VintageCCG

Class names

Please refrain from making further changes until you have read the talk pages of the articles and the relevant policy. Llammakey (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that I would respond to whomever labelled all the CCG ship classes inaccurately, that they should correct these errors. Within the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, ship classes have their own officially assigned names as per CGOO 103.00 Ship Naming. At no time currently nor in the CCG's history have any ship classes ever been named for the "first in class'. Just isn't done that way, notwithstanding that some other fleets might follow that convention. We don't. If there is a means for me to provide more clarification beyond pointing out the objective true facts, then I am pleased to do so. http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 VintageCCG (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We are not a mouthpiece for the CCG. Please bring reliable secondary sources. Llammakey (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nor am I a "mouthpiece" for the CCG. I'm merely pointing out a series of factually inaccurate posts about CCG ship classes, based on actual knowledge of the truth. I cited the CCG policy on how they name ship classes. Why would you want to perpetuate incorrect information??VintageCCG (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Martha L. Black-class icebreaker. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to promote accuracy in a post, by correcting inaccurate information? There is no ulterior motivation, except that I am a researcher and I have knowledge of how the CCG names its ship classes, as per their policy that I cited. I'm not understanding your motivation to perpetuate inaccurate information. It's not a difference in opinion or interpretation ... it's simply not accurate. Would you mind clarifying why that is a problem?VintageCCG (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Furthermore, you must declare your obvious conflict of interest and refrain from editing areas within that conflict of interest per WP:COI. Failure to follow this rule can see you being banned. Llammakey (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no CoI, other than I have firsthand knowledge of how the CCG names its ship classes, as stated in the CG Operations Order 103.00 Ship naming which I cited. This is not about making the organization look good or benefiting in any way, but rather is an attempt to correct factually inaccurate information. Is there a better method to achieve that goal, rather than correcting it myself?VintageCCG (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the CCG classifies ships by role. Martha L. Black is in no way the same ship class as CCGS Griffon. Same for Frederick G. Creed and any other hydrographic survey vessel. You may know CCG policy, but you do not know ships. Aside from that, we use, and I will put this in as small of words since you have such a hard time understanding, secondary sources. They are sources not associated nor affiliated with the subject. That means the CCG does not define how we write ship articles if there are secondary sources. Jane's Fighting Ships calls the class the the Martha L. Black class. If we go by your rules, the article would have been called the Type 1200 prior to the 2010s when the CCG redid their classification system. The Type 1200s would also have to include CCGS Tracy and the Medium Icebreakers would include CCGS Norman Rogers and so on. So please stop calling it factually incorrect information, otherwise you will have to contact all three of the publishers of the books in the article and tell them they too are wrong. You most obviously have a COI, despite your pathetic denials and any further disruption on the matter will mean I will demand an investigation of you. Llammakey (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, not to belabour arguing the toss, but: 1. Both the Black and the Griffon are both classed as HEMTVs, despite being built about 15 years apart to different designs. They have the same capabilities and carry out the same missions. The alternative would be a fleet made up of dozens of single-ship classes, which would be confusing and unhelpful. One could argue the obvious design differences between the Edward Cornwallis/Sir William Alexander vs the Black, Pearkes, Laurier and Ann Harvey, yet they are all classified as HEMTVs because of their equivalent capabilities. 2. The classes were amended after the merger of 3 fleets in 1995, so some ships are not perfect fits such as the Frederick G Creed which is a unique SWATH design, and which today is classed as a Midshore Science Vessel. The CCG defines its classes, and it is not for other entities to invent class designations that don't exist. So you are citing erroneous or outdated "secondary sources" above authoritative primary sources. 3. The HEMTVs were in fact previously referred to as Type 1100s. T1200s were larger "Medium Icebreakers". And yes the CCGS Norman McLeod Rogers would have been classed as a Type 1200 or today a Medium Icebreaker. 