User talk:GraemeLeggett

For previous talk see User talk:GraemeLeggett/ Archive 1, User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 2 User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 3

330th Bombardment Group

Thank you for your assistance on this page.

It is most appreciated.--B29bomber (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I do what I can, sometimes it helps. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group (VH)

I appreciate, to some extent, your efforts on the 330th BG's webpage. A little frustrating on my part with all the back and forths. At first considering it vandalism, then trying to understand that you apparently have your reasons.

I want to include a blurb on the fact that the 330th played no direct role in the atomic bombings of Japan. As the historian for the group, I keep getting asked this question. As these men age, their accolades for themselves seem to keep growing and growing as they keep telling their family and friends how they were the backup aircarft for the 509th Composite Squadron (who dropped the atom bomb). This is complete falacy and my only goal is to NOT detract from the valor of the 509th.

What is the best way to approach this topic?

I was thinking along the lines of> "On a special note, it has come to our attention that there are several fictional accounts stating that the 330th BG's aircraft and men were directly involved with the 509th Composite Group dropping of atomic weapons over Japan during WWII. Please disregard these as complete and absolute fiction as the 330th BG played no direct role in this historic task."

But you deleted it. So is there a better way to address this topic?

Many thanks

B29bomber (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Question, I put statement in a similar format to what you had suggested. However, I am unclear as to how to reference it. The information is contained here 509th Composite Group and shows which aircraft and bomb groups were involved with the atomic missions. I would like to reference this page as supporting documentation. Again, I am the official historian for the 330th BG and there is NO information to support these outlandish claims that we were the backup for the atom bomb drops. Totally false info.

Many thanks again!!!!! B29bomber (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lutzow

If you carefully read english source [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=OiKxyqNp8SUC&q=Lutzov#v=onepage&q=Lutzow&f=false) pages from 119 till 128 - you've found following statement in article is incorrect

• As a part of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, Lützow was sold incomplete to the Soviet Union in 1939
• Stalin believed the Lützow to be important because of its new 203-mm naval guns, along with their performance characteristics
• she was sunk upright in shallow waters in Kronstadt Bay in September 1941
• September 17, 1942 and renamed her Tallinn
• Stalin believed the Lützow to be important because of its new 203-mm naval guns, along with their performance characteristics
• She saw action again in December 1942
• then scrapped in 1953 at the Lieutenant Schmidt Bridge in Leningrad (it's really fun claim - for everyone who at least visit Leningrad wiki-page:))

Also would be nice to have an explanation - "foreign language sources" - which source would be more detailed - national about national vessels or third party not described vessels itself (like? Google can help with translation). So a question - reliability or grammar? German sources for German vessels Russian sources for Russian vessels - wrong at WP? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those points are in the article and sourced, therefore they stand. If you have sources with different information they should add to the article not replace the sourced statements. A foreign language source can be more accurate than an English language one, but it can also be inaccurate - but that is not the point, the point is Wikipedia:Verifiability (see also non english sources ) In terms of wikipedia both sources are correct even if contradictory.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So can you find at source date when she renamed as "Tallin"? When it was sold to USSR? Actually I was unable to comprehend you revert to text different than stated in source mentioned? Google books has plenty english sources for "Lutzow 1940 string". While Schwendemann H. Die wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und der Sowjetunion von 1938 bis 1941. Berlin, 1993 avialable in English as http://www.archive.org/details/documentsongerma014726mbp. Reliability or grammar? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - when HMS Triumph (R16) visit Leningrad in 1955 Dniepr (Lutzow) appeared near her at photos:)Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• My referenced edit was undone [1] - what's wrong with referenced (and correct)data?ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask the editor - it might have been down to the poor grammar of the addition, or that the addition disagreed with the source they added.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - so 1940 - it a poor grammar of the 1939:)Jo0doe (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was sold in 1939, but the goods did not change hands until 1940. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help here [2] now - one more unreferenced article at WP less.

I also hope that you agreed that is very uncommon to sell before signing a contract for selling. While as the point is Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS we simply should to follow as for instance DOCUMENTS ON GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY 1918-1945 SERIES D (1937-1945) VOLUME VIII THE WAR YEARS September 4, 1939-March 18, 1940 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON * 1954 p.764 (or dozen other sources which indicate the same) - were stated that the Lutzow was sold under Economic Agreement of February 11, 1940, Between the German Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were clearly stated

1. Naval construction. Cruiser ex-Lutzow: After launching, the hull and all the equipment, armament, spare parts, etc., to be delivered for completion in the USSR, with 80 percent of the total to be delivered within 12 months of the signature of the Economic Agreement, the rest within 15 months. Complete plans, specifications, working drawings, and trial results of ex.-Lutzow plus informa- tion on the performance of Seydlitz and Prinz Eugen or Admiral Hipper. Plans for battleship Bismarck and a large destroyer with 15 cm. guns ; complete ma- chinery for a large destroyer.

While actually "change hands" happened in April 1940 - after telegram from Moscow - [3] ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does it make sense to rewrite article in stile ofHMS Agincourt (1913). Per WP:UNDUE Rename to Heavy cruiser Petropavlovsk (1940) ((Name for 1940- 1944; Tallin for longer time – but not as active ship) ?ThanksJo0doe (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deutschland

Date of renaming to Lutzow in article seems incorrect [4] as far as well accepted fact that it happened (Hitler order) after Admiral Graf Spee sunk. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Basis Nord

[5] - Actually Philbin does not indicate tonnage, nor stated Germany initially procured the necessary supplies for its U-boats to use at the base and sent them first to Murmansk It used the merchant ships Cordillera (12,055 grt), Phoenicia (4124 grt) and Sachsenwald (650 grt) for these purposes - it's WP:SYN - since source does not claim that mentioned ship delivered supplies for its U-boats and made a procurement of torpedos at Livinston, Guatemala and Curacao :).ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Regards to your recent edit [6] - note - none of four Sachsenwald listed [7] can be at Murmansk in Dec 1939 see -

1. Sachsenwald (1) - 1917 seized by USA, renamed General O.H. Ernst.
2. Sachsenwald (2) 1931 scrapped.
3. Sachsenwald (3) built in 1944
4. Sachsenwald (4) ex- Somerville, 1950 purchased from Norway renamed Sachsenwald :) Note - 650 grt - it's very small vessel. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of RAF stations

Hi Graeme. I've reverted your reversion of the Welsh stations. I note your statement that former stations are listed under the then administrative areas, but this is simply not true. There are numerous examples on the list where the contemporary area has been used, even though the station was closed long before the area was created. Frankly, the list is a bit of a mess, without any consistency, and with some dreadful spelling mistakes (I've corrected Afghanistan). In any case, Wikipedia UK policy is quite clear: use contemporary areas when describing geographical locations, not historical counties. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

I saw you had started work on this list. You should be aware that since the featured list criteria requires the use of tables, might I suggest using the same formatting as List of battlecruisers of Germany so all of the lists that are a part of WP:OMT will have the same format. It goes without saying that the list has been singled out as needing to become a FL for the project. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require the use of tables, it says reasonable use of tables (and table features) which reads to me that you don't have to force the use of tables - not all featured lists are tabulated. In this case tables will probably be useful but it might be appropriate for the list to be a single sortable table.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Escort carriers

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I am an admiring fan of your work on naval articles. I notice you recently deleted the RN aircraft ferries from the listing I had prepared of various ship types performing similar missions. I had originally included them in a relatively comprehensive comparison because of the importance of aircraft carriers in transporting combat aircraft to forward bases, but I acknowledge the significant difference about launch capability. I confess my references did not contain detailed information about the loading and offloading capabilities of the RN aircraft ferries. Have you evaluated the USS Kitty Hawk (AKV-1) article to see how the USN aircraft ferries compared to the RN ships? I suggest making the tabular listing consistent whatever the decision about launch capability as a criterion for inclusion. I have seen photographic evidence of deck-loading CVE and MAC ships with numbers of aircraft which would preclude unloading via deck launch, and photographic evidence suggests USS Langley (CV-1) lost deck launch capability in its final aircraft transport configuration.Thewellman (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The ferries are one element, wether the small ones that ferried aircraft from port to CAMs and MACs or the larger ones, and at times carriers were used as ferries but on the whole they need treatment separately to the escort carriers. Might I suggest a List of aircraft ferries or List of aircraft-carrying ships to list the ferries and then work on that to build up. For the RN in the Second World War you'd have the Blackburn class transports (6 aircraft), the Athene and Engadine, Fossbeck and Cresence. From the First WW Harlequin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_conversions

Hello Graeme, I am contacting you because you are a military history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to tackle. From a general standpoint, there should be a caution on conversion to make sure that the conversion is of a true value and not a name (as in Three Mile Island?). I would favour the approach we would hammer out the specifics through the Military history project so it forms part of the MILHIST style guidelines and then put it forward for appending to the MoS. Thinking ahead here the form might be to write in the style "6 pounder gun (a 57 mm calibre weapon)" in articles. I also feel as part of this thay stress should be made t avoid repeating conversions in the text. I recall from my schooling (or somewhere) that you convert once at the start and do not repeat yourself afterwards - analagous to the use of abbreviations. But to return to the point of your question, yes a MoS entry would be good for wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk 8 Landing Craft Tank

I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings. My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively. I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about. I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval. Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it. My public e-mail address is xxxxxxxx Medcroft (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion on VB-104?

I'm glad to see that you've made an edit on VB-104 because I'd like to make sure the changes put in place by User_talk:Looper5920 redirecting VP-104 to VP-24 are warranted and you seem qualified to offer a second opinion. The 104 had a mission and history quite distinct from the preceeding and following redesignations of the squadron that began as half of VP-71. Since the history in the article only covers the 104, the redesignation doesn't seem to make sense. Looper has replied in the article Discussion to the concern I expressed, so I thought you might be willing to weigh in. I began the article because my father-in-law won several decorations as a pilot in 104, and that got me interested to discover they were the only one to receive two PUCs. If it's indeed standard practice to combine all squadron changes into the last active number, hopefully someone will clarify the article to indicate that all the historical content so far is about 104 except the squadron patch. Thanks for your consideration of my request. Jw4nvc (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not qualified to comment on anything other than stylistic matters regarding US squadrons. The question to ask, is the US practice in keeping with British RAF squadrons which are formed and disbanded and reformed but the squadron number rather than people or aircraft is the lineage of the unit. Or is it like British regiments which are renamed but the current unit carries on the heritage of the preceding unit names (made a bit more complex by amalgamations etc). At the moment though the article is a bit of a start. If it was expanded sufficiently it might be worth separating out the various historical elemnts for the purposes of readability etc. But that looks a way off yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. Since I don't have time to contribute on it now, I'll just step aside. I'm feeling better about the change now, having just checked the page view stats and found that it's likely to get more views with the redirect. I do hope that over time others will add content and more clearly distinguish between the distinguished personnel serving in various redesignations over the years. Jw4nvc (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He 111

Good find. Do you have a cite for the second para? Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

came out of the Flight article I added to the Ext links. same page as the the first paragraph I think. I'll check later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Canada (1913)

Back in 2005 you made this edit in which you opted for HMS Eagle over Almirante Cochrane (same target - HMS Eagle (1918)) - which I agree with. Last week this was switched, which I disagree with. Without knowing it had recently been switched (I discovered the history later), I changed it to how you originally did it, but was then reverted by the person who had made the switch. Have tried to resolve at User talk:Magus732#Disagree with your revert but seem to be banging my head against a brick wall. Feel free to revert (here) if you wish. Cheers. 92.1.89.174 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Its fine to Link either the occurance of Eagle or Almirante Cochrane (with a pipe) in the text so its more a stylistic thing than set in stone. I've rewritten the section now I've looked it over again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization of Luftwaffe (1933-1945)

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at talk:Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you happen to add a Cite (Mayer & Taylor, p. 95) in the ground troop section ? If so, could you also added the book details to Reference section or if you can pass the ISBN number, I can add the details. For the life of me, I can't find this book. Thanks '  Perseus 71 ^talk 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Hamo thornycroft.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hamo thornycroft.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

structure of the Indiana class battleship article

Hi,

After looking up some other articles I agree with your revert of the Indiana class battleship I am curious however why you used a start class article as an example, when there are several FA available: Moltke class battlecruiser, Derfflinger class battlecruiser or the GA Invincible class battlecruiser. The Bismarck article, with it's start class rating, wasn't really a good counter to the FA I cited (Yamato class battleship Yoenit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

