thank you for your contributions and attention to detail!! :) xRozuRozu • teacups 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Unruffled, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Unruffled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Unruffled), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coast Guard Star
		I hereby award you The Coast Guard Star for your recent efforts to correct the website name of the U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office website to a much better descriptor on multiple Coast Guard cutter articles as well a numerous minor corrections in style in at least a dozen different cutter articles. This marks only the eleventh time that The Coast Guard Star has been awarded. Thank you for your efforts to improve Coast Guard related article content. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Greatly appreciated Lyndaship (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

Hello Lyndaship, I think you just solved a mystery that I've been wondering about since 2019-2020. I've just read WP:JUDI which explains passive spamming. Brooklyn was a pretty interesting case of this. They actually were actively advertising the Wikipedia article Brooklyn on the web. I figured it might be because of an external link on the page - something like "Old Brooklynites Club" - which got usurped and had gambling ads on it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Who was advertising the article on the web? It doesn't fit the usual link pattern of Judi but there seems to be many outliers when it comes to gambling links which may or may not be related. It mystifies me as to why they usurp thousands of domains, someone has suggested it might be China related and an attempt to get around the prohibition of gambling there. It only really becomes a problem for us when refill updates a bareurl and wayback redirects the link to a usurped page Lyndaship (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back a ways. I probably have some notes somewhere, or even better emails I sent e.g. to WMF technical people asking "WTF is this?" I might have even started a draft of a Signpost article. But off the top of my head, I first noticed the ad in emails I got from "Market Watch" on what stories they had online. Market Watch is a Dow Jones/Rupert Murdoch publication, something like The Wall Street Journal, Junior. Their email notices had an ad inside and all it did was say something like Brooklyn is an amazing place, read about in on Wikipedia (with link). I doubt this type of ad is very expensive - or very effective either. Ultimately I googled some text from the ad and got one (1) hit. It was to an Italian department store - maybe down on it's luck - which had the same ad. I'll go to an 2020 version of Brooklyn to see if I can find the old gambling ad.

Bingo! on Dec. 5 2019 in the external links section is a link to the web page "Society of Old Brooklynites" [1] which still links to a gambling site. Note that in the current Brooklyn article there is not that link, just in older articles. But the link still goes to a gambling site! If i recall correctly there are archived versions of the website on the Wayback Machine, when it was still run by old Brooklynites, and then after it became a gambling site. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating but I don't think it's related to JUDI. Looking at the Societyofoldbrooklynites page it highlights in person gambling in Brooklyn but still has other content, Judi will replace all content with ONLINE gambling - see ref2 on Frederick Eckstein. Wayback shows the brroklyn page normal in 2012, usurped to a Japanese loan site in 2014, redirected to viagra in 2016 and this new glossy page in 2019. The new page seems like some tourist boards attempt to sell Brooklyn. Possibly they placed lots of small ads to generate traffic? Lyndaship (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) When I looked at whois for a sample of usurped domains, they are all over the place in location and style, there is no consistent signal of a large entity making registrations. Unless they are really good at whois obfuscation. The JUDI thing is a big mystery. -- GreenC 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreenC you're welcome to stalk my talk page. I always thought JUDI was Chinese related although many things didn't tie up but just come across this [2] so maybe Indonesian after all. I don't understand most of it but maybe you will Lyndaship (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in fact theres loads there [3] google indonesian gambling sites buying domains Lyndaship (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! We should include these links somewhere on the JUDI page. -- GreenC 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi;) Don't you think that doubling the links in entries like Italian ship Albatros misleads the reader by pointing twice to the Pegaso-class torpedo boat? Zala (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be misleading as they both go to the same place but sure not ideal? However, redirecting a red link to the class article provides additional information and context from the any other articles it is on Lyndaship (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to replace such links to non-existent articles on en.wiki with the Template:Interlanguage link template? See example: [4] Zala (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the ships MOS it says if no individual page is available for a ship redirect to the class article but I can see the benefit of using an interlanguage link if a decent article exists on another wiki but this does not work with a redirect and would have to be added to each individual article the red link appears on. However. others might prefer just the redirect. The example you give is poor as it is a dab/set index page Lyndaship (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so. Here's a better example of a my featured article using the Template:Interlanguage link template: [5] Zala (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Dear Lyndaship, Thanks for your work yesterday on this article (which you will have noted that I edited myself earlier yesterday). The title of this article is not consistent with our naming standards, so can you please re-name it to "English ship Rosebush (1653)"?

There are a number of articles on pre-1660 English warships (and until 1707 these were always English, rather than British) which were incorrectly given the prefix "HMS", and these need to be corrected (see the full list of vessels involved in the article on early English warships). I have made the point on several occasions that the term "His Majesty's Ship" did not come into being until 1660, when the English Commonwealth (which was of course republican, and specifically excluded having any king) ceased to exist, and the Royal Navy was constitutionally established as an entity separate from the monarchy itself. Before the execution of Charles I in 1649, vessels of the King's Navy (and they were, unlike post 1660, the personal property of the King) can be identified as ships of the Kingdom of England.

Perhaps I should make the separate point also about the term "ship", which nowadays is casually given to almost every vessel that floats (except 'boats', which term should be limited to vessels without a deck). This was not true in the sailing era, when the term "ship" was specifically limited to vessels with a three-masted or four-masted rig. Two-masted vessels were never called ships, but more specifically given the name associated with their rig (e.g. brig or ketch). This was a situation fully understood for day-to-day use prior to the middle of the nineteenth century by anyone who had anything to do with the sea (whether mariners or not). This meant that naval brigs (for example) were always prefixed by "His Majesty's Brig" in all contemporary writing and archives, and never as "His Majesty's Ship". The prefix, where is was given in the archives (and the acronym itself only dated from about 1789, previously the term was always given in full), was thus "HMB" rather than "HMS". Regards, Rif Rif Winfield (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rif Winfield: I have moved that page as you suggested but unless there is another English ship by that name the 1653 dab is not required. Generally you can move any pages yourself (tools at top of page - move).

I think everyone accepts your point about pre 1660 ships being English and not HMS and I'll happily move them if you wish.

Your point about ships and brigs, ketches etc was not something I knew. The ships project MOS says that ship should be used in the title rather than the type of ship so you would need to start a conversation at WT:SHIPS to change that Lyndaship (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am not confident with renaming of articles, so would prefer you to do this to correct inaccuracies.

I'm grateful for your kind offer to move pre-1660 ships from "British" to "English", and would hope that you can do so (actually, all pre-1707 ships should be English rather than British where they are incorrectly described). I am happy to amend the article on List of early warships of the English Navy, to correct all these ships mis-described in that article, and shall do so as and when time allows.

I think that it is going to be too difficult at this time to amend all the articles using "HMS" for two-masted vessels to "HMB" or whatever; I just wished to make sure that you were aware of this error for future reference. Having spend years delving through the archives at Greenwich and Kew (to which I am no longer able to travel), it has been an error which has always stuck out like a sore thumb.

If you would like to consult me on any other matter relating to warships (you probably know that I have researched and published books on French and Spanish sailing warships as well as English/British warships), rather than do everything through the Wiki talk pages, you can always email me on "tanparcau@btopenworld.com". Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

Hello @Lyndaship, In this edit I think its best to use The ships because of Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 00:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:ESSAY which expresses one editors view. It does not trump WP:SHE4SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]