4. The less capable ice-strengthened navaids tenders such as the CCGS Tracy were classified as Type 1000s and are now Medium Endurance Multi-Task Vessels (MEMTV). So yes I know CCG policies and after 39 years as a marine professional I know a bit about ships in general, notwithstanding your ad hominem attack and threat of "investigation". I would understand the concept of Conflict of Interest if I were seeking to revise subjective descriptions of the subject matter at hand in order to derive some sort of benefit, but that is not the case. Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source of information for many people, and I believe that it should reflect the most accurate information ... not an incorrect invention of ship classes based on some other organization's naming conventions. VintageCCG (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again...the CCG classify their ships according to use. That does not make it a ship class. In the equipment of the CCG page, you can see all the ships are lumped together according to the CCG designation, because that is where it makes sense to do that. I very much doubt you are a marine professional. You seem to not understand the difference between a ship classification, such as oil tanker, bulk carrier, destroyer and a ship class. If you had read the article ship class, you would see near the bottom that private classifications are based on use, and are not as such, a ship class. Maybe you worked on a ship, as a ship's cook or toilet scrubber but beyond that I very much doubt. And yes, I will be asking for an investigation. You seem to defend the CCG's way of doing things way too hard. Llammakey (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VintageCCG. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Is it a COI to be a retired former member of an organization, and to correct information that I know to be inaccurate?? Notwithstanding Llammakey's snide language and ad hominem attacks, I was a ship's captain and a senior staff officer for nearly 40 years and I administer a (non-paid) personal blog that researches and describes the history of the Canadian Coast Guard. I'd say that renders me as something of an expert on the matter at hand. This is a neutral request with no bias, agenda or benefit ... other than correcting inaccurate and misleading information being published in these articles. That misinformation will only confuse and mislead anybody who wishes to reference the ship class of a CCG ship. And your repeated insistence on referencing this wrong information as the defining identifier of these ships is the reason I have pursued this. The only other categorizations of relevance are the broad generic ship type (icebreaker, buoytender, patrol vessel, research ship) and the legislative classes applied by flag state and by Classification Societies. I will refrain from providing a lesson in the history of the CCG, which would clarify the etymology of the CCG's vessel class structure, other than to maintain that it is not appropriate for an ill-informed person to apply a naval convention to a civilian fleet's vessel classes. The two are different.VintageCCG (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

So hold on, you intend to do away with all of Wikipedia's policies on article construction for ships to insert the CCG way of doing things based on a decision that the CCG made about how they classify their vessels. Every other ship article is based on ship design and should the CCG discard the ships such as they did with CCGS W.E. Ricker, their class article would continue to be whatever designation the CCG was? So Norman Rogers' class article would continue to be Type 1200 even long after it had left CCG service? Is that how you want to construct these articles? Wait! What about the Chilean Navy? Don't they have a say on how Norman Rogers is classified? How about the new owners of CCGS Tracy and CCGS Matthew? Why should we be beholden to the CCG about ship classification? Isn't there some impartial people who decide what is a ship class aside from the CCG....let me see, who could that be? I know! Secondary sources!!!! OMG, if that hadn't been what I had been saying all along. Let me see those secondary sources, edited by much greater experts than you or I....oh they say that ship classes are based on design, not function, because functions change but the initial design doesn't? My good heavens...how smart! Captain does not make you an expert, nor does having a blog. Find me reputable secondary sources because personal experience doesn't count for crap here. Llammakey (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Setting aside your snide comments and instead dealing with the substance as I am seeking to discuss this respectfully in the face of your provocative comments (because yes, my background and knowledge DOES kinda make me a subject-matter expert) ... I understand the concept of a first-of-class naming convention WHERE APPROPRIATE. There is a reason why naval fleets follow this convention for a planned series of discrete vessels built to a common class. In the CCG on the other hand, where ships are built sporadically, often in ones and twos, or are inherited from previous fleets, that "first-of-class" nomenclature makes little or no sense. By that logic the fleet would consist of dozens of one-off orphan vessel "classes" that would not provide any useful rationale for grouping or distinguishing. I could continue rhyming off example after example to make my point, but let's just consider a few. In this example, Canada has been building large icebreaking buoytenders of a similar (evolving) profile