File source problem with File:Medium Mk B.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Medium Mk B.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to 'List of military aircraft operational during World War II'

Hi, I saw you changed many of the '|200px' to '|thumb' in List of military aircraft operational during World War II. You only changed some of them. Should I change them all to 'thumb', or change them back? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Although, they don't look quite as tidy, images are better set to thumb to match user-chosen preferences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hood article vs Admiral-class BC article

Why did you revert my trimming of the armament section? Most of that detail belongs in the class article, not the ship article. I'll be changing it back unless you can convince me otherwise. And all the armament revisions will be covered; I'd saved all that stuff for when I get to my planned sections on interwar and wartime modifications. However I'm perfectly willing to discuss the organization of this article if you have any better ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Parasite aircraft

Hi, the page history of Parasite aircraft suggests that you are the main editor, at least recently. I have proposed moving it to Composite aircraft for two reasons, see discussion page. Do you have an opinion either way? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tandem

It's been beefed up a bit now, please don't delete an important topic such as side-by-side seating before it's had a chance to be fleshed out. It's an unusual configuration for high performance aircraft, but favored for training and electronic-intensive operations. Bachcell (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have put it under its own article at side-by-side seating or probably covered it initially under cockpit. I've rearranged the section somewhat.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hood

Have you ever heard that the RN ever had any particular skill at night-fighting? That's news to me and needs a citation if it's to remain in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to a copy of Chesnau's book on Hood? I don't and I'd like to get cites for the first several paragraphs of the Denmark Strait section. Otherwise I'm going to have to trim that whole section down to what I can cite from Taylor and a couple of German accounts that I have on hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in my collection nor in the local library service. The section on the Denmark Strait should be a precis of the main article. The points in question should be covered there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

!@#$%^&*. I'll ask on the OMT talk page and see if anyone else has access. I agree that it should be a summary of the main article, but even that is unsourced so I can't just borrow the citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SMS Zrinyi

Hello there. I've noticed that you've been helpeing me a bit with this article and my GAN for the Type IXA's. I was wondering, since Parsec cannot help me, would you mind being my co-nom in an ACR for SMS Zrinyi?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 21:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll think on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll let you think on it :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who).
Message added 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rhein crossings

    Your assertion that the former purported Dab is plainly and absurdly false in light of WP:Stub -- it could even in fact be divided into several valid stubs if any of the crossings are inadequately covered -- so i assume you mean that nothing adequate to the title History of crossings of the Rhine can be written. The proper action in that case is one of the deletion processes, not the discarding of the creator's prose without due process. You may of course draw on that prose in getting to a Dab (tho see below w/in this contrib), which i applaud. In the meantime, i will restore my version when you seem to be done, splitting the edit history in the least confusing fashion to keep the original editor's revisions with the article until there is a decision about retention of it as an article. I will monitor it for a reasonable time, and if a deletion should be made, propose an edit-history-only merge back into the edit history of the Dab, and a soft-Dab to the Dab from History of crossings of the Rhine (which is less likely to attract recreation of an article.
    (IMO the content of a compliant Dab has the same copyright status as a telephone directory: the protections apply to the "work" (the Dab page) as a whole, but not to any of the individual entries, which may individually be freely copied w/o even attribution, so IMO the copyright underlying our copyleft is not relevant to the status of the Dab you are creating -- bcz a paraphrasing of a copyright-protected work is an original work for copyright purposes, breaking the chain of attribution at the point where you reduce each entry to a mere prose-free Dab entry.
    (Still, courtesy and our copyleft policies counsel caution, and the attribution trail should IMO be maintained using at least an edit summary like "material extracted from History of crossings of the Rhine has its edit history at that article, pending consideration of its deletion or merging its history back into that of this Dab. I can add that via a dummy edit to the Dab, if that confuses you or you're not interested.)
--Jerzy•t 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept your offer of the appropiate "dummy edit", as you do know what you're doing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You of course could not have anticipated the desirability of such a record, since it arises out of my concern that the Dab and the article develop independently. I have to confess, by the way, that a colleague had to raise the issue of transferring content between articles for me; i was used to dealing only with problems that could be solved by reuniting histories, e.g. after cut-and-paste moves, and i've only recently become a competent history splitter.
--Jerzy•t 10:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dornier Do 17

Hello Graeme. I have removed the clarify tag. There is no contradiction with it, the ETC 500 is the model name only. It does not mean that the rack can only carry 500lbs max. The number does not denote weight restriction. Dapi89 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

so long as an expert is happy, i'm happy. Worth adding as a note perhaps for the edification of others? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It’s an oversight I made. Will do it now. Dapi89 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Brain of Morbius

I added a REFERENCED explanation for who the faces shown in this episode may be. The Discontinuity Guide, published by Virgin Books in 1995, suggests that the faces may be younger faces of the first Doctor. This seems a valid contribution and is sourced. Certainly equal to the other sources which also provide speculative answers to who these faces may be. My edit was deleted with the comment that speculation has no place in the article. You have now selectively restored some speculation, but not mine. I don't see the difference. 71.146.29.93 (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added back in sourced material from before the edit. I did not review earlier edits. You are welcome to add material you feel is omitted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It will simply be deleted by the editor who seems to have set themselves up as the guardian of all the Dr Who pages. 71.146.29.93 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Other editors may disagree, you may find a different source with a similar statement. Differences of opinion on content and sources can usually be resolved by discussion. If you think the Discontinuity Guide (which has been incorporated into the BBCs own web pages on the Classic Series) has been rejected as a source for the wrong reasons you could bring the subject up on the Doctor Who project pages and get some opinions from other editors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A LCA Question

Dear Graeme, Thanks for taking an interest in the LCA article. I have not taken time to familiarize myself with all the style conventions on Wikipedia - you've no doubt noticed. One place you have altered an "a" to an "an" article before LCA. I've written the entire article using the article "a", so you may have some editing to do. I've been reading "a Landing Craft Assault" each time LCA comes up, and not "an el-see-ay". Anyway, where initialisms are concerned, in the USA this is an English usage decision that must be made by each writer (I don't know about British English or Wiki style guide). I'm going to change it back, but if I see you've gone through the whole article and made the change consistently sometime in the future, I'll not be fussed. Also, here is a question for you: the LCA is more of a Navy than a Military subject (LCA being Royal Navy craft). I've had someone change all my 0000 times to 00:00 times. Do you have an opinion? Do you know of a convention for WikiProject articles that are both military and ship? Thanks for any assistance. I've been somewhat surprised by how lonely this project has been. Regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Coanda 1910

Thanks for catching my error on the British patent number. Obviously I should be writing such things down instead of trusting my short-term memory. As to the article you linked to on Googlebooks not saying it was a motorjet, I agree entirely. I added that reference when I changed the page to read that this plane was a ducted fan. I believe the patents and articles written at that time establish this, as does Gibbs-Smith's later detailed treatment of the Coanda 1910. However This assertion has met with some resistance. I am currently engaged in a discussion on the aircraft engine talk page as to wether these patents can be used as evidence as to the nature of Coanda's propulsion system. The other side argues that these patents aren't germane because Coanda's plane was a jet which he never bothered to patent and that the plane's resemblance to these patents is entirely co-incidental.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Air Training Corps

I can't see what your were trying to achieve here. Why have you edited the image size of the ATC crest?, it was sized for a reason, you just made the article look untidy, the page has reverted as I cannot be bothered to go round chasing your edits. You are welcome to contribute but if you make a mess of it then expect a revert, I have also reverted the ATC Activities page as the the info box is relevant. Pandaplodder (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing dispute at Coandă-1910

Lsorin (talk · contribs) has asked for my help regarding the content dispute at Coandă-1910, which you are involved in. Without taking any sides, I have explained my actions on his talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Castore category

Ah, I'd missed that with regard to that category. Apologies, and thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

nothing to apologise for - it's not a well publicised use of the cat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen

Hi. The only correct spelling for the island is Spitsbergen. It was discovered by the Dutch and is a Dutch name, so there is absolutely no reason to use the German spelling outside the German language. British authors have numerous times used the German spelling, ignorant of the fact that it is a Dutch name. And it only has a redirect from the German spelling because this mistake has been made several times. Note though, usage does not make it correct. And please ignore the Etymology section, written by British editors completely ignorant of the island and its history. They simply nitpicked sources and put whatever they wanted. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the alternate spelling in because there are English sources that do you use the "Z" spelling, and as such one may expect inquiring minds to consult wikipedia on the subject. And as such they will end up at Spitsbergen, however following the wikipedia guidance What needs to be done.... targets of redirects, the redirection should be explained on the target page. This is true whether the redirect is a pseudonym, earlier name, a less common name, or spelling differences ("Honor" and "Honour"). The Z case might be argued as an "obvious close variant", but I erred on the side of caution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Terres Weymann

Hi, why remove the link to the photo of Weymann. Surely you could see that it was an addition to what you had put there, not a replacement? Would you put it back please. Eddaido (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, if I could find a photo I would put it up. I thought I had found one (your link, once mine) and all I did was let readers know where they could see it. Have you noticed that the new page I created (fabric bodies) from scratch receives much more than twice the attention of this biography and indeed this biography now gets double the attention it got before I tarted it up in May this year. Weymann 66 gets rather less than quarter of the attention of the car bodies. Please put back that link. Its the only pic we got!! Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take special note that the reason the photo is important to me is that it shows Haitians he is possibly of local (African-American) stock which probably will be why he chose to live in France and not USA.

What might "encyclopaedic in tone" mean? I do not understand. Eddaido (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Graham, please have a look at the Discussion page on Charles Terres Weymann. Whoever supplied the info has gone back and deleted any identity to make it unsourced so I added the question which you have subsequently posed pn the actual page. If I could privide a source I would but as it seems to be entirely credible I have used the form of words "it is said" to indicate it is not an established fact, May I be directly rude to you within articles? Eddaido (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the discussion page history, the addition was made by Hudicort who is still active on wikipedia. Why not try a message on their talkpage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can identify and contact Hudicort (the link you have provided is dead) then you had better do it. Eddaido (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link? - you didn't find a talk page here User talk:Hudicourt ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right! Eddaido (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Most unusual. Does this - User talk:Hudicourt - appear as a redlink or a blue link? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, go down one more row and please read out to me the letters you can see with your remaining eye.Eddaido (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910

Please add the right template to Coanda-1910 if you understand what I mean. I don't really now all those bloody templates in Wikipedia.Thanks in advance!--Lsorin (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore this request. I added the question to Coanda-1910 talk page.--Lsorin (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

MLC Image

Dear Graeme, Thanks for the attention to the Motor Landing Craft page. Do you know where an image might be found? I have only seen one; it is in the early pages of Brian Lavery's "Assault Landing Craft." According to the picture credits in the index the image belongs to him. Best regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I added an External link to a flickr page with a photo of the model of MLC 20 in the Science Museum. However I expect that as it's by Thornycroft it's actually a "Mechanized Landing Craft"; certainly some searches of google throw up stuff about "Motor Landing Craft" when its the builders reference meaning a landing craft fitted with a motor (whether it be LCA or something else). I will keep looking though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did find a pic of an "MLC" being hauled up HMS Isis ramp, in the IWM archives but it was too small to see anything. I also came across a piece (google book search) to MLC 10 which was tested from The Mighty Hood. Just found this forum link showing an IWM picture with its reference "KID 4499" KID 4530 is also of the Landing craft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The forum link shows the Motor Landing Craft! Second image I've seen of the beast. That would be perfect - if legal. The Science Museum MLC20 model is a Thornycroft 1938 design LCM(1). AmesJussellR (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be something in the Vickers archive, can't recall where that was on the web, since they were testing the Vickers Light Amphibious Tank in those shots. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No to that, it seems to concentrate on shipbuilding at Barrow. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Check ex links at COW 37 mm gun - last external link

Dear GraemeLeggett, You have done a great job on that page. But if you are interested I was cleaning up the ex links and I added a link of a video of the first Perth fitted with the COW 37mm and it shown being fired. And it explains which course the designer took to deal with recoil: ie either a muzzle brake or a very long recoil. If you watch the video you can tell which option was chose. Again, thanks for a great page. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Unit Citations

1. I totally disagree with you. In 2007 there was much talk on the PUC discussion page to no avail because there is no GOOD justification for taking all the pertinent information out of the tables. There was some suggestion for moving it to a new page or a subpage where people could find the information they seek. But that was not done then and I don't think you have any intention to do that.

