User talk:Llammakey/Archive 6

Hi,

Just so ya know, citation links don't count towards MOS:OVERLINK standards (see Duplicate and repeat links subsection).

"Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; (e.g. |work=The Guardian)."

Happy editing.

Rubbaband Mang (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I know you are the IP hopper. I will be waiting. Llammakey (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You may never see this, but my oh my, justice has been served. Llammakey (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not same person. I am not sure if you are referring to the citation change I made for the National Ship Building Strategy wikipage? Trying to follow what happened and what change, if any, you made. Bad memory. 74.73.170.202 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Good morning. I was referring to a block-evading IP hopper. They are a nuisance. Nothing to do with the shipbuilding page. Have a good day. Llammakey (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Is there a 'ship' talk page that you can post generic questions such as these.

For example,

1st question I wanted to ask why some ship info panes contain the names of the builders and some do not. I was wondering in the case of 'class' topics if its because in many /most cases these are noted in the ships table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourrasque-class_destroyer

2nd question Is it possible to add ship tables even if I do not have access to the source on the basis that the information can be gathered from the individual ship pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogador-class_destroyer

3rd question Can I convert ship lists in articles to ships tables even if I do not have access to the source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aigle-class_destroyer Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Some editors do not list builders in the infobox because there are so many. Though in the case of the Bourrasque class, that article is not even close to being complete, so they could still be added. As for the Aigle class, please go right ahead. That article lists the ship in a format no longer in use. As for the Mogador class article, a table would be good there, but you would absolutely need to have the citations for that as it is a good article. Good articles require citations when adding material. Llammakey (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Crusader 1865 ship has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 10 §Crusader 1865 ship until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Memorial Cup champions, and comment if you want. Flibirigit (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to ask about your reasoning for rerating the Ferré-class submarine to start-class. I don't want to seem combative, I just want to know so I can better understand the rating system. Of course, there is some variation in assessments between who's reviewing the page, but I want to know what you thought the article lacked for B (or even C) class. Thanks, Tylermack999 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The big one is: the specifications are listed, not in prose. Needs to be in prose. Everything in the infobox needs to be in prose and cited. See Bismarck-class battleship for how to set up a warship articles structurally. Beyond that, the tense "would be" is wrong. Should read "were scrapped". Batteries needs to be linked. The the non-naval reader, a battery is a thing you put in your TV remote. The word "purchase" is used twice in the same sentence. Next sentence "would be" used again.

The background section needs expansion. Why did they choose submarines, in the previous paragraph they said they were looking at cruisers? Why would what Ecuador is doing affect what Peru is doing? That is background info that needs to in the background section. Was there a recent war between the two? Competition for fishing grounds or territory? As for cites, Navypedia.org, Naval Encyclopedia, www.submarinesonstamps.co.il, laststandonzombieisland are not great WP:RS. Conway's Fighting Ships is free to access at archive.org (you just need an account) and probably has all the specifications and building history you require. Furthermore there might be some info on why Ecuador and Peru were competing. Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I just implemented an expansion to Ferré-class submarine. I expanded each section, included a historical background, and replaced most non-academic sources with better ones. Thanks for the tip on Conway's Fighting Ships as well, it gave me a good source for specifications and it's definitely going to come in handy later on. Let me know what you think of the changes.

Thanks, Tylermack999 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I rerated the article as C. The specifications section still needs to be turned into prose. Good job. Also there are some Harv/sfn errors on the page. Llammakey (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The Ice hockey in Canada article has had several good faith edits recently which introduced, spelling errors, poor grammar, and repetitive paragraphs. Would you have time for a full copyedit? Flibirigit (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Flibirigit! Next week I can take a look at it and spruce it up a bit, though seemingly those edits have been removed. I noticed there are statements that are not supported by cites at all (pretty much the entirety of the first two paragraphs of the history section. The component of Canadian culture sentence has 10! cites to its name. I would also updated the participation rates stats, as they are 12 years old now. Llammakey (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Since posting my message above, a discussion started at WP:HOCKEY, if you want to participate. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have the article on Harry Crerar up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Crerar/archive1. Reviewers are desperately sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Flibirigit submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Llammakey to be Editor of the Week for cleaning up and expanding articles such as Ice hockey in Canada and List of Memorial Cup champions, by adding sources, expanding citations, copyediting, and a willingness to help in a variety of subjects including good article reviews. This editor has been around 11 years without an EDDY recognition, and recently rescued the above two articles from content disputes at WP:HOCKEY, by volunteering to edit high-importance articles at the project. His talk page contains many examples of discussions leading to helpful insight and congenial resolutions. This nomination was seconded by User:Vacant0.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster7 ^Chat 14:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure Llammakey (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this edit you made to Template:Treaty Cruisers in which you replaced the links with the sclass template. Due to this change, each class is rendered as "[Name] class" throughout the entire template, which I view as redundant as the template already establishes that it is refering to different classes of treaty cruisers. Also, the template did not change anything for the Italian ships, which removes the point of distinguishing between unique ships and classes. I was wondering if there was anything specific you intended to achieve with these changes.