for about 100 years. They bear superficial resemblance to other nations' buoytenders, but mostly are unique to Canada. But almost no two of them have been built identically, with the exception of a handful of pairs. Tupper / Simon Fraser, Bartlett / Provo Wallis, Edward Cornwallis(2) / Sir William Alexander(2) and a few others . Even the remaining T1100 / HEMTVs (Martha L Black, George R Pearkes, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ann Harvey) incorporate some substantial individual differences in their construction and systems, despite outward appearances (actually I believe the Pearkes and Black were built the same, but not the others). Built under distinct contracts by different shipyards and sub-contractors. They are not identical so it would be misleading to identify them as such, unlike say the new RCN AOPS series that will be essentially identical to the first-in-class after being built sequentially by Irving. What each CCG vessel class DOES have in common is (broadly) their configuration and their mission. So they are grouped by that rationale. So that is why both the Griffon and the Martha L Black are both HEMTV Class but the Sir William Alexander is by no means a Martha L Black Class. The latter two are visually distinct from each other, and have a different internal layout and different systems fitted aboard. Is it conceivable that some secondary source publication unknowingly applied a navy convention to some CCG ship classes? Sure, but that doesn't make it authoritative. As a colloquialism it can occasionally be useful, but by no means are these ships EVER officially identified primarily by those ship-name classes. The article references Maginley-Collin as a secondary source. Well I helped Doug Maginley with research for his latest CCG history, and in his books he references the same CCG nomenclature as I have been referencing. And I still maintain that when it comes to this context, primary source material is far more authoritative than secondary (such as Janes, which no longer consults directly with CCG management and which is more predominantly geared to a military clientele so can be forgiven for such a mis-characterization). The CCG knows best how to classify its ships ... as per its published standards as amended from time to time. You maintain that first-of-class nomenclature is the de facto standard for Wikipedia; I maintain that in the case of the CCG it is inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful. I pass no judgement on other uses of that format elsewhere. The Wikipedia articles can be helpful guidelines to understand the CCG ships and their fleet structure, but only if they use a nomenclature that is consistent with how these ships are classed in the real world. In the case of the current fleet of about 140 ships they are grouped into 17 major vessel classes as defined in the policy. It's a sometimes-confusing collection which is why Canada seeks to bring some clarity though its chosen vessel class structure. It works internally and is recognized externally. Applying someone else's protocols that are recognized nowhere other than the wikipedia article itself, is not helpful. I don't believe that respecting CCG nomenclature will undermine the foundations of Wikipedia and I acknowledge that my inexperience in editing these articles leaves me at a disadvantage in an editing pissing match. All I have on my side is my knowledge of the facts ... and I know that naming CCG ship classes by first-of-class is not accurate. I would ask you to consider the perspective of an unknowing reader seeing the article which uses that approach as a primary identifier of a CCG ship, when they will not encounter that same classification in any other context of that ship. Is winning an argument by perpetuating such misinformation more important to you than providing helpful accurate information?VintageCCG (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC) btw to answer your questions: 1. CCGS W.E. Ricker has few prospects for a continued operational life beyond the scrap-heap, so the class designation is moot. 2. The former CCGS Norman McLeod Rogers was a Type 1200 Medium Icebreaker / Gulf and river icebreaker in the context of its CCG Service; in another fleet under another name it can be whatever class its new owners apply. How is it useful for somebody to class it as a "Norman McLeod Rogers Class" Icebreaker?? Similarly with any other ship that is sold off. 3. Ships can be redesigned and reconfigured as easily as they can be re-purposed. Many ex-CCG ships have been reconfigured so as to be fundamentally changed in both form and function ... their classification wold change accordingly.VintageCCG (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, single-ship classes use their ship article as the class article. Secondly we go by secondary sources. The Miramar Ship Index says that the Martha L. Black class are lighthouse/buoy tenders, Equasis calls them lighthouse/buoy tender. Jane's Fighting Ships calls them icebreakers. The general media calls them icebreakers. AIS calls them buoy-laying vessels. No one but the CCG calls the HEMTS...so tell me once again how saying HEMTS is clear and presented in secondary sources? Let me explain this to you in small words once again...no one calls them HEMTS except the CCG. You keep moving the goalposts. I told you to bring me reliable secondary sources.