2. In my opinion an encyclopedia is for providing information to those people researching a particular subject or area of interest. Providing the entire (which is the appropriate thing to do) information which includes the cited authority, issuing authority and complete text supporting the awarding of the award is encyclopedic. The only reason paper encyclopedias restricted article size was because of the cost of publishing. In a world of electronic encyclopedias size is a minor problem. When there are Wikipedia articles that amount to advertisements for computer games we should not be discussing eliminating historic information.

3. The entire citation often includes individual organizations down to section and platoon level who participated in the events leading to the heroic efforts for which they are being awarded. These individual units may not normally be organic to the larger organization and therefore not identified singularly. Which is another way we could list awardees, down to platoons and sections.

4. Finding the citations published by the government, either the Department of War/Navy or the Department of Defense or one of the subordinate services is not easy. The Pentagon Library is the only source that I am aware of to find this information.

5. I would gladly leave this up to the Military History WikiProject folks for determination. Meyerj (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this one. I'll ponder the way to present the issue on MILHIST to open up the discussion if that's alright with you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MLC image and LCT idea

Dear Graeme, I have come across another image of the MLC - http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/457/610/1/0/ . I have no idea how to put images into the wikicommon. Do you know some saintly person who could make the miracle happen? I am lost as to the mechanics and the legality of it all.

The current article on LCT is covering a vast subject area. I was toying with the idea of a separate LCT(1) page. It has all the promise of exploring the background discussions that went into imagining this type of craft - all the others marks have their interesting stories, but their beginnings are pretty much "improvements were desired on the then current LCT design." What do you think? Regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploading is quite easy - it doesn't have to go to wikicommons in the first instance. The tricky bit is checking the copyright. The image is marked Royal Marines Museum. And appears to be a period official photo (though it could be a manufacturers ie Vickers photo). That suggests to me that sort of use under copyright expired (specifically Crown copyright) or free use if there is no picture freely available. Have you looked to see if it's in the Imperial War Museum photo archive as well? I'll have a think on the rationale, and see what I come up with - if you don't mind waiting.

Re the LCT, I would start by adding what material you have to the current one, since as you say it is the development of the idea and the following are variations upon a theme. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I can wait. I can even get back to what I really should be doing. I know nothing about finding images at the IWM site. Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1953 Iranian Coup/timeline resource

A tag has been placed on 1953 Iranian Coup/timeline resource, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes in 1953 Iran Coup article lead

Hi, I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising two sentences in the article lead.

• Changing the first sentence from:
  • The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • to The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

(NOTE: a new book (Iran and the CIA) provides some scholarly evidence that this sentence should be changed further but for now this is more accurate.)

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here

Hope you have time to give it a look see, BoogaLouie (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo description

Graeme, I've been doing some image cleanup. What is File:AM vickers.JPG an image of? Is it a toy? Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is, I'd forgotten I'd even put it up. I've added a brief note to expand on what it is. How much do you think is needed/should I wikilink to appropriate articles for Vickers Machine Gun and Action Man? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I have updated and formatted. Kelly ^hi! 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! Bzuk (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Hi, I'm doing another poll of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup).
The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership wasn't seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important.
An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here.

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Attack aircraft

Hi, could you take a look at Talk:Ground attack aircraft#Requested move? --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Aliwiki (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit, so I'm revising the change so that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] refers to the US administration point of view and not a statement of fact.
The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Current wording

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union." --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

I know you didn't make any comment on my last attempt but I hope you will find this one is a true improvement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes).
Message added 08:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trying to get some commonality between projects. You can weigh in here. Marcus Qwertyus 08:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributions at ANI

Hi, Graeme! I just wanted to mention that informed input from all users is welcome at ANI. I'm not an admin, either, but I do contribute there frequently, trying to provide helpful information and (as I hope!) a calm/respectful take on issues presented. It's my impression that maybe half to two-thirds of the contributors there on any given day aren't admins, and don't have any personal involvement with the issues they comment on. Non-admin participation has always seemed welcome there, to me; no one has ever objected in the least. ( On the contrary, actually: I'm somewhat embarrassed to mention it, but our illustrious founder once made an extremely positive comment about a lengthy analysis I posted there, and another user gave me a barnstar for my analysis of a different issue at ANI. ) I do try to think carefully and understand the relevant issues before I express an opinion that opposes that of any admin, of course, but it's been my strong impression that my participation has been entirely welcome, as I'm sure your thoughtful contributions would be as well. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the encouraging words. much appreciated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Motorcycle engine configs.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Motorcycle engine configs.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Brig Discussion

Hello There -

I didn't remove the discussion I just posted it twice by mistake and removed the dupe! :)--Connorthomha (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ya

I trying to get rid of that when 3 Brits were killed by Us in august 2007 when in fact that it was a Brit-on-Brits Friendly Fire. the British FAC gave the wrong coordinates to the the pilots which accidentally drop it on 3 Brits. Right now, he's facing charges. So it's not the pilots fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc19 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commentated on the article talk page.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

hey

Hi. i tried contacting the CBC contact about this two weeks and no reply at all. When I also found this the Korean War, "Canadian officer Dan Loomis called in mortar fire to help Canadian troops being pursued by Chinese forces, but the fire hit his own men after he mistakenly transmitted the wrong map co-ordinates". But i don't know what kind of battle they are talking about and how many were killed in this? does anyone know? i tried look for it everywhere and i can't seem to find one. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/fogofwar.html I also heard that the British(or Indian and British i think) 17th division during the retreat from Burma was repeatedly bombed by RAF planes causing hundred of casualties in the Irrawaddy River. Tried look for it and its still heard to find. can anybody answer me or something? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

hey

as regardinf your comment about edward not being killed by friendly fire?

actually there is? wanna see? here

http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=68040 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple revisions of Dan-Air article

Hello user User:GraemeLeggett: I have restored the article's last version of anonymous user 82.44.98.11 for the following reasons: 1. Infobox "trivia" -- Why do you consider the actual names of the airline's 3 successive HQ buildings trivial? It names these buildings. Though I agree that such info is not absolutely essential in an airline info box, it doesn't distract the reader's attention (as opposed to unrelated/irrelevant details, ie trivia). 2. Adding timeframe and context to first sentence of intro -- By reading through this passage and looking at the accompanying info box itself it will be sufficiently clear to uninitiated readers that this company was sold to and ultimately absorbed into British Airways. Therefore, this re-phrasing adds no extra value. 3. Trimming descriptions of external links and removing possible hyperbole -- Conceding that the original author[s] could have phrased these in a more succinct way, they are nonetheless relevant. To make this clearer, let me give you this example: ... a Dan-Air Boeing 707 ... on the ramp at Berlin Tegel on X-mas Day 1971 ... the aircraft's colour scheme was the airline's 2nd livery (the 1st to be applied uniformly, fleet-wide); maybe, for you personally the info inside the round brackets may not seem to be very important but it is still correct, especially if you check this against the references cited in the article, incl. some only available in printed format (ie inflight magazines and other relevant hard copy publications); also, it certainly doesn't constitute hyperbole. 4. Trimming references -- I do agree that these could have been written a lot shorter and appreciate your effort to re-write them; however, the original author[s] must have had good reasons why they chose a particular style to cite references' and as long as they have been consistent in their chosen style of citation and it does include relevant details, then that's OK; also, when you do this please make sure that you re-check your edits before posting them on to the website to avoid having orphaned references, most probably as a result of mistakenly deleting tags and/or square brackets (or forgetting to put them when completely re-writing a reference). 5. Style manual advising against use of scroll boxes for listing citations at end of article due to browser compatibility issues -- I am aware of this manual's existence and have actually read it; however, I do consider it a guideline to be applied with a common sense approach (as opposed to a strictly [to be] enforced, uniform rule; what I mean by this is that if you've got an article with say 10, 15, 20-30 or even 50-60 citations at the end, a scroll box is unnecessary; if, however, on the other hand, you've got more than 100, perhaps even 200+ citations at the end, a scroll box makes navigating the article definitely easier (regardless of any browser issues); and rather than "hiding" anything (the other, and in my opinion somewhat "specious" argument advanced in the aforesaid style manual against the use of scroll boxes to list citations at the end of articles), anyone who is familiar with the basics of computer use will know that the so-called "hidden" info can be accessed without difficulty by moving down on the scroll bar (the reason I'm making this assumption is that I don't want to give ammunition to those who say in public that Wikipedia is not serious and/or unreliable because they think it's too "dumbed down", which is why I'm not assuming that every reader of an article published in this media is a "dummy"); therefore, I'm kindly requesting you to take this into consideration in future before you decide to remove scroll boxes.

The 4 points made above equally apply to other articles where I saw you making similar edits

OK then. That's enough for today. Don't be discouraged by my specific criticisms of some of your recent edits; try to take it as constructive criticism and continue having a great time improving Wikipedia articles. Devanahalli2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

In order

1. The specific locations of an airlines HQ or even its registered address (whether defunct or not) go beyond the needs of an encyclopaedia. Further the infobox is for summary information and detail is to be avoided. It can go within the main article but does not belong in the infobox.

2. Given the poorly laid out and overburdened with refs lede of the article. It's important to get the first sentence right until the rest can be addressed. Not everyone reads infoboxes.

3. External links should be for giving information not included (but not necessary to the article) the description of the link should indicate what it gives you. The MoS says "a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page". The current titles are not concise and don't indicate why the content linked is relevant because there is too much detail.

4. Trimming references was for presentation - the long blue underline link make for poor readability. The link need only cover the actual article title not the publication, date and page number.

5. The deprecation of scrolling lists of citations is that they do not work in every browser. For instance on Safari on an iPhone viewing the mobile version of the Dan-Air article only citations 1, 2 and 118 display, in the regular version its only 1-7 and 119-124. On the British Eagle article - which currently does not have the scrolling - they all display.

Of these issues the most important is No. 5 - the non display of information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Paulioetc

I see you're having a problem with User:Paulioetc, may I suggest a WP:WQA is appropriate as he clearly isn't prepared to listen or engage on the talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to start on the FF talk page with the Megeney situation. Lets see what happens first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Friendly fire

Have you looked at the main source of all of User:Paulioetc's edits? They nearly all stem from WP:SPS such as forums. There is a thread at WP:RSN#Forums a reliable source?, where the forum names the source this is what he is quoting as his source. I see no indication his edits meet WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, the a posting in a forum used for some of the material quotes their sources and I think I modified the reference to state that. I think the sourcing needs improving - perhaps there's a suitable tag that can be added to the reference given to reflect its low quality and that it needs attention rather than delete the items. Though they have a tendency to put forward Negligent discharges as friendly fire User:Paulioetc seems to be trying to provide sources so I think we should AGF a bit longer. I don't know if they will respond to discussion on talk pages though.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well he has failed to respond twice to a request to cite his edits, he doesn't respond on the talk page and deletes anything in his user talk space. He's also persisted in including ND as friendly fire, I've reverted him twice on that. And I've noticed that a minor edit always follows re-inclusion of contested material. His behaviour reminds me of User:Generalmesse, a prolific sock puppeteer who has been disrupting military history articles for years.