Congrats on Editor of the Week! [[User:GGOTCC|GGOTCC]] (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I use templates for two things. 1)Using the full names of the ships. It is not the Hipper class, it is the Admiral Hipper class. Within an article a name can be shortened, but the link in the template it should be the full name of the class. 2) To prevent vandalism. Some vandal changes the name of the template and it will throw out error messages. Ditto in articles. Prevents subtle vandalism. However, if you want, I can just change the template to show the names of the classes and not "**** class" Llammakey (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much! It looks much better now. I'm not that familiar with the sclass template.

Could you elaborate on your point on vandalism? Is the issue someone changing the link itself or the template inside the article? I did not know there was a way to conteract this, that's cool! GGOTCC 23:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's say a you have a link that says [USS Arizona|USS Arizona], but someone changes to [USS Arizona|USS Ostrich] instead. Unless you know that the ship was never named USS Ostrich, then this looks like a normal link to the everyday user, or someone who might not notice a spelling mistake if it were changed to USS Azona, because the link would still be blue. However, if you put it in the template, any change to the name will throw up error messages or leave it as a red link. Llammakey (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Oooh, I see what you mean now. That is clever, thank you for telling me! GGOTCC 00:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for looking at USCGC Violet (WAGL-250). I just wanted to let you know why I reverted your title change. You are absolutely correct that there is no current article on other Violet ships on the site, and I am aware that the pennant number is not supposed to be in the title when there is no ambiguity. However, I am currently writing an article on USLHT Violet, the 1870 tender which preceded the Violet in this article. Given that both vessels were named USLHT Violet during their careers, I thought the pennant number could be helpful in steering readers to the content they desire. Jordanroderick (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not really, since the pennant number only applies to the Coast Guard part of the career. If it were disambiguated for USHLT, it would have to be by date the ship was launched, since the lighthouse service did not use pennant numbers to my knowledge. So USLHT Violet (1870) and USLHT Violet (1930). Is there a USCGC Violet from after the ship left service? Either way, there should be a USLHT Violet (1930) redirect for USCGC Violet. Llammakey (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Or conversely, you could rename the page to its first name, and then have the redirect for the Coast Guard name. Llammakey (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Moxy 🍁 19:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for helping with the Normandy Massacres article. I do know about that policy you referenced, but my interpretation is that it is referring to lists as stand-alone articles (italicizing mine): "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy..." I tried to find something more specific before making the list, but only found some Wikipedia essays debating the merits for, and against having lists within broader articles that do meet the notability criteria, such as the one in question.

Are you aware of any specific policies against lists within articles (rather than lists as stand-alone articles)? If not, then perhaps we should escalate this so that we can get a definitive answer rather than speculating.

Take care,

CplKlinger (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, only people who would pass WP:GNG can be listed in an article. So a list of crew members of a ship, people on an aircraft, those that died in a mudslide, nuclear accident, etc. can only be listed if they themselves pass WP:GNG. This also means that the list itself is not a source of notability, no matter how many times it has been printed. Llammakey (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the policy I'm interpreting a bit differently; I read "subjects of articles" to mean what the entire article is about, rather than pertaining to one sub-section within a broader article. I'll reach out to some help sections to get another perspective on this, but I promise I won't touch the article until then!

Take care,

CplKlinger (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I will also take this to MILHIST to get more opinion this. Llammakey (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Coming here from the MILHIST message -- I've also long read NOTMEMORIAL as prohibiting the sort of list CplKlinger added to Normandy massacres. However, it seems like reams and reams of ink have been spilled on the talk page/elsewhere over this specific point and that there's no consensus for it.