And no, it does not make you an expert. An expert publishes books which we can cite, like Maginley, though even his stuff has significant errors and verges into unreliable source, when the facts are double-checked against more reliable sources like Jane's Fighting Ships and other reliable publishers. A lot of the stuff published on sea-going matters around that time by Vanwell Publishing, including those books by Macpherson, Maginley and others are full of factual errors. They seem to be more concerned in those books of making sure the photos are correct then the details. If they were not the only secondary sources on things like the CCG, I would have taken them to the reliable sources board and had them struck. Maginley also uses the Type 1200/1100 sequence which has been superseded by your HEMTS stuff. As for the Provo Wallis class, the Pierre Radisson class, they too will get an article like the Martha L. Black class. I just wrote an article about CCGS Tanu, a single ship class of the CCG. Btw, it is not just the CCG that has tons of one-off classes. Go have a look at British or French cruiser design at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of them are one or two-ship classes. Just like when a destroyer becomes a training ship, the entire article doesn't change, even though structures, armament, propulsion might have changed. We go by what the secondary sources say and the secondary sources say that they are one class design of buoy tender/icebreaker, not HEMTS. Llammakey (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been following this with interest. I always find it useful when someone with specialist knowledge contributes to an article. However to repeat what Llammakey has said Wikipedia can only use reliable secondary sources even if you know what they say is wrong. You've offered a primary source to verify what is correct, would you accept a claim from the office of Donald Trump that he was a master of employee retention over the many secondary RS who point out his inability to keep his team together. No I thought not, so you see the problem here - the organisation says one thing and multiple RS say another, we have to go with the secondary sources, Wikipedia cannot judge, it just reflects what independent sources say. However I think it would be of benefit to readers to mention in the prose of the articles or by a footnote that the CCG do not use classes choosing to instead refer to them by Types. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Lyndaship (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lyndaship I get the point about secondary sources to avoid self-serving content from primary sources. But this isn’t that. Your Trump comparison kinda makes my point, since that deals with a subjective description that could be misrepresented by bias, for the purposes of self-interest. - In contrast to that, I’m simply pointing out that applying Llamakey’s preferred naming convention to CCG ship classes simply doesn’t reflect reality, and it is inappropriate due to the nature of CCG shipbuilding, which for most of its 140-odd ships (and historically for 150 years) has consisted mostly of ones and twos rather than series-type production. - By comparison, if the US Navy’s convention of referring to the second-in-command as the Executive officer were inadvertently applied to the CCG by some publication rather than the civilian convention of “Chief Officer”, would that somehow make it so? I say no … not if CCG primary sources confirm that all CCG 2nd-in-Commands are designated officially as Chief Officer. - In this case the secondary sources argument is weak. Llamakey cites ‘Janes Fighting Ships’ which is a navy-focused publication which traditionally includes civilian government fleets only as a somewhat-related side-piece, and errors of detail are common. In past decades there was annual correspondence between Janes’ editors and the CCG to update and correct their content … that dialogue no longer occurs, and without having the publication at hand I can only conclude that they unknowingly and erroneously applied a naval convention to a this civilian fleet. Without viewing llammakey's next secondary source Miramar perhaps they also derived their reference from Janes rather than from the definitive primary source. Lazy repetition or unwitting perpetuation of misinformation is common in the marine industry, and thus primary sources should be used for confirmation. Llammakey also cites Maginley-Collin who published three histories of the CCG and Canada’s Civilian Marine Service (even while he dismisses these histories as almost-unusably flawed, which they empirically are not). In fact, a quick review of the 3 Maginley books found only a single use of this "first-of-class" convention to describe the similarities between certain Medium Icebreakers and even then it was only an oblique reference and not a primary identifier. In any case, what could be more authoritative and definitive than a CCG policy document that says “this is how the CCG classes its vessels”?? Why should a Wikipedia editor be empowered to spread misinformation about a given topic. What is the benefit of that? - Frankly, if Llamakey would cease his personal attacks and dismissive tone