I don't think the forum is a reliable source, even if it does name the original source as the claim can't be verified. I think we should do a major clean up and remove all of those additions based on that website. Too harsh? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove the aforementioned source of doubtful value and tag the least plausible/most confusing material that came from it as uncited and see what happens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the course of doing that, I found he'd used this source [http://comandosupremo.com/messe.html. Looks like it was User:Generalmesse. I've filed an SPI check. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

Re your blanking of the occupants from the list. I'm not sure that every occupant needed to go, although I probably wouldn't object to some criteria being established for inclusion. Please give your thoughts at talk:Lympne Airport#Infobox. Thanks for your assistance in improving the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan

Yes, as soon as I saw it I thought it was him again. Let me check that reference out. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The capital "P" for page number was as much a hint as anything. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My own references on Pegasus bridge have no mention of that incident, I can't find it mentioned anywhere but that forum. I have a suspicion the reference is faked. I hope I'm wrong but it looks like Paulio is back. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, same guy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another newly registered editor, editing friendly fire? [8] Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the material is relevant concerns notable figures and the source checks out, though the grammar is a bit dodgy. See how it goes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Roly's roll

Copyedit from my talk page: Though your note mentions safety, Hamilton-Paterson stresses that the SBAC request was not on safety grounds but, and I think he's quoting the SBAC, because it was "inappropriate behaviour for a bomber". He cites The Aeroplane Jan 09 p10.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

However later in the book on p. 110, it indicates that Falk's flying was "not dangerous exactly" but to tone it down. There is an implicit caution made based on safety concerns that they couldn't enunciate publicly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

I see your reading of it, though it's not 100% for me. What do you make of Empire of the Clouds - captures the period but a bit melancholy in places and reminds me: leaving Roly for a mo, why don't we have an article on Bill Waterton yet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Waterton is an enigmatic figure both in Canada and the UK. I wouldn't mind giving it a "go" as I have a copy of his The Quick and the Dead to start with; I had corresponded and spoken to the irascible gent before his passing and liked his down-to-earth, in-your-face style of confrontation. I will have to go back to my notes to see what else I can add, but he did figure in at least two of my books. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

The editors of Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World have contacted me for a submission to their next edition, but I have yet to read much more than excerpts at this point. Canadajans have a very similar tale of woe to compare to the demise of the "golden age" of UK aerospace. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

I think one of the most melancholic aspects of the book is actually the human side. H-P shows how the test pilots were as famous as footballers in their time (though on a paltry £25 a week) yet now they are largely forgotten and many of them died in the course of the work. Now I look at Empire of the Clouds again, Bill is in it quite a lot, and using the outline of his career taken from Empire would probably give a start article but I think first thing I will do is drop in a stub as a placeholder. I know you have strong views on citation style so I won't be surprised or bothered if you change them around. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackman's Vulcan Test Pilot is probably the best read on the Roly roll et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now read large excerpts from Hamilton-Paterson's book, and what I have read does not jibe with my interviews of Waterton and Zurakowski. I would characterize most of the account of Waterton as very subjective to almost a fawning, flattering portrait that is not at all consistent with the contemporary record. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Well, I suppose the author is writing from a personal opinion and I guess Waterton as an arch-critic of British aviation fits for putting forward the premise that post-war British aviation was really a bit rubbish. So far I've been mining it for the hard facts more than character analysis which I'd rather leave to others. Has any of the hagiography manifested itself in the article yet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, the article has "mainly stayed on the plain." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Myanmar Armed Forces

Thanks for cleaning up and helping edit the above article. I have been doing all this by myself as most of the other contributions are pretty much politically biased stuff. It hasnt been easy as I often get accused of being the supporter of military junta. Okkar (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2011 military intervention in Libya

I see that you have gone through and removed the Merge banners that I placed on the various Libyan NFZ Operation pages stating that the "merge suggestion closed out with "keep separate" at target page talk" The talk page for 2011 military intervention in Libya claims that the matter was previously closed "on the merger project page, after consensus was reached." I cannot find the "merger project page" referred to and so do not see where the claimed consensus is. Merge proposals are supposed to stay open for 7 days to allow the forming of a consensus, but some editors have decided to close the topic after only 1-2 days. This is premature. Unless you are able to identify where the consensus is, please reinstate the merge banners you have deleted. regards Mztourist (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Type 23 Helicopters

I have resisted the temptation to revert your edit there - merely corrected where you attributed the Lynx Mk 8 to the Sutherland when the original says it had the Mk 3.

But what is going to happen is that more recent data wil be published and the original replaced. The big advantage of the table format was that when data for different dates become available, then it can be added as different columns without too much effort.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are over-doing the importance of how many helicopters and what type are operated with the table. There are articles on the individual ships where one can go into detail about the changes in helicopter complement but the class article is an overview. That the the information currently present can be concisely stated in a couple of sentences suggests the table is for the moment superfluous.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(I posted that to all the participants of the discussion so I wouldn't be accused of canvassing.)

Per you recent edit here, I'm wondering why a Type 22 frigate would not hyphenate, but a Type 312 minesweeper would. Oversight? Shall I remove similar articles that remain?

Also, I would think that Standard-type battleship would hyphenate, even if 'Standard' is not the name of the type. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There are instances where the name of the item is "Type nn" but the article name isn't phrased as "Type nn-class x" and I believe RN practice is to say "HMS abc is a Type nn frigate" I see I did miss a few when I edited the list. A lot of Japanese equipment has a name that translates as "Type nnn item" and I've never seen them hyphenated whether torpedo or rifle.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of "Type nn-class x", I was thinking of "Type-nn x". Like Type 23 helicopters: they aren't "Type" helicopters, but "(Type 23)" helicopters. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't I phrased it well above. No hyphen between Type and the number following. In my experience of English idiom you might say a "Alpha 555-type rifle" meaning something similar to a "Alpha 555 rifle" but not to mean the actual weapon. here's an example of the RN usage of Type namesGraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

British Army Order of Battle - September 1939

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for all your help so far with this article. It needs a lot of works, and is a bit daunting, so having experts on board is a big help! Heywoodg 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardly call myself an expert, but I have hung around the British Army unit articles a bit and perhaps I've a bit of an idea where to look for the redlinks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that as a total non-expert! Thanks for jumping in. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Distance tool

http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice rewrite!

I admire your rewrite of the lede for List of World War I aces from Poland. I was obviously unaware of the link to which you connected; that link improves the article enormously. Good show, as the Brit cousins would say.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you, I thought my rewrite was a bit clumsy as prose goes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change in 1953 coup article

I'm soliciting active editors in coup article for a poll on this proposed change --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback

See here - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Further response, same page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles A-Class Review

You participated in the Frank Buckles A-Class review. If you have any further comments on the article or are satisfied with the article as it is, please post on the A-Class review page. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Auxiliary cruiser

Why did you merge AC into Armed merchantmen? AC's may have technically been AMMs but they had a primarily navel function like privateers. AMMs had a primary merchant function. There is a big difference.--71.162.161.175 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RAF Radar Museum

Looks like the RAF Radar Museum is back online after fixing the fire exit problem. I'm going to be based in Cambridge from 18 to 22 May, inclusive, and perhaps I will be able to hire a car for a day and take a run up to Neatishead. What's your schedule during that period? I'd love to say hello. Email me via the link on my user page. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to see the museum on 19 May. That, and biking around the Bure Valley with the missus. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find the banks of the Bure to be as good as example of this green and pleasant land as any you might find. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mosquito

I disagree with your edit of the 21st of November. Would you object to me inserting a new version based around the word 'Notwithstanding'?Dolive21 (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I would object, because the source given makes no connection between the UK Government's stance on the Mosquito and the statement that the alarm can be put up to 104db. Hence the use of "notwithstanding" or "despite" is making a connection without foundation - ie a case of OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

British Army officer rank insignia

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject East Anglia

Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk talk 07:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Op Crimp

If it checks out then feel free to insert it. My problem with the edits is while some of the uncited material checks out, much of it doesn't as it is from unreliable sources such as WP:SPS and then he's obsessed with blaming that poor FAC in the Afghan incident when no-one was to blame. For info I asked a guy from the Operation Crimp article to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Graemlegget on patriot thingy.

you wrote "A US Patriot missile battery fired on two F/A-18C Hornets 50 mi (80 km) from Karbala, Iraq. One missile hit the aircract of U.S. Navy pilot Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five killing him. This was the result of the missile design flaw in identifying hostile aircraft" You make sound like as if two aircrafts was fired on.

How about this: Two missiles fired by a US Patriot missile battery on F/A-18C Hornets from Karbala, Iraq. One missile hit the aircraft of U.S. Navy pilot Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five killing him. This was the result of the missile design flaw in identifying hostile aircraft". Is that ok? BTW try and find a link that say two missile cause i having a hard time finding them. Correct if i'm wrong but was two aircrafts fired on? 67.164.105.159 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey about tank commander Steven Roberts?

On the friendly fire section for Iraq War, someone needed to update and changhe the steve roberts. I don't like when it statement said shot and killed by a fellow British soldier when in fact he was shot by a tank-mounted machine gun from a fellow British soldier along with an Iraqi protester. Would you mind changing it it or something source it into something good? we need to let the readers know that he was shot by a tank-mounted machine gun, not a fellow UK soldier(like killing him with a sniper or something) I can't because my grammar and my spelling can be a pretty bit upwards and not good. I asked u since you pretty good at grammar.

Aslo can you add this as well? i found this link:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/edward-korn.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.34 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Look before you leap

Hello, i noticed you moved Battle of Brazos Santiago to an action of title but you had moved it to the wrong date. Ive changed it to the correct one, just thought id give you a heads up in case you were planning to move some other articles.XavierGreen (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Teach me to copy from the discussion, i must do less editing late at night. Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

where is my new section?

why was that steven roberts section erased? I don't see the "steven roberts" section for no reason.130.65.109.34 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Iron Duke

I think the best citation to look up is The Poor Man's Guardian, "Advertisements & Notices," Issue 54. June 23, 1832. Text fragment: “attack on the Iron Duke, the”. That could get us new information, as opposed to confirming what I did. This was right after the iron shutters were put up, so it might tell us if people at the time made a connection with the nickname. The Freeman Journal cites are 14 June 1830, 16 June 16 1830, 28 June 1830, 26 July 1830, 30 October 1830, 5 November 1830, 4 January 1832, and 18 May 1832. I am surprised you haven’t voted in the Duke of Marlborough page move yet. Kauffner (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There's 304 instances of iron+duke in newspapers before 1845!

The Poor Man's Guardian of June 23. "To Correspondents" is the section head. The final paragraph is The attack on the Iron Duke, the noble conduct of the "Old Soldier Patlander", and the ruffianly affair at Ascot, when the old Greenwich pensioner "murderously" through stone at his "royal master" were little incidents highly necessart just at theis time, "loyalty, royalty" &c. being rather at a discount. Alas! poor John Bull, how art thou gulled.

Freeman's June 14th. still more than the iron Duke and his worthy Chancellor. If all the Irish Members who were in the House.....there would be an end of the arbitary and despotic rule of WELLINGTON. (note no capital for iron)

Freeman's Wednesday, June 16, 1830 and one fortnight will force the Iron Duke to abandon his project.

Same June 28 Let the "Iron Duke" abandon the destructive scheme of GOULBURN, and.... (note quotes round Iron Duke)

Morning Chronicle December 2, 1834 after this manifestation of feeling in England, it was quite impossible that the Iron Duke could come into, or at least maintain himself in power

The Sheffield Independent, and Yorkshire and Derbyshire Advertiser (Sheffield, England), Saturday, December 20, 1834; Issue 728 - "iron-headed Duke".

Enough to be going on with?GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, was about to ask you about your search, seems you've got some results already - however:

• Of those 304 results:
  • How many have the actual term "Iron Duke" rather than "Iron" and then "Duke" elsewhere in the paper? Seems to me you've quoted the same extracts as Kauffner, not 300 more unique examples of its use which might be significant, if they exist.
  • How many results before the 1832 (from 1819) iron shutters incident, how many after 1832 (to 1844); given that this is considered the primary origin of the nickname, rather than the later 1844 Punch references?
  • How many results between 1844 until 14 September 1852 - his death?
  • How many results between 14 Sept and 18 Nov 1852, whilst he was lying in state? I expect a lot of results here given the news of his death.
  • How many results after 18 November 1852 - his funeral - up to 1924 when Freeman's Journal ended? Although not specifically searching the Freeman's Journal, any other titles mention it in those 72 years?
  • Just out of pure curiosity, are there any results between 1815 (Waterloo) and 1819 (when he re-entered politics), and 1819 to 1831 (known first use)?