Without that, I might still lean against including the list simply because it's so long, but that would be a good discussion for the article talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The person I heard back from said something similar to Ed's point, so I'll leave the list off. Thanks both of you for your time.

CplKlinger (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This action you performed on the John Shaw (schooner) page is partly inaccurate. With the exception of NOAA, every source, including contemporary reports, refer to the vessel as John Shaw, rather than John L. Shaw. The name on the vessel's stern also indicated this. ✠Salty magnolia✠ 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I was going by the article. I will change the article accordingly and move the article to the proper title. Llammakey (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it back. ✠Salty magnolia✠ 13:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why, on SSVienna, the entry for SSVienna(1929) has to be twice as long as any of the others. And why she has to have the vague and over-long description of "passenger ship", instead of the accurate and concise description "ferry". And why the "SS Vienna" page has to name the builder of SS Vienna 1929, when it does not name the builders of any of the other five ships on the same page.

Your reversion of my edit makes clear that maintaining messy inconsistencies is vital to you. But please justify your commitment to messy inconsistency in this particular case. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The personal attack is not necessary. This is your final warning Motacilla. I have told you before about your behaviour. It is a set index page, which means it can be expanded into a full list with details for all the ships named Vienna. I put the link into my edit. It is not a disambiguation page and details can be added to the other ships if you like. Add citations, have fun, but I warn you to keep your attitude in check. Just FYI, a ferry can be a passenger ship. Llammakey (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A Scandinavian I know remarked that the cruise ship we were boarding looked like a ferry.File:Nordlandia_arriving_in_Tallinn_13_August_2012.JPG Donald Albury 20:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

hey bud you are screwing up the facts are you illiterate or mentally handicapped the MV Queen of New Westminster was not launched July 31st 1964 think about it that would have given them 5 days to fit her out if you do proper research she was launched on May 12 1964 and entered service August 4th 1964 I work at BC Ferries and the Queen of New Westminster is my favorite ship so I will now clean up your mess but if you change it again I will have serious problems because you are probably nobody and you can find this stuff out and realize you are making up stuff it's people like you that create issues because you think you know it all but really know nothing and yes I am very upset because I spent 2 hours updating the information and correcting everything so do some research and back off. Pacificnorthwestspotter (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You want to report me go ahead I will report you as well you cannot make falsified inaccurate information and I am sorry for snapping but the Queen of New Westminster is my favorite ship ever and I am extremely protective of her and I am very defensive of incorrect inaccurate and false information being spread and from what I can see you have done this to other articles as well.. Pacificnorthwestspotter (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You are in violation of our policy against personal attacks. I advise you to not make any further personal attacks, and to apologize to Llammakey. Donald Albury 23:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I left this comment a few days ago for the user who started this article by translating from Portugese. "Please check the 1915 dates in the last paragraph of the article. They appear inconsistent with the first sentence which states that Portugal entered World War I in 1916. Either the 1915 dates should be 1916, or the entry into World War I date is irrelevant to the article." I have received no reply although I noted the user has been online since my message was posted. You edited the article after the initial entry. Am I mistaken? If not, can you fix the apparent inconsistency? Any other comment? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the sentence/paragraph is trying to establish that Portugal was neutral at the outset of World War I and the cruiser was enforcing neutrality patrols, but the nation eventually entered the war in 1916. It is written poorly, but that is understandable as this is a translation from the Polish wiki. I have refined the wording to better reflect the sources. Llammakey (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Llammakey,
I noticed that you changed the dates on the page about USS Umpqua (AT-25) in this edit, saying that the US Navy uses DMY rather than MDY. Out of curiosity, could I see a source or something for that? I'm used to using MDY for American vessels.
Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The US military generally uses DMY.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

But doesn't the MoS for dates says to use MDY for the United States? I don't get why military vessels are suddenly the exception to that rule. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

However, in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one. For example, articles (including biographical articles) on the modern US military should use DMY dates, in accordance with US military usage. Not according to the MOS. Also, please use the existing ship infobox templates instead of your own, homemade ones. This will allow other editors to edit the articles. Llammakey (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the elaboration, I'll keep that in mind going forward.