then I would be willing to collaborate on ensuring the accuracy of articles involving CCG ships, which is supposed to be the point of Wikipedia. From the beginning he has mis-characterized my revisions as “vandalism”, “unconstructive editing” and “conflict of interest”, as well as using insulting and belittling language regarding my knowledge and expertise of this subject-matter, which exceed his. I believe that such an attitude lessens credibility, as opposed to conducting a respectful discussion. - I propose a compromise solution: include the CCG-defined vessel class in all articles describing CCG vessel classes. This would cause no harm to Wikipedia’s consistency and it would protect Wikipedia readers from being misled. Continuing to name the ship classes by exclusively by “first-of-class” will be annoying to those who know better (and is misleading and unhelpful as a reference), but at least the accurate information would be available as well. In summary TL/DR: 1. The convention cited by Llammakey for naming ship classes is inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful in the context of Canadian Coast Guard ships. 2. The secondary sources cited by Llammakey are of limited credibility compared to the primary sources cited by myself, and the secondary source Maginley-Collin refutes rather than supports his assertion. 3. This is not a dispute of any opinion or subjective description; rather it is a simple matter of factual accuracy. 4. There is no Conflict of Interest on my part, and this is not an attempt to manipulate an article for bias, agenda, or benefit to myself or to the CCG. As a retired former longtime employee and researcher, I merely happen to possess definitive knowledge and expertise on the subject of the Canadian Coast Guard and its Fleet of ships. My sole concern is to provide the most accurate information regarding the Canadian Coast Guard rather than perpetuating misinformation. 5. Including the CCG vessel class conventions as described in CG Operations Order 103.00 Ship Naming Policy when describing CCG ships and their classification would resolve the matter. http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 VintageCCG (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And I just checked Llammakey's other secondary source Equasis which also fails to support his claim, and which mis-identifies the newest Offshore Fishery Research Vessel CCGS Sir John Franklin as a 'Fishery Support Vessel'. That's why I prefer authoritative primary sources rather than dubious secondary sources.VintageCCG (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and I assure you I do not doubt your good faith or personal knowledge. I fear you miss the principal point though, Wikipedia is based on what secondary sources say, it does not matter that it is wrong (to Wikipedia). Both you (and I) prefer primary sources and will make our own judgments but Wikipedia does not, it will merely reflect what it judges as reliable secondary sources have decided - it is not any one editors preference. Rereading your response though aren't we proposing the same compromise, add the CCG-defined vessel class information to all relevant articles in the prose cited to your primary source - something along the lines of "The Canadian Coastguard refer to these vessels as the xxxx class (or xxxx type)" ref. I think that would be ok, indeed its of benefit to readers Lyndaship (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Lyndaship and yes, I guess it's essentially the same compromise. It seems I'm approaching this wrong ... instead of presenting factual evidence and my own credentials to support my position, maybe I should go cherry-pick from less credible sources as Llammakey is doing. It just galls me that citing demonstrably flawed secondary sources - even when several of those sources don't support the point being made(!!) - is sufficient justification to perpetuate a series of articles containing misleading/inaccurate information. That seems to accomplish the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to aspire to. And all for what ... so that some wannabe editor can avoid being contradicted by someone who actually possesses subject-matter expertise?? Where is it even demonstrated that the convention Llammakey is promoting is even consistent with all other similar occurrences on Wikipedia, or that his "sources" support what he is claiming?? If I produce some secondary sources that support what the primary source material has already clearly proven, then can I re-introduce that or can Llammakey repeatedly make false accusations of vandalism and Conflict of Interest. At the end of the day, if somebody walked on board one of these ships and referred to it as Llammakey is doing, everyone present would immediately know that that person was (at best) mistaken or was (at worst) an ill-informed poseur.VintageCCG (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I recognise the contradiction you have identified as to what Wikipedia is and what people think and assume it should be. Adding the info as suggested will enable the reader to appreciate that there is a difference between the official designation of class and types and the accepted reliable secondary sources