I expect from tightening the search to those specific parameters you'll get more accurate patterns as to its use and escalation, with a lot less bias in favour of scattered references that lack correlation. I expect searching those periods within the Freeman's Journal only will also result in far less than 304 returned results. If the nickname was as really as common as that in 1831, I'm sure we'd know.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NB: I'm using 1844 not 1845 due to just reading: "Elizabeth Longford has erroneously stated that Punch's first usage of the term came in 1845 solely as a description of his epistolary style of writing, but there are at least two earlier examples. The first comes from the spring of 1844..." at http://www.historytoday.com/re-foster/mr-punch-and-iron-duke

Oh yes, the 300+ results include misreadings of the page "from" instead of "iron" (or the word pa-tron), and limiting to the exact phrase gives 151 pre-1844 instances hence I won't be wading through the lot.

Nothing before 1820

1830-1844: 150ish, at a glance prob half those are not referring to wellington or are duplicate entries.

1844-1852: about 1,200

During his laying in state period 22 instances

After laying in state to 1900-ish 12,000 but that's a period that includes ships called Iron Duke and lots of shipping notices.

In general the phrase "Iron Duke" in the pre-1844 period is a term applied by those opposed to him, and closer to 1844 Freemans is less seen than northern papers. There is a little ditty published in one that uses the phrase.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to do that. I gather if "patron" is picking up as "iron" in some cases, that they are using OCR to scan the papers and identify words as best as it can, hence a few erroneous results. It definitely confirms my suspicions though as to it being an uncommon name, especially in common public use - always seemed to me a more politically motivated term until later years when it could be identified with the shutters incident and a good story behind it. I'll look into updating the article to be more NPOV considering these results. Thanks again, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1953 coup

I'm notifying contributors to the 1953 Iranian coup article about a proposed change in the article posted on the talk page, that adds information about events leading up to the coup. Only a couple of comments so far. Am planning to request comments WP:RfC later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Type VIIs

Hey GraemeLeggett, I posted some information in the thread you opened on the Type VII that should hopefully clear up the situation. Just thought I'd drop by and let you know in case you have not seen it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment rating query

Graeme, did you mean to rate the current version of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques as start-class? [9] The article was originally rated start-class before I expanded it, but it looks well beyond a start-class article now. Could you possibly take another look at it? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney bomb

Thank you for pointing that out. I suggest to work on one single page. I will merge my article with Catsmeat's one and delete mine afterwards. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that when it moves to the final position, it can make a DYK,and it could probably be B-class as well. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think this article is good to go onto to the main space, unless there's anything you can think to add. My only issue is the bit in the opening paragraph - "At 5,000 feet (1,500 m) a barometric fuze fired the rocket in the tail to give it a velocity at impact of up to 2400 ft per second (730 m/s, 1,635 mph, 2,633 km/h) )" I'm quite sure that impact speed is wrong. And the correct speed is 1450 feet per second, as listed in the Project Ruby report. So, if it's OK with you guys, I'll delete that, stick the article up, and put in a self-nomination for DYK. Catsmeat (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Go with the conservative (Ruby report) value in the lede but quote in mph (km/h) as that is what most readers can relate to. I'm guessing your idea for a DYK hook is something like "British bomb of the Second World War inspired by a Disney cartoon"?

I removed the max velociy as I can't find the source and replaced it by the one in the Ruby report (1450 ft/s with rocket assist, 1150 without assist). Good to go for me. Nice job --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, article moved to Disney bomb. I've de-orphaned and reinserted the Disney image, as that gives credability to the claim that the bomb was inspired by a cartoon. I also slimmed down the introduction a bit, to keep it concise, and because I felt it was duplicating a little too much information from the body of the article. I agree that the Disney cartoon angle gives the best DYK hook. Something like....

DYK, the British, World War 2, Disney bomb is thought to have been inspired by a fictional bomb in a Walt Disney, cartoon documentary

Fantastic! A great team effort! :) Now, I really want to track down a copy of Tyrell's book, as it sounds fascinating.Catsmeat (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are out there - I've seen sub £20 pricing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the British Isles - why the revert?

I wondered why you reverted my edit? I think it is against MOS for "see also" to occur within the prose. The link within it simply doesn't back up the claim either. Such a claim surely needs a source, and the only one I have seen on one of the BI articles doesn't quite say this. To say that historians often avoid a term (for whatever reason) is quite a big claim to make without any support. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall anything in the MoS on the subject. And you are aware of the issues surrounded the use of the phrase "British Isles" in articles on wikipedia. If you think the phrasing is clumsy pipe the link instead. But if you want to remove again so be it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past I've tried in-line "see also"s for convenience, and have been told to use hats per MOS. Yes, I'm aware of the BI issues, but I'm not really sure what follows from that. The problem here is the 1RR rule (which took over from quickly-repeated page-locks) - it's why unsubstantiated text like this often never gets dealt with.

There is a similar issue with the current BI venn diagram, which claims the Channel Islands are unconditionally included. An adjusted one in commons shows both definitions - per encyclopedia and geographical use. It was is use for a while - but first immediate page-locking (and now 1RR) has kept it out for years now - simply because just one or two diehard people always revert back to their preferred version, which essentially backs the politicised reading of the term, and undermines the geographical/archipelago one. The majority of editors would accept the clarifying venn whatever they thought about the term (at least they wouldn't go as far as reverting it, though a number will accept the 'status quo' in discussion) - but try placing it in and see what happens.

It's 1RR - there is nothing good about it. Admin must know that Wikipedia can be misleading people in the areas they place on it, but they seem to prefer avoiding the edit wars that quickly get the articles protected. The net result is not just an illusion of stability - it's an illusion of accuracy.

As my hands are tied now (I've had my finger burnt before without knowing the rule was brought in), perhaps you could look at self-reverting, or perhaps editing or improving the line somehow. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

...but I reverted one of your edits in reverting our old friend User:Paulioetc for block evasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your revert on River Song (Doctor Who)

Hi there. I do not disagree that infoboxes should be concise but the version you restored contains information that is simply incorrect. There is a different between "human" and "human with altered DNA" and that difference should be included in the infobox as well. I don't think that little bit (45 characters) makes the infobox any more complicated. What is irrelevant is the number of times it has been stated on the show though. If the primary source says it once, it's enough, there is no need to have it said multiple times before we can include it in the infobox. I don't think there is a policy/guideline that says different, is there? As such, I would request that you undo your revert, also per WP:BRD, since I just restored the revision before Edokter's edit and you shouldn't re-revert me if you disagree but instead take it to the talk page. Regards SoWhy 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mimoyecques

I am not confident with the list of the bombings on Mimoyecques. Given your experience, how would you recommend to systematically track (and correctly source) the bombings? Thank you for your help--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First hing I would do would be to check the dates on the existing list off against the US 8th AF or Bomber Command chronologies. If any look suspect hide the txt or put a clarification required tag against it to give other editors an opportunity to correct or cite. You may also find some direct quotes from the sources that need identifying as such or re-phrasing. Now if you have an unsourced or uncertain origin list of attacks from elsewhere (eg a self-published website, or some forum post) then I would check them against the same chronologies. It may be that they refer in general terms to bombing in the Pas de Calais region or use a slightly different name. Ultimately though it may come down to getting a book or two out of a library whether it be on the V-weapons or on a squadron known to have operated against sites in the area. I have Bowman's book on the Lancaster which might make mention of the Crossbow activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

3d ID (M) Formatting

A Wikipie for you!

In appreciation for your edits on the 3d ID (M) article, Bullmoosebell (talk) has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

First off, thanks for your assistance with editing the 3d Infantry Division article. You're been a great help. I apologize if we seem to be stepping on each other's toes between edits. Perhaps I can shed some justification on my edits.

• Boldfacing the awards themselves will be removed, all of them (not just a few). Thanks for the clarity on that. The format I received must have been written incorrectly.
  
• Capitalizing the battle streamers, according to the reference (the US Army Intsitute of Heraldry & US Army Corps of Lineage & Honors), the battle streamers are embroidered as capitals and should be reflected as such (i.e. KOREA not Korea, COLMAR not Colmar). I'm sorry to say the 13th AD article does not reflect any battle streamers and the 3-3 Marines do not have any battle streamers embroidered with words, just devices (campaign stars). However, 1st Battalion 107th Cavalry Regiment, does reflect their awards as they are embroidered on the streamers.
  
• Removing Regiment specification is used for visual aesthetics on Wikipedia as well as US Military doctrination, given the New Manning System (CARS and USARS), IAW AR 600-82. The term Regiment is used as parent organizations for historical purposes, but the primary building blocks are divisions, brigades, and battalions. Each battalion carries an association with a parent regiment, even though the regimental organization no longer exists in the US Army, with exception to a few units that carry the name for lineage (2nd, 3rd, & 11th Armored-Cavalry Regiment and 75th Ranger Regiment). As such, Battalions, which fall directly under a Brigade parent-unit, are known only by their Corps, or branch, not Regiment.
  
• MAJ Audie Murphy is listed as a Major (not Lieutenant, or any appropriate US Military abbreviations) because that is his title, being the last rank he attained in any US Military component, just as the rest of the members are listed likewise. For instance, General Eisenhower's last military position held was President, which is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, but the last rank held was General of the Army in two components (Regular Army and Army of the United States). Alternately, the highest rank he attained in the National Army and United States Army components was Lieutenant Colonel and Captain, respectively. This is also evident and common knowledge in Murphy's WW II unit; 3rd Platoon, Baker Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division, in which I spent two combat deployments over more than three years attached as their Medic.
  

Again, considering good faith, I appreciate your help in making my Division's page better.

Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother Reading the Article before reverting it?

Hi did you read the article before and after the edit. My revision had sources Mjroots did not. Based on the hate message he put on my page he has a problem with Iranians, accusing me of being one. I guess he's not the only one? Xonus (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article, and I read the sources. And the sources are mixed as to the cause of the crash. While the sources seem to be reliable in what they report, they differ. Therefore a different approach is needed to cover all aspects. We need to report both sides of the opinion. In this case reporting who said what - though I note the Huffington Post is quoting the youtube description which makes it a little more problematic. The video is unfortunately inconclusive except to confirm that the aircraft was defintitely lacking its tailplane. However, the article title has been stable for a couple of years now. Given the recent element to the news, it may be premature to change it. That is a process best taken care of through the talkpage rather than through warring page moves. I read his post to your page too. It accuses you of possible bias but I would not describe it as hateful. One of the key things to remember on wikipedia is to Assume Good Faith in the first instance, whether you think other editors are reciprocating or not. I have no antagonism towards Iran or Iranians. I have expressed opinions on the content of the Coup article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconnaissance

Thanks for the appreciation - there's still some way to go on that article though. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Michel Hollard

Your edit there. As I'm not familiar with en:WP rules/details/templates: better than only removing the template do yourself what you ask from a “foreigner/guest”. That way ignorance will remain what seems to be usual. -- Хрюша 10:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

R101

I'm still in the dark as to what "a difference of less than an eighth of an inch of water gauge" means. The link to water gauge leads to an article about a device for showing the water level in a boiler or whatever: it is nothing to do with pressure differences, which surely is the issue here. I'm no technical expert, but I do have a prety fair understanding of technical issues for an amateur, and think that if I can't understand this, the average user of wkipedia will be equally baffled. (if it means less han an eighth of an inch of hydrostatic pressure, that is indeed a very sensitive valve indeed)TheLongTone (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I understood it to be an eighth of an inch of hydrostatic pressure - referring to a guage that used water (though gauge pressure, as opposed to absolute pressure could have been meant) rather than in. mercury. Though with most of the "criticism" being unsourced it could just be taken out and avoid baffling anyone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If my arithmetic is right, thet's 0.0003 bar!. What I imagine has happened here is that there was a pressure gauge system which provided a reading in a tube of water, referred to as a water gauge in whatever text the original author had read but not the same as the water gauge linked to. I'll delete it: the point is that the valves were sensitive, & the ref only muddies the waters. I must read 'Slide Rule', another one for the queue! Cheers.TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm back to the coal face on this article, Avon & Somerset allow you books for a long time but not for ever. Since I know this is an artcle in which you take an interest, I'd appreciate a bit of guidance. Somebody has put a flag on the article saying it needs more inline cites. I left a message on their talk page, to which they have not responded, but'd like an idea of what/how much should be cited. (I'm adding major dates & figures: what else?). Pretty much allofterefs will b from the Mafield book, which as far as I can tell is pretty well the only really solid work on the subject, utI an pulsome fom Flight or The Timesfor a bit of variation. Also, is there any real 'scholarly controversy' over the merits or otherwse of the design nowadays? Seems like remarkably calm waters compared to Gustave Whitehead!TheLongTone (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sugar beet problems

