Holland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SjoerdvDonk ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Stuart ( talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Stuart ( talk) 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
FYI, The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its second anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you've created or expanded (since November 2016) which you haven't already added to the list. Thanks! – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This class was only so named when Greece purchased them in 1912, in 1911 they were the Argentinian San Luis class. Similarly the individual ships under the Greek names should have a dab of 1912 not 1911 as they were launched under their Argentinian names. Do you mind if I change them? Lyndaship ( talk) 15:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
This maple leaf is awarded to Llammakey for writing the article Battle of Saint-Charles during the second year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Llammakey. 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 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
When you reverted me at HMS Monkey, you also reverted the fixes to citations I had made, which included replacing dead links and questionable links, as well as moving bare external links into citation templates. I have restored those fixes, along with the wikilinks you wanted to keep. - Donald Albury 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As you are aware, there is a discussion ongoing re the use of "the" when referring to ships. Therefore you should undo your recent move(s) of articles whilst the discussion is ongoing, if you would be so kind. Mjroots ( talk) 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, In rating those articles, which I created, you indicated that the articles "contain major omissions or inaccuracies". I am always trying to improve articles so if you could point me to sources that I have overlooked or mistakes I have made, please let me know. I use Google searches and search Lloyd's Register, the Register of Shipping, and other online resources. Are there particular sources you think I should consult? Again, on the errors, please realize that equally reputable sources are often inconsistent. Still, if you have good info that resolves inconsistencies between sources, please tell me. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted your opinion on this article; the title uses "cutting out", and though it's a type of tactic used for capturing a ship, I was wondering if perhaps the more common "capture of (the frigate...) " should be used? Or "Action of..."? Lemme know what you think, thanks - wolf 04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
At Halifax-class_frigate#cite_note-gun_nomenclature-7, perhaps the word calibre doesn't belong, since that means the diameter, as the linked article shows. If there's a basis for the /70 indicating length relative to calibre, please cite it, then this note won't be nonsense. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just curious, why did you add a space after the *? Does not adding a space cause a problem somewhere? I'm just asking so that I'm editing correctly in the future. Thanks! Pennsy22 ( talk) 04:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Howdy, could you take the time to weigh in on the talk page please? Much obliged. MarkMcCain ( talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page you might wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.
The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I notice you've reverted a few of my edits. Just so you know, I'm not interested in a childish edit-war, and the fact that you've left my re-edits alone suggests that you aren't either, which is good. Essentially, I'm going through a few pages changing grt to gt for vessels still in service. As I'm sure you know, gt replaced grt in 1982 and all ships had to be remeasured in gt (or scrapped) by 1994. So, any page saying a ship "has" a grt needs to be changed. For older vessels like some coastguard ships, it's not always obvious whether the stated tonnage is gt or the original grt. For instance, I've tried to cite Canadian Coast Guard where relevant, but for some reason Wikipedia says its a dodgy site and won't allow it, so it's hard to cite the definitive source. So, when CCG says a vessel has a gt and Wikipedia calls the same number grt, then I'll change it, even if Wikipedia won't allow a direct citation. I'm not sure of the value of quoting the original grt figure, but if it's there then I'll leave it alone. I see neither value nor harm in it. As to whether gt should be upper or lower case … that's an argument I really can't be bothered to get into, though as you can see my preference is for lower case, as is common in the industry. Patrick Neylan ( talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's an interesting dilemma. I've changed a few grt references to gt where the official government page cites the same number but as gt; the problem is, Wikipedia won't allow cites to those pages. Clearly it's gt, and the original Wikipedia statement isn't cited. So, do you retain an uncited figure you know is wrong in favour of an uncitable figure that's almost certainly correct? Does an uncited existing reference have priority over an uncitable new reference? Patrick Neylan ( talk) 21:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment in the edit summary here and took a look around. I went through all ships from Vanguard to St. Albans on List of active Royal Navy ships. What I found was that 27 of the ships list articles did not have battle honours listed on the list page, and only 4 did. I also saw Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages which gives no instructions that battle honours should be included on the ship list page. Yet, I've learned from Battle_honour#Battle_honour_board that battle honours from prior ships of the same name are indeed carried forward to the currently serving ship, so what you've asserted makes absolute sense.