What do you mean by my "own, homemade ones?" I use "infobox ship" that appears in templates. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at the discussion on Template talk:Infobox person, I wanted to make sure you saw my response. I hate the idea that you would think I would advocate for a solution that would make it harder for someone with color blindness. Please know that is 100% NOT my intention and (as I said in my response) my goal is actually the exact opposite. Sorry if it came across as though I was being dismissive in any way shape or form. SO not my intention. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 20:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I've been doing a bit of category maintenance lately, and I came across IRIS Bandar Abbas. It's in the category:Ships built in Germany, but the box lists the builder as being in Bushehr, Iran. In trying to figure out what was going on, I noticed this edit of yours that changed the builder in the box. Do you remember if there was a reason you changed it, or did you copy the box from another article by mistake? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe I copied the infobox from another ship article, but forgot to change out the builder. Sorry. Llammakey (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I'll take care of it - thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Llammakey, I noticed your edits to some of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer articles today. I have some suggested updates to five other destroyer Wikipedia articles, mostly single sentences about the keel-laying. If I present them to you, would you be open to publishing them?--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Uh sure, if there is a citation involved. Llammakey (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Llammakey, Yes I have sources for all the suggestions. I drafted all the suggested content in my sandbox talk here. Would it be helpful for me to post each sentence on each respective ship's talk page?--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Nope. It is done. I added some wording and cleaned up the cites, but they have all been added now. Hope that helps.Llammakey (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 15:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too! Llammakey (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks }} to user talk pages. GGOTCC 00:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you and best wishes in the coming year. Llammakey (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't posted at the talk page of WP:NCIH for several hours, now. Your WP:BLUDGEON accusation, is premature. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Disagree - You have posted 10 times in a discussion with such insightful comments such as Disagree. and twice stating it would be "chaotic" or introduce "chaos". Shall I go on? The reality is that the NHL has started using diacritics and we need to find a new way forward but that is for consensus to decide. Llammakey (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If somebody pings me there for an answer, I won't respond. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Claes Uggla (ship) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary ship index, listed ships are disambiguated by different spellings and hatnotes linking between them

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

I have no problem with this. They are naturally disambiguated. Llammakey (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I was caught up by the block of another user (right in the middle of editing too.) Llammakey (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Let me have a look. Are you using a public internet connection? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenience, but auto-blocking is a necessary instrument to prevent socks from immediately creating another account. I'm not sure if you are on a public or shared IP address. But the simplest solution if you are, is to find another connection for the next 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No problems. I understand why. Thank you for the effort. It is a shared network and that the nature of this shared network makes me extremely disappointed in that other user. Extremely disappointed. Llammakey (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering that you have a long history of good contribs, consider IP block exemption if you edited from where you are before and will be there a while/often. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. Llammakey (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Er, sorry about the template, not sure what's up with that. You're not blocked directly. Your proxy is, though. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't due to the nature of the network as I do not have that level of administrator rights. Llammakey (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. Alright, I'll give you IPBE. How long will you need to be on this network? Are we talking weeks? months? years? -- asilvering (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's go 3 months and I will ask for extensions from there if I need it. As for how long before I retire - 11 years. But here's hoping the vandal who shares my network goes before me. 23:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I still cannot edit on the network. Is there any possibility of an IPBE? @Asilvering:? Llammakey (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Llammakey, I didn't get your earlier ping because you closed it with five tildes. Granting now, sorry about that. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem, thank you Asilvering. Llammakey (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Norröna when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert }} template can be complex and I encourage you to read its documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it and when conversion errors are present they will show up in red. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that on my preview. Thanks for fixing the error. Llammakey (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ahoy! Special:Contributions/Ss jb ford-14189 It appears they are editing the same ship and other articles Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard did before they were blocked. I just wanted to give a heads up to you if you see them adding unsourced material.

Have a good one. Brotherbenz (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I know. I got attacked at ANI by some other editors and have no intention of going back there. Let those two editors deal with the fallout. Llammakey (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw, you know how Wiki is these days. Brotherbenz (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Llammakey

Hyphens. I'm not about to undo your changes, but I'm just wondering why it was necessary to remove hyphens, when the linked pages articles all use hyphens?

• Arun-class lifeboat
• Bay-class lifeboat
• Cape-class motor lifeboat

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. In "Arun-class lifeboat" Arun-class acts as a compound adjective to the noun lifeboat and is hyphenated. When you use just "Arun class", it is acting as the noun and not hyphenated. Llammakey (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Llammakey

Good luck making all the changes..

Only another 400+ pages to go!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Eventually I will get around to the British pages, but for now, I will stick with the Canadian pages. Llammakey (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Llammakey

Much as I can't say you aren't correct, sometimes its better to let it go!