designations. CCG is not my area of interest so I have none of the written RS mentioned to check but I very much doubt if Llammakey would be wrong in his assertions as to what they state. If there are accepted RS which support the official primary source I think it would be best to discuss that at the talk page of individual articles you wish to change or to raise it at WT:SHIPS if it involves multiple articles so that a local consensus can be made if those RS should be used to define the classes and types rather than the existing RS. I do feel its most likely though that the end result would be that both views should be mentioned in the articles just as we have suggested here. Thank you for your continuing efforts to make Wikipedia better Lyndaship (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh I missed one of your questions. The policy for the naming of articles is WP:COMMONNAME it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) Lyndaship (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello VintageCCG. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Martha L. Black-class icebreaker, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:VintageCCG. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=VintageCCG|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. You have just admitted in your last spiel that you were an employee of the CCG Llammakey (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

FFS dude, stop with the false accusations and attacks. First you dispute my knowledge and expertise, then you claim I'm "obviously" an insider who is paid to advocate for the organization. Which is it?? I have stated multiple times that I am retired from the Canadian Coast Guard. I spent (past tense) over 38 years in developing my expertise, thus I know more about it than you do. Perhaps you could concede that point, instead of seeking to belittle my command of the subject matter. Next, the CCG is a neutral civilian Canadian government. Employees and past employees are typically both loyal to their colleagues and critical of their management. The two kinda balance out. Further, as a hobby I research the history of the agency on my own time because it interests me to do so. Thus I have even more expertise (which you continue to dispute) and yet again I derive no personal benefit from that. Third, the nature of my edit in no way includes any subjective content that could give the agency nor myself any profit or benefit. I have stated that numerous times. I could ask what YOU stand to gain by creating a bunch of articles relating to the CCG? And why do you dispute such a minor edit so aggressively? My only objective is to minimize the perpetuation of false or misleading information, because there is too much of it in the world and I find it exasperating, and a hindrance to those seeking to learn. Yet again, I am seeking to identify the ship classes of the CCG fleet by their proper names and not by an inaccurate and misleading convention , which you somehow insist is some globally mandatory convention, which it is not. Besides being wrong about the convention itself, you are wrong about some of the ships to which you have applied it. Fine if you are ignorant of the subtleties of the subject, and you have misinterpreted secondary sources or have chosen them poorly. I have already discovered that one of your sources doesn't even state what you claim it does. Your credibility decreases at every turn, so maybe you should disclose why you are seeking to force inaccurate information into these articles. I previously offered to collaborate to ensure the most accurate information is posted to Wikipedia, and you met that offer with more foundless accusations. Between you and I, which one is acting like he has an agenda? VintageCCG (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I gain absolutely nothing. I have no connection to the CCG, nor the government. My sources are not ill-informed, they are just not the CCG and choose to not follow CCG policy blindly. If you have issues about sources, take it the reliable sources board. You are mistaken as to how Wikipedia works. I already incorporated your HEMT stuff into the Martha L. Black-class icebreaker article. As for the paid stuff, did you or did you not make money off working with Maginley? Do you get paid for writing/researching about the CCG? If you do, then you are a paid editor with a conflict of interest. I posted that for your information, because as I just said, you do not understand how Wikipedia works. My suggestion is to go write something about a topic you are not connected to, like cats. I asked if you were connected to the CCG, and you denied it earlier, then changed your tune. You are not an expert any more than a soldier is an expert about soldiering, or a chef is about cooking. A blog does not make you an expert, researching does not make you an expert. That is if you even are who you say you are. You could also claim to the King of Tunisia for all I know. You still haven't brought any secondary sources that say that is what the ships should be called. Until you do, the titles remain and any further editing will still be considered vandalism. Llammakey (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)