I notice you were at one time active editing sugar beet. I would like to remove the "unref" tag and was hoping you could help. Do you know of some reference(s) one could cite for the long, detailed section about processing? The "History" section also cites no sources except for something about GM sugar beets. And so on. I was hoping you'd have some background info that you could share. Sharktopus ^talk 21:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah sugar beet, the things I once knew about sugar beet and processing...but that's in the past now. To the question in hand though. Although I expect all I added was true, I added it as a "green" editor when I did not adhere to the principles of quoting sources. It's been a decade since I worked with sugar - but I may have a document or two somewhere. The British Sugar website used to have a brief description of the processes (used to be at britishsugar.co.uk). GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Chryssoun Aristion Andrias

Chryssoun Aristion Andrias mean Golden Medal for Bravery.--46.246.178.119 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper engine

I have edited out many, if not all, of the material commented upon on the article's talk page. It would now be quite easy to transfer the remaining sections into the existing Hyper engine article. I was quite concerned about the major rework necessary to revise the existing article with what material I thought was needed to revive it, but I am now confident, with the consensus of all concerned, that I can manage that task. Would you please, when you find a moment, take a look at my edits and leave your comments? Regards, Buster40004 Talk 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Exercise not Operation at Grand Slam (NATO) etc

Thanks for researching this change. If you have the time, you might consider examining the rest of the category's entries to see which others are more properly named Exercise rather than Operation, as well. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnes and the Battle of Arracourt

Graeme, the issue of Barnes and the relative worth of his work are IMO a distraction in the article. I'll see if I can find some other sources for the relative strength of both sides in the battle -- this would allow citations to Barnes' work to be removed from the article as well as the amplifying note I inserted as "nb 1". Barnes' work overall may be fine, but the ratios cited for the two forces appear to be internally inconsistent with other information provided in the work. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was more a general warning on the RS status than a comment on the numbers or discussion thereof. To my mind in any case where two reliable sources give differing numbers - it's better to quote the range than try and figure out if one is more accurate than the other. What Barnes (as it's online) would help with is fleshing out the course of the battle over the period. At the moment the article is roughly equal parts background and analysis and (bar the statement about the P-47s) next to nothing on who did what to who where and on which day. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnes' work may help with the sequence of events. Zaloga also documents it well in a Osprey campaign series volume. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SS Norlom

"British" Ministry of War Transport? How many other MoWTs are there. Surely the phrase shows that it's British, in a similar way to Royal Air Force and Royal Navy do. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The RAF and RN are much more well known to the average reader as being British than "Ministry of xxxxx" (and even for us Brits there seem to be only two "Ministry"s left) and the article Ministry of transport implies a lot of possible alternatives

including a Norwegian one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

China Clipper flight departure site

I have reverted your truncation of subject article pending discussion and consensus on alleged duplication of material in unspecified articles. A certain amount of duplication may be appropriate background for a site commemorating a relatively short duration of service by a small number of aircraft with some high-profile events at other points on the service routes. Potential duplication may involve articles on:

• aircraft types
• aircraft manufacturers
• aircraft models
• individual aircraft
• aircraft incidents, accidents or combat/battles
• aircraft terminals
• notable aircraft designers, pilots and/or passengers

Alternative approaches might be to merge stub articles on some of these subjects into more comprehensive articles and replace the stubs with redirects. I invite your comments.Thewellman (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well. I've already commented there. Perhaps you'd like to flag it up to the WP:Aviation project to garner some opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Milhist award image question

I have a question. Are we deleting all images (rank, awards, etc.) in infoboxes of military personnel? I understand how flags should not be included, per MOS:FLAG, though they do serve the purpose of the infobox, according to MOS:INFOBOX, which allows "readers to identify key facts at a glance."
However, I understand how some infoboxes contain more info than other and, as a result, present an opportunity for a cluster of images and links. So, is it out intent to delete images from infoboxes, or are we going by a case-by-case basis (for instance, the article of George Washington has flags & images in the infobox, yet is rated a good article). Here's some other articles to consider, Carter Ham, William Westmoreland, Audie Murphy. Thanks for you help with this and let me know what you think!
Bullmoosebell (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

well I've had a look at the last three. My immediate instinct is to edit the date of rank tables "with extreme prejudice". The layout going across in two rows is counterintuitive for a table, the rank images oversize (dominating the text they are supposed to be complementing), and I would say the images are superfluous-a picture of the individual in various unit/rank uniforms would make more sense. I will look through the MoS WP:ICON seems to cover it. it discusses use of images for conveying info and dreasons for not using them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested in an open discussion

Regarding your recent edit for Audie Murphy, I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to individual specification

The intention was to re-direct each to the List, but sleep intervened. Will have a go later, after work.Petebutt (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tczew/Dirschau

I took the liberty to revert your change at Junkers Ju 87. IMHO the very fact that there were some German speakers in the town does not mean we have to use the German name (or double naming, for that matter). There's a couple of thousands of Poles living in London, but that doesn't mean we should always mention "London (Londyn)". Or mention German names of British cities bombed by the Luftwaffe, for that matter. Sure, they are mentioned in German sources, but that doesn't mean we should follow.Cheers, //Halibutt 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Armour

• A source that is not listed as an inline citation in an article is not a reference, it does not point to any specific text in the article. It is "further reading" material unless it can be used to verify text.

Notes and References Shortcut: WP:FNNR

Notes and References appear after See also (click on image for larger view). Main page: Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format and place citations Contents: These sections present (1) citations that verify the information in the article, and (2) explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text. Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section. There is no consensus establishing a particular structure when footnotes and the works cited in those footnotes are placed in separate sections. Title: The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). The title "References" may be inappropriate if the section contains both explanatory notes and citations. Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography. With the exception of "Bibliography," the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item.[9]

Further reading Shortcut: WP:FURTHER A guideline on further reading sections is proposed at Wikipedia:Further reading. Contents: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• If they are "references" then put them in the "references" section, I have no problem with that, if you look at the "see also" section of the article every article uses "references" for the inline references. Click on these articles and see how that are formatted.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC) If a source is not an inline reference then it is really just further reading material as it does not help a reader verify the accuracy of the text written in the article.

See also

• Ballistic vest
• Battledress
• Bombsuit
• Cuirass
• Linothorax
• Powered exoskeleton
• Rolled homogeneous armour
• Japanese armour

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Citing sources

General reference A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. The disadvantage of using general references is that text-source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, requires inline citations for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. A general reference looks like this in the edit box: The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.

References

• Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
• Miller, E (2005). The Sun, Academic Press.

This is how it looks in the article: The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.

References Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78). Miller, E (2005). The Sun, Academic Press.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Featured articles Zapata Rail, Oliver Typewriter Company, Toa Payoh ritual murders,1949 Ambato earthquake,1968 Illinois earthquake,Yellowstone National Park,Tryon Creek, Byzantine navy,Structural history of the Roman military,Bodiam CastleSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Talk:Armour.
Message added 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Hohum ^@) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Title for air accident article

Hello Graeme. Thanks for your tweak of Ansett-ANA Flight 325.

I have just noticed the article XV179. I see you have done some work on it this year. The title of this article doesn’t conform to the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Accident article naming conventions. Could you have a look at this one and move it to a more appropriate title if you agree that is what is needed. Regards. Dolphin (t) 12:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. 2005 Royal Air Force Hercules shootdown is definitely a superior title! Dolphin (t) 05:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War II - Canada

Hello Graeme,

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Canada is merely consulted when it comes to organizing peace in the aftermath of the World War II. The Peace Conference held in Paris, in the summer of 1946, gives the second-tier Allies such as Canada the opportunity to only comment on the decisions taken. So Canada, like some other Western powers, does not end the state of war with Germany until 1951. Hope this Help! (BenSF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenSF (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NATO exercises

Thanks for your comment Graeme. I'll copy it to TheEd17's talkpage where the discussion may be taking place ; I completely agree with you. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Graeme Leggett - I can see that as a valid observation per your remarks on Buckshot06's talk page, and you both may want to look at my re-write of the Strategic overview section for Operation Deep Water. If this is acceptable, I would be more than happy to follow this approach in the above articles as well as any future naval or military exercise article that I may write.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Exercise Grand Slam

Hello, GraemeLeggett. I looked at the introductory paragraph under the Background section for Exercise Grand Slam, and it is not historically accurate (e.g., World War Two ended in 1945, and NATO was formed in 1949; the start of the Cold War predates the Korean War). NATO reflected the containment policy of the Truman administration, and the Soviet containment strategy sub-section in the Background section summarizes this information in the Exercise Longstep article. Also, Exercise Longstep is contemporaneaous with Exercise Grand Slam, both being 1952 NATO military operations.Marcd30319 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Franklin Cody

I noticed that when you did your last edit on the (shamefully sketchy) Cody biog that you changed the last edit I made, which had changed 'British Isles' to 'Britain'. I did that not because it's an issue with me, but because I've an editor breathing down my nec on the subjest: see my talk page. Nice refs, btw.TheLongTone (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Operation Deep Water - Strategic overview

On Ed17 talk page, Graeme Leggett noted that: "I think some common approach is needed on NATO exercise articles. On the one hand, some degree of background is necessary for each article to be put into context: eg with respect to current doctrine or the results of the previous similar exercise, or a change in the political situation. On the other hand, I think largely political rather than operational viewpoints are too distant from the point and overlong quotes are not useful - deprecated even per MoS etc. Is this something worth flagging up at the MilHist talkpages?" Given the fact that the Eisenhower administration developed its so-called "New Look" approach in defense strategy which emphasized massive retaliation, and this policy represents an evolution from the containment policy of the Truman administration. Also, for the U.S. Navy, historian Samuel P. Huntington set forth a naval strategy oriented to naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. This strategic background is appropriate and essential to understanding the historical context for NATO exercises in 1957. This assertion that this is covered by other articles is not appropriate approach and does a disservice to our user audience. I therefore reverts the edited text to the original content. See talk page for this article, and I suggest that we examine this issue there.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Operation Deep Water - Command structure

The suggestion that this background information is duplicative and unnecessary is an absolute non sequitur. Please note that Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe did not exist at the time of such earlier NATO Southern Region military exercise as 1952's Exercise Longstep and 1952's Exercise Grand Slam. In fact, Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe (STRIKFORSOUTH) was created after the creation of Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) under Lord Mountbatten, and STRIKFORSOUTH was created to maintain American control over U.S. nuclear weapons on U.S. Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier in accordance with the McMahon Act. Therefore, this background information on the command structure for Operation Deep Water is approbriate. Consequently, the assertion that this information is covered by other articles is incorrect and also does a disservice to our user audience to exclude this information for this article. I therefore reverts the edited text to the original content. See talk page for this article, and I suggest that we examine this issue there.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sunbeam (BSA) motorcyle badge.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sunbeam (BSA) motorcyle badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all those who made this award possible, my fellow editors who put up with terse edit summaries and the times I forgot to preview, the collegiate nature of the project etc.... Ta. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion.

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Empire ship armaments

The ships were equipped with either a 4-inch gun, or a 4.7-inch gun. In the vast majority of cases, it is not known which of the two was carried. It is entirely possible that both types were carried by the same ship at different times. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dehousing

Please see Talk:Dehousing#Chief scientist to the Royal Navy -- PBS (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.

Iranian coup supporters

Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates"; "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah." They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.

Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic." Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations." Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.

Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet threat."government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you...

...remove the "popular culture" and picture sections from my KV-4 article? GMRE (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:POPCULTURE - while interesting, the World of Tanks snippet has no encyclopedic relevance to the KV-4 itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. Apart from possibly referring to WP:OWN GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But what about the pictures then? Those were scans of the real designs. GMRE (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The pictures were without provenance - so they couldn't be certain to be of the KV-4, and the copyright status was unknown - so they might not have been free to use in wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for the background etc). These two issues combined made including them problematic - especially as direct links. Apologies for not mentioning this earlier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Model sections

Graeme, I'd appreciate your support at Talk:Daring class destroyer (1949) about the removal of the "models" section. Shem (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll ponder the issue. Don't forget to flag the issue at WP:Ships /WP Milhist - we don't want any allegations of "Canvassing". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello GraemeLeggett! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

List of shipwrecks in 1939

Can you give me about 10 more minutes please? Will change template to under construction when I finish. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, please don't remove entries on the grounds of notability for the moment. I want to work through the list to December, and will then be using this list as the basis for discussion on inclusion criteria at WP level. I'm not saying the ships grounded and refloated are definitely going to be notable enough to be included, but I've been following what appears to be long standing practice. That said, I think that the issue does warrant a discussion, and if there is a threshold decided upon that means these incident fall below that threshold then they can be removed. I hope to finish the 1939 list in the next few days, health permitting. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Weymann photo

Hi, Twelve months ago you were going looking for a photo to go with the article on Charles Terres Weymann - you didn't like the one available. Had any luck? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Third Opinion Award
		Although it has been a long time, I really appreciate your comments at Talk:Tatmadaw. Both editors, including myself, forgot to assume good faith when things get hot. Again, thank you very much. — SWHtalk 18:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces

Thanks for your edits to this page. Would you please mind keeping an eye on it periodically? We may get additional anon/vandal edits on this page that need a second look. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

F/Sgt Charles Albert Hobby - List of RAeC Aviator Certificates(No 757)

Hello.

I note that you have replaced my edit with "Citation Needed". I am curious to know why as I am a direct descendant of Charles Albert Hobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypyrex (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

F/Sgt Charles Albert Hobby - List of RAeC Aviator Certificates(No 757)

Sorry I bothered in that case. I ought to know when my own grandfather died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypyrex (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

IAF

Did you not think I had that in mind? Israel is at (Israel), and until someone seriously starts adding Tom Cooper's material, we have no data on pre-2003 Iraqi squadrons (and we need some second sources, at the very least). Current Iraqi squadrons seem to have ordinals; ie 23rd Squadron (Iraq). The point is that '1 Squadron, Indian Air Force' is an awfully clumsy title, and this significantly shortens it. But, the Pakistani Air Force is next on my list; can you think of any other 'PAFs' that use RAF-style designations without ordinals? Paraguay will have that Sp/Port little circle after the number, what else? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that by shortening it, you lose meaning since IAF is less familiar in the English speaking world than RAF or USAF. For Spanish languages, the ^o indicates an ordinal and would translate as -st, ;nd, -rd, -th appropriately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Deprodding of List of books about kites

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of books about kites, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

proposed changes in 1953 Iran coup article

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Windhoek Concentration Camp

Greetings, User:GraemeLeggett.

I have a question for you that is pertinent to an article you recently edited, Windhoek Concentration Camp. Since others may also know the answer (or know of a nuance of the answer that you might not be aware of), I've opened the discussion on that article's Talk page. I invite you to comment.

Cordially, Virago250 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Blackburn G.P.

I,m all for adding bits, but I am a bit dubious of the Flight dimensions for the mainplanes. Personally, I would trust the historian more than a journalist. Can you confirm the figures from another source too? If not, could you change them back to the Putnam ones?Petebutt (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Flight is contemporary, and a journal of high reputation - not seen its reliableness questioned often. Its staff got access to aircraft, company and Ministry information, and in the cases of reporting early aircraft often went over them with their own tape measure. I will have a further read. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more modern issues of flight have a reputation second to none for accuracy, but early issues, typically before 1940 could'succumb to slapdash treatment of dimensions and other data.Petebutt (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Could, but I'd argue it's more likely (barring "official misinformation", of course) that more recent sources would be wrong - transpositions, typos, etc. occuring over the years. (Russian and Soviet types being a big exception!)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just my Chritmas three ha'porth, but I'd trust the Putnam book over a single issue of Flight. I'm sure the author of the Putnam book on Blackburn would have seen this article & have good source that differed.TheLongTone (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And on the subject of Flight, I've just encountered an article with two different versions of the propeller diameter of the same aircraft. Sigh. TheLongTone (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The more the merrier. Bung it in the external links of the article. I love a good traipse through the Flight archives, I just wish they were easier to navigate through. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The more the murkier imo. I've found a third, different dimension, but its a rounded metric... Incidentally, I'd like a bit of guidance. I've started an article on the unlovely Bleriot XIII - User:TheLongTone/Blériot XIII. At the time it seemed logical to include the Bleriot XXIV in the same article, but I'm having doubts. Best to reply on my talk page I imagine.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

British Airways flight 2157

Thank you for correcting my typo from 'hinges' to 'latches' with regard to the inflight loss of the inspection panel on British Airways flight 2157, however, you then marked the article for deletion based on the incident not being newsworthy. May I politely request that you would reconsider this and unmark the article? I have spent some time in researching it to get the facts right and it was on the mainstream BBC News and also several newpapers at the time. I think it is important that people have access to the truth and that is why I have put the link to the AIBB. Many people I know remember this incident and it is one of few cases when the emergency vehicles have been mobilised at Gatwick. As you probably know, one of the panel latches was allegedly found inside the cabin which would indicate a hull breach, but I could not find a reliable reference for this and so did not include it in the article. Please advise - many thanks! BritAirman (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Graeme - thank you for your helpful explanation. I have amended the text to include some additional information that I think makes it noteworthy. I would value some more time on this to research some of the background newspaper coverage and will try to source a copyright free photo. Happy New Year!

BritAirman (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

British Military airships

You might want to take a look at Template:Admiralty airships - I think you know more about this subject than I do. It's just been substantially edited by someone who made a number of (good faith but ill-informed) edits to airship articles yesterday: I've reverted several & noticed you had reverted another. And a happy new year to you! TheLongTone (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whitehead US Patent

I added the 1905 US Patent content and web source to the Whitehead article and moved the controversy section out of the introduction. You subsequently reverted my edit which removed the US Patent content and source completely. I've restored the US Patent content to the intro and left the lengthy controversial content in the intro. If you're going to be a mother hen, at least leave reliable npov content in the article.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable Captains CP Ships

Hi, I have been doing some work on the CP Ships article, trying to make it more similar to the other steamship articles. I noticed that you reverted the detailed information on why the captains are notable. When I compare this to other pages, it seems to me that there is too much information. This article should be about CP Ships and having the Captians there is relevant. I just think there is too much detail, since they each have their own webpage. I think two of the Captains can be expanded into the relevant fleet event and the one Commodore should probably be in the history section above (with reduced information on his numerous honours). What do you think? Doesn't make sense to me to now have the Japanese earthquake referenced for both the ship and Captain separately, for example.--Varaldarade (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Morris CDSW

Dear Graeme, thanks for the tidying - but what is LAA version? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Eternal Light Peace Memorial‎

Hi there. I saw that you have been making some edits to the above article and wanted your opinion on this: Do you think that this article is over-referenced? For example, the sentence "President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at a temporary platform[23][24] on his special train via the Reading RR from the North[25] after leaving Springwood at Hyde Park NY[26] that morning.[27]" has five citations, including two for the fact that he arrived at at temporary platform. It seems to me that only one citation would be enough for the sentence. (I wanted a second opinion before I started removing notes.) Thanks for your work on the article so far. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to cut down on the number of citations. Considering that the whole body of citations consists of Google newspaper articles, do you think it might be better to simply remove all the citations and search for other sources (such as books or pamphlets)? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Better to find books etc that cover the subject and add them to the references section. Then replace the newspaper citations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, navigation and control

I de-prodded this, which appears to be real and notable. Take it to WP:AfD for wider discussion. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Graph

I don't know if you remember, but a while back we collaborated on Disney bomb. I'm now working on bringing HMS Graph up to GA and, as it's the first time I've done this as a solo effort, wondered if you would care to look it over before I put it in for an A-class review. You seem to be an experienced editor with an interest in WW2 stuff. Catsmeat (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 22:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ding ding~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Talk:Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force#PROD
• FWIW, please take over as I'm going to walk away from this, the jerk is really impossible! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS:Flag

Please clarify what clause, specifically, of the MOS:FLAG policy supports your edit. As it was pointed out during the related discussion, there are a lot of aircraft pages where coutry flags are used. Your change creates an inconsistency in handling of different aircraft pages, there must be a very good reason for that. C1010 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Per section appropiate use "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself" I don't think the nationality of the airlines is particularly pertinent. I also note further down that "name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon" and yet further that "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the clauses you cited poorly support your case. There are several good reasons why country flags were put there in the first place, for example, it allows the reader to easily judge aircraft's market, whether it's domestic or international, and if it's international what countries are involved. Your change will needlessly force the reader to work harder to get this information, potentially wasting reader's time and making him to click through many pages.

With reference to the above, I strongly disagree with your edit, and if you still not convinced by my arguments I suggest this issue should be put to a vote. C1010 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Blohm & Voss BV 238 destruction

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_238#Conflicting_accounts_of_the_destruction_of_the_aircraft.

Cricobr (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Short S.27

Morning. I was looking at the edit history of this article (which is now undergoing my trademark 'give the article a partial rewrite and then bugger off for pastures new, leaving behind a good sprinkling of typos' edit style), & noticed you'd changed the specs back to the original aircraft specifications. I've changed it back, because I couldn't stop it displaying 'Height()', which I tink looks messy... height is a pretty unimportant dimension & is missing from many sets of specs in reference works. TheLongTone (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw. I don't care for the template with built in conversions - I think it's just too inflexible on some occasions and the triple conversions for speed make it crowded - but you have a valid point. I ought to have a look at the template that was in use and see if it can supress blank parameters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've certinly noticed some odd results when using the convert templates in general, but I don't know enough about template functions in general, being fairly new to editing. But another advantage of ....'specs' is the inclusion of the note parameter. I imagine this was inserted because the conversion function stalls if a ref tag is added for a figure not from the primary source, but there are also occasions where something else is required: for instance there are aircraft where the cited reference is clearly wrong with a figure, and a note to explain the omission could be useful. (The Short S.81 is an instance: looking at figures for similar aircraft in the Putnam book on Short Bros aircraft the given figure for wing area is clearly nonsense. Thanks for the tweaks, btw. TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Royal Air Force aircraft independent flights

Just curious as to why you piped links that already re-directed to the relevant articles. Personally I prefer re-directs which give a far better chance of someone searching finding the correct article, particularly with the Wikipedia search engine. Although it is a personal preference, I will re-direct links wherever possible, replacing piped links.Petebutt (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

R101: my unintended edit

Thank you for spotting and removing my last edit. I intended to make only a couple of minor edits (which have already been dealt with) but for some reason which I cannot figure out I must have been working on a previous version of the text without realising it. Thankfully you have put it right and no permanent damage is done! Sue Zuki (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sending this message

to all the editors involved in the rapidly expanding List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. I recently spun off the state monuments for Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia (and intend to do Pennsylvania soon), leaving only a token bit of each in the list. I named these articles to include the name of the battle Alabama State Monument (Gettysburg) because many states have monuments in several battlefields and it seemed that we might as well start preparing for Alabama State Monument (Vicksburg) right now. Someone then re-named those articles (yesterday?) and removed the name of the battle. (they also changed the picture of the North Carolina Monument that I had added that I think much better caught the spirit of Borglum's work, but that is another issue.) Furthermore, there is something really unexplained happening on the talk pages of the new articles, If you click on the TALK tab at, say Virginia Monument (a really lame title, because how many of those are there across America?) you end up at the talk page of the list. What is that about? I would like to redirect these articles back to where they were redirected from yesterday, but unlike the editor who just did it, I'd like to involve all the interested editors. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

CASA 2.111

I removed the tag on the strength of applying the specs template, but I still don't see where we might find more comprehensive specifications from. I am taking the view that unless there are truly gaping holes then I remove the tags. It doesn't stop anybody adding more later, and it helps tidy up the tag section on the maintenance page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wolseley Motors

Thank you, it was a puzzling direct quote from the chairman's speech and I guess he was thinking of the whole of Vickers at the time. And thanks for the additional information, I need this kind of informed following by a non-malicious editor, Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are still editing

List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. The editor right before your last few edits totally changed the look and feel of the article, adding a few good things, but removing most of the images (which happen to have been mine) and screwing with the formatting of what's left something fierce. I believe that since monuments such as these are designed to be looked at, that images are vital. However repairing this mess will be, I believe, a major endeavor, one that I am not inclined to do if it's not supported by the other editors involved. Do you have any thoughts, opinions, feelings or input? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go back to the "original" version, then cut and paste from the later addition the useful material (be careful with your edit summaries). If its only introduced partial improvements but lost a lot of material then there is a reason for doing so. Be prepared though that if they revert you should take it to the talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel that what is there now is an improvement over what was there before 206.18.170.160 edited, perhaps 4 edits ago? Since most of those edits are yours, and since I don't really understand them - they seem to be largely formatting, and that's something I do not do much of. But first, again, do you feel that it is a better list without the pictures of the various monuments that were there before, and with what is there now? Carptrash (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seddon Mayfly

Thank you, GraemeLeggett, for editing my Seddon Mayfly article. I couldn't find the information you dug up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBrain (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 

The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company

Hi Graeme, you've removed the link to Wolseley plc. (trouble is it is exactly the same company) and commented in your edit summary that it is to the modern company - see [here] and I think there is more elsewhere on that site. It is like me making a distinction between Graeme Leggett aged 22 and 'the modern Graeme Leggett' - do you see what I mean? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you point, but The Sheep Shearing name ended with the merger with Hughes in the 50s didn't it? or if its exactly the same company then perhaps the two articles should be merged to just Wolseley plc or if that would it unwieldy a second article: history of Wolseley. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Part A. If your preferred political party decided you should be their man in the House of Lords as Aviation Spokesman and you became known as Baron L of L in the county of L'shire you'd still be the same person though the (paid) occupation may be different (Good Lord, I hope you're not in fact in the HoL!). A company is a legal 'person', a separate legal entity.

Part B. I'm no economic historian but the wool trade was a very big thing (clothing) in the world's temperate and colder zones until the importation of cotton grown in warm climates followed by the switch to more easily maintained synthetics in the 20th century. Wolseley's machinery literally revolutionised the wool industry. It will be far more important to the world always (if perhaps only historically) than absolutely any very large building supply business at all so I would be very strongly against any merger.

It seems to me so often in Wikipedia we get confused as to what the article is about, a business (e.g. making fighter aircraft) or its owner - (e.g. Bombardier? who made the last aircraft I travelled in). I'd like to know your thoughts, regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion

Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.

1. Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
   1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Politics of the British Isles
   2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Political parties in the British Isles
   3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Political movements of the British Isles
2. Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
   1. Politics in the British Isles

Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dakota VT-CLA

I must say, it's nice to see such a healthy interest in the article! Thanks for cleaning up and adding some stuff; I'm not used to articles on plane crashes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Vickers A1E1 Independent, Neubaufahrzeug

So, is there a psychological limitation which prevents you from acknowledging that an IP might be right? You acknowledged it implicitly in both cases, so why bother reverting me in the first place? (Note: While I think your reversals are silly, I am curious to learn your motives.) --91.10.25.203 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For the Vickers Independent I restored the Notes section with the reflink code. I took a moment to look over the article, followed up the espionage link, spotted a reference for a claim and took it and added that citation to the Vickers Independent using the <ref> code at which point, if the notes section was not there I would have had to add it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are just describing what happened. Why did you explicitly revert me, twice, while implicitly agreeing that an empty notes section is silly? Was there really no other way? --91.10.25.203 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edmonton air crash

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

Hi, although I don't believe that you have edited the above article before I wondered if you might be willing to add your thoughts in a discussion currently taking place on the Talk page about the article lead, specifically how various controversies should be dealt with and at what length.

I have put a draft version of an expanded lead on the talk page for discussion. No worries if you don't want to participate for whatever reason. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon design

Hello. I disagree with your July 1 edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_weapon_design&diff=500145647&oldid=498527781

I think it is important for the reader to be able to see the diagram and read the captions while reading the text. With your change, the reader will have to toggle back and forth between the image and the text to do that, something most readers will not do. HowardMorland (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Before my edit the picture image was 700px wide. The policy on image use Wikipedia:IMGSIZE advises "maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide" for accessiblity reasons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

Now that the TfD has closed, see this thread. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuffield Organisation

Hi Graeme, being an Oxford business they did use the Z for a short pre-war while but they soon dropped it. You had better change the article name back to the correct one. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was used during the war (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1942/1942%20-%202248.html) and post-war eg for the Festival of Britain 1951 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/32705854@N04/4721877406/ and in other writing on the subject this for instance (though being OUP they might be holding out) so perhaps its a case of that's how they spelt it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, the last one is OUP USA! If you have gone to the trouble of finding those examples you must have found many many more that use S. I'm going to have to fix that picture gallery that you have deleted a lot of images from. You must spend so much time looking at aircraft you didn't see the link between the items? Eddaido (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be able to find more contemporary zeds The Motor of 1957, this tome is generally "z" but punctillious to observe the "s" when it appears in the bibliography. As to the gallery, I'm not a fan of large ones and see the benefit of commons categories in many cases. If a reader is expected to draw a conclusion from pictures, then I'd rather it was spelt out for them in text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list of occurrences in display advertising in The Times

Display Advertising The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. The Times (London, England), Friday,  Jul 25, 1941; pg. 2; Issue 48987.  (223 words) 

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday,  Nov 30, 1943; pg. 2; Issue 49716.  (43 words) 

Display Advertising Display Advertising. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  May 24, 1945; pg. 3; Issue 50150.  (87 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Monday,  Jun 11, 1945; pg. 3; Issue 50165.  (110 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Monday,  Jul 30, 1945; pg. 2; Issue 50207.  (122 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Friday,  Aug 31, 1945; pg. 6; Issue 50235.  (74 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  Sep 13, 1945; pg. 6; Issue 50246.  (71 words) 

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Monday,  Oct 01, 1945; pg. 8; Issue 50261.  (19 words) 

Display Advertising Alexander Duckham & Co., Ltd. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  Jan 23, 1946; pg. 2; Issue 50357.  (52 words) 

Display Advertising Alexander Duckham & Co., Ltd. The Times (London, England), Monday,  Feb 04, 1946; pg. 3; Issue 50367.  (59 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Thursday,  Feb 07, 1946; pg. 3; Issue 50370.  (88 words) 

Display Advertising National Association Of Boy's Clubs. The Times (London, England), Friday,  May 17, 1946; pg. 7; Issue 50454.  (602 words) 

Display Advertising Morris Motors Limited. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  Sep 04, 1946; pg. 9; Issue 50547.  (263 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  Jan 08, 1947; pg. 2; Issue 50653.  (148 words) 

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Monday,  Feb 03, 1947; pg. 4; Issue 50675.  (156 words) 

Display Advertising Morris. The Times (London, England), Wednesday,  Mar 12, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50707.  (72 words) 

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday,  Apr 08, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50729.  (78 words) 

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday,  Jul 22, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50819.  (121 words) 

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Saturday,  Aug 16, 1947; pg. 6; Issue 50841.  (94 words) 

Moving onto the little display of the products with notes of their engines, have you seen the old lay-out I've now put on the talk page? The four cars on the left share one monocoque body (with an extension to the front of the 6 cylinder cars - the half). They share two engines. The four on the right have separate bodies and chassis and the 4 cars have 3 separate engines (they are all by then obsolescent). The one in the middle, the Minor shares at least its monocoque body design if not the whole body with the four cars on the left. If a reader is interested enough in the subject I'd have thought they would work it out for themselves following the heading note. If you think they need the list as well below it in the manner set out on the talk page do you mind just confirming it? Using the gallery as I did the brand name duplication becomes superfluous - do you agree? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

my examination of the Times archive seems to show that the s version was used in adverts post war to about 1948/9, therafter the Z version reappears through to 1960. There are two post-1960 references to "Organisation" in advertising but these seem to be by non-Nuffield entities referring to the group.The gallery looks better for your work - tighter and to the point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'd better admit my same research showed that on balance the organization itself more often used Z in display advertisements in The TImes so I'll quit my dispute with you on that. Going back to the gallery, how much explanation should it receive? Eddaido (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Norfolk mortars

Thanks for the tweaks to the Cley and SSSI articles, who would have guessed there was an article on the Yarmouth attack? With respect to the mortar tweak, do you have a ref I could add in the admittedly unlikely event that someone points out that my source doesn't say what type? If you don't have anything RS, doesn't matter, I don't think it will be queried, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, I don't doubt you for a moment, but I've been asked to source things that are absolutely obvious before now, so just doing the belt and braces bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I see you're editing the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest article, which is currently at Milhist's A-class review. We welcome any articles at our A-class review that are tagged for Milhist ... and then some! ... but it does put us in the awkward position that sometimes we're reviewing something we don't know beans about. If you were planning to review this at FAC anyway, or even if not, we'd appreciate your review at A-class, and then you can just link your review when it gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

British Eagle

I asked administrator The Bushranger to protect the article from IP vandals. An IP reverted your last edit and I undid it. The article is a glaring example of citation overkill. Just under 3 years ago, it had a total of 11. Now its close to 200. They were done by IPs for the most part and cleaning them up is going to be hell. Just looking at the edit box gives me a headache....William 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I can talk to a registered editor but dealing with ips....Editing the article isn't easy I'll admit, so it's a case of inching forward. I suspect there is a lot of duplication in the referencing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidents involving Douglas aircraft

Hi Graeme. I see you have re-named the article 1948 Lutana crash. Thanks - I was planning to do that myself after I have significantly expanded the article. In this diff User:MilborneOne makes a very good point that titles should name these aircraft Douglas DC-4 etc. I followed his request when I created the new title 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash. Dolphin (t) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Икарус Оркан

Thank you very much for your help in writing articles for Wikipedija, your updates will contribute much to the quality of articles. When you have time to pass through the other articles I have written so far and improve them. Yours faithfully D.J.Basić--Dusanbasic (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HP O/100

well, if somebody said I was the father of the heavy bomber I'd ask for a paternity test. But seriously, I thought that munitions were one of your fields: surely there are standard bomb sizes? 100lbs is what Barnes says....and I know if I ferret around I'll find a reference to 107lb bombs. On the subject of munitions, I've recently done a bit to the article on Dennistoun Burney, which could do with some attention from somebody with more knowledge of guns & shells than I have...fancy a go? TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the truth, if there is a truth, is that a bomb of around 100lb or so is meant. I left the note as someone else might read the source and then think about editing it. That there is also 40 years between the design of the O/100 and HP's memories might cast doubt - though the 75 ft square shed seems quite precise. As to Dennistoun Burney, I don't think I've touched the article since 2005, and its no longer on my watchlist, but I didn't know about the Flight archive then, or other sources. I'll drop by. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are referencs in Barnes to it dropping 112lb bombs. So it seems to be a matter of a loosely formulated initial spec. I'll have a look & clear it up....sometime. I've a nasty feeling in my water that I'm about to get overly involved with the R100 article, and I've left Sir Frederick stranded in 1919. I'm afraid I'm not the most ordered of editors.TheLongTone (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

De Havilland VENOM

Hi,

On the [article] concerning the DH Venom, I provided an external link to my blog with pictures I took from a museum. My link is systematically deleted by admins - Can you please explain why it should be a possible COI ? I think it is my last contribution to Wiki as I am really wasting my time editing content that will be deleted.

Cheers,

tonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniosky (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikify

Hi, just to let you know that Template:Wikify has been deprecated