I have no intentions of getting involved in any other Canadian lifeboat pages, hopefully the contributions to the Bay (no hyphen) class have been acceptable.

There is considerable interest of these boats on this side of the water - can't help but feel that the RNLI are missing a trick not commissioning some, seeing as the construction workforce is all in place, and ready to go now the 20 are built.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your interest in this page. I just wanted to explain why I reverted your move. There was, as I mentioned in the article, an earlier USCGC Pequot which was decommissioned by the Coast Guard in 1922 (see https://www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Water/All/Article/2527729/pequot-1919/). I thought it was valuable to add the pennant number to eliminate any potential ambiguity between Pequot I and Pequot II. Thanks! Jordanroderick (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas , a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to 2000ドル (2680ドル) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 20:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please submit a new request by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed that you left a very strong Template:Uw-vandalism4im on User talk:~2026-24438-41. However I do not understand your reasoning, since it appears that their only edit was this: Special:Diff/1350285077. While it was not a thoroughly explained removal of information, their edit summary was not misleading, and I see no reason to assume this was not done in good faith, looking at what they removed. In addition, they were reverted and properly templated with Template:Uw-delete1 just one minute after they made their edit, almost nine hours before your additional warning. In light of this, do you really think this warning was appropriate? Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 23:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a repeat vandal who has previously been banned see User:At0068308 IP hopping to commit the same acts of vandalism on the same pages. Before you tell me to go to ANI, I did that with another IP hopping vandal and was attacked by another editor, so I have no intention of ever going back there. However, I will slap that template on the IP's page to track At0068308's behaviour so on the chance somebody else wants to go to the cesspool of ANI, they can follow the breadcrumbs. Llammakey (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I understand a bit better now. Still, while I get your reticence about going to ANI (I am trying my streak of never having to go there ever as well), wouldn't this situation be fit for WP:RPP? I am not very familiar about how they do things, but if the disruption is from one banned editor jumping around TAs and focused on a specific set of pages, maybe it could be appropriate. I could make the request myself as well if you'd rather avoid the admin noticeboards entirely. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 13:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do. I would prefer to never interact with the admin boards again. Thank you. Btw, that editor did it over at Jake Oettinger today, so even these tags do not stop them. Llammakey (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Ended up going to ANI. Llammakey (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh damn, I am so sorry, I completely forgot to follow through... I commented at your report to vouch for it, glad you made it still, and sorry about the crazy allegations that forced your hand. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 12:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your aid Choucas0. Happy editing. Llammakey (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Since when is "editing out" biased writing and political propaganda that is meant to disparage, and writing a full justification and reasoning behind it as such considered vandalizing? I call it what it is, "editing" and it's up to Wikipedia to approve my "edit" or not and review my justification for requesting to do so. Sounds like the proper process if you ask me. Wikipedia should certainly be more selective in what gets published or not. Someone's sports accolades are one thing, and whether or not they were able to attend an honoring ceremony shortly after is not worthy and is propaganda fodder made to create political division and smear one's reputation and standing, when the athlete has their own personal reasons, commitments, schedule for doing or not doing so, and is not Wikipedia's business politicize their lives in doing so. I would do the same for every Team USA hockey gold medalist who had to go rejoin their teams for games the next day or go see their families on the other side of the country or Canada for that matter where their clubs are after being rerouted to Miami and not NY as originally planned. Its propaganda and maybe YOU should be warned for allowing such garbage to even be included in the first place! But we know what motivates that axe to grind... TDS!!! And it is unfortunately to your discredit that it is so. Wikipedia is otherwise a plethora for information when it comes to history, and sometimes there are various points of view out there that deserve mention. But this garbage of which 5 nhl players "skipped" the WH ceremony and the liberal TRUMP hating rags that wrote that garbage in the first place being used as a source says a lot! These athlete's who were unable to make it is not even Wikipedia worthy info, just disparaging propaganda meant to hurt and tarnish a young champion's reputation. It is nothing other than political propaganda of the lowest order! ~2026-20258-40 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Your account is blocked, so if you want to continue editing, appeal your block. Alternatively, touch grass. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Llammakey (talk ·contribs ) Please rename (move) the article Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates to Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate. I currently do not have the ability to do this myself. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Hope that helps! Llammakey (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Llammakey (talk ·contribs ) Thank you. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)