I had to work to find this information. Had I not read the passage in the battle honours section I would still not know. Perhaps we should codify this somewhere so that others might not make the same error as I did? Perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages? What do you think? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey
I see your interest at
List of Royal Norwegian Navy ships and a number of red links under Schooners (Thor, Balder etc). Have you seen the wiki article I prepared a few years ago at
Norwegian Gunships ? There may be something of use there, or a some cross-linking for this group of ten perhaps. regards
Viking1808 (
talk)
19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Noticed you rated that as C. Could you provide more input as what specifically is not covered. Could you also explain why for example this article is rated B? Thanks. Crook1 ( talk) 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't see you corrected the context on the article for the Aloe-class ships. I believe the issue is settled. -- MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 12:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence that the Mod Flower Corvette K486 was named Forrest Hill and not Forest Hill. Could you quote a reference please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subspace1250 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: ). Thank you.
Mediatech492 (
talk)
16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: ). Thank you.
Mediatech492 (
talk)
17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Before I saw your edit note from July 19, 2019, I again removed the wikilink to "Belmont-class" on the USS Belmont page. The reason I removed it is because there is currently no page for "Belmont-class". Given that there were only two ships in the class and Wikipedia already has pages for both of them I think it's unlikely there will ever be a "Belmont-class" page. If one is created then the wikilink can be restored but until then it makes no sense to wikilink to a non-existent page. I will revert my edit and remove the wikilink again but with a more detailed edit note. -- Mox La Push ( talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to look over the revamped Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé and for sorting out my little stumbles. I would however like to ask about the Brazilian ship prefixes that you mostly deleted. The Brazilian Navy decided not to use a national prefix like HMS or USS (a "standard ship prefix" as such are referred to in WP:SHIPNAME). But they do officially prefix the ships' names with type-related abbreviations - you can see those in current use at List of ships of the Brazilian Navy, and they are always included in official publications as well as more widely. They are included routinely in many of our individual ship articles (though admittedly not all). We have clear guidance on titling articles where there is no standard ship prefix, but unfortunately nothing on the article text in WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship names in articles. I am certainly very reluctant to exclude these important designations. How do you think that we should best handle this? Davidships ( talk) 22:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Nice to meet you ~ |
~ Thanks for your edits on Villefranche-sur-Mer ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Quebec (1781), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japanese cruiser Chōkai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ROV ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Llammakey - could you help me remove the italic title from C-class lifeboat please, and let me know how to do it. I think it's a parameter in an infobox but I can't work it out. When you've shown me, I can do others (D-class etc...). Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Re your changes to my HMCS Onondaga or Okanagan photo: 1. Just as you're not considered to be in the Atlantic Ocean if you're tied up in (the connected waters of) Halifax harbour, you're not considered to be 'in the Caribbean Sea' if you're alongside at Roosey Roads. 2. A submarine is a boat (look up 'submarine' and 'boat' on WP) and one thing a caption is supposed to do, as I recall, is point out the non-obvious (plus I believe I had a link from 'boat' to 'submarine' and a link to 'Oberon-class submarine'. 3. Sorry about the dot in 'Jan.' (I'm new at this), but 'Jan 1969' is acceptable (and shorter - my preference). 4. 'A' is unnecessary and you could have put 'A' of 'The' in any of the many photos in the 'Oberon-class submarines' article. BrettA343 ( talk) 04:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I added the source required on your page assessment on SS Fidelitas. Best Regards.-- Darius ( talk) 13:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you continue to demote Commons links, below even uninteresting (to the majority of readers) notes and references in an effort to hide it away and bury it. Readers would prefer to link through to see other images on the articles not on display on Wikipedia. Do you care nothing for a sister project. Broichmore ( talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Two things: Firstly do you agree that this image is of the Spanish ship San Ildefonso, the date of the sketch doesn't fit in with the prose. Secondly why did you, on a clean-up, delete the word the before the name of said vessel. Thanks Broichmore ( talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't understand your revert. 1942 ships is a subcat of 1940s ships and Country should be added to infobox according to WP:SHIPS guidance Lyndaship ( talk)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Doing a great job on helping proof articles! You're welcome to participate in the Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon with a few articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Doing a great job on helping proof articles! You're welcome to participate in the Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon with a few articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Llammakey, I want to ask you if you can re-rate Dainty's article, taking into account the large amount of information I recently added to complete the article. Thanks in advance. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Llammakey. Thank you very much for your corrections of the formatting of the dual years in the article Theobald Dillon, 1st Viscount Dillon; e.g. February 1623/4 -> February 1623/24. There are probably many other occurrences of this type of mistake in other articles that I touched. I believe you are right, but could you please point me to the corresponding instruction in the MOS or in any other Wikipedia guide. I looked at MOS:NUM and could not find a corresponding instruction. With many thanks Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Tell me, please, what to do? thanks depo ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
You can give me a favour? I need a solicitude of restauration for
1 Bomba de tiempo · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 20:09 438 N/A Registro
2 Plaza Manezhnaya · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 19:39 35 N/A Registro
3 Okhotny Ryad · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 19:18 148 N/A Registro
4 BAE Systems HERTI · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 18:14 1 582 N/A Registro
5 BAE Systems Mantis · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 18:07 967 N/A Registro
6 Business Tower Nürnberg · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 16:05 3 586 N/A Registro
7 Niederwalddenkmal · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 15:37 738 N/A Registro
8 Mahnmal Bittermark · (Borrado) 2019-05-06 15:27 975 N/A Registro
9 Fischbrunnen · (Borrado)
articles in wikipedia spanish.
God bless you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Generación identitaria (
talk •
contribs)
21:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
can you update that article, now there are 4 elderly people die in Covid-19 on that ship. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.207.134 ( talk) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
COVID-19 Barnstar | |
for updating all the ships related to the pandemic, I found your work helpful to the readers including myself. |
References
Hello, thanks for moving Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá. On the whole, the move is a positive and you are to be commended. Having said that, WP:NC-SHIP very clearly says that the name of the vessel needs to be in italics. Furthermore, WP:NC-SHIP says "For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers," which in this case is GC-23. Namely, you failed to move the article to Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá (GC-23). Would you kindly fix this error. Thanks. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Theres a current news about 150 people on board who are tested positive from the virus, (which is huge) which there might be lot of sources will appear in a day due to the passengers state on the ship. Do you think we are able to create an article about that thing.? 222.105.154.87 ( talk) 08:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You stated in /info/en/?search=French_schooner_Belle_Poule that "The vessel was constructed in 1932 as a replica of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland for the French merchant marine school". It is obviously wrong. This boat was ordered for the french naval school ("Ecole Navale") and not for the merchant marine school.I corrected this twice and you undid my edition twice. This kind of vandalizing is unacceptable. Please restore my text or I will report the incident.
PS. if you can read french, just look at the official description of this boat on french navy official website at: [1]
they clearly state (in french) that "L'Étoile à été mise en service le 20 novembre 1932 et la Belle-Poule le 20 juillet 1932". Which means in english that Belle-Poule was commissioned into the French Navy (Ecole Navale) the day the day it was delivered that is the 20th of July 1932. No way it could have been ever commissioned by french merchant navy.
Plus, this boat is somewhat different from french fishing schooners, its hull lines are much narrower and designed for higher speed. It could be qualified as a sail training vessel inspired by XIXth century Dunkerque's sailing schooner which mostly operated off Newfoudland and not off Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.194.143.124 ( talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello Llammakey, I have recently made a request that the HMCS Vision article be moved or renamed, since every source I've come across says the name of the ship was 'HMCS Vison' McMuff ( talk) 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that link that you fixed is correct. How could it cover the ship's loss with a date of 1906, a year before she blew up.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Llammakey, re your page move. I wish you hadn't. I realize that there is no disambiguation needed, but the move throws away information that a naive WP user might find useful. The year situates the vessel in time. I suspect that we get a lot of genealogists, local historians, and others that use WP to find out about some vessel and that little bit of extra info may help them in their search. I had a ship article Blendan Hall (xxxx ship) that some officious person moved to "Blendan Hall" on the grounds that there was no other WP article about any Blendan Hall and so no disambig was needed. That change destroyed two bits of information - that it was a ship, not a building, and the location in time. Net-net, that the disambig is not needed does not make it useless, if not helpful to you or I, it may still be useful to some naive user. Cheers, Acad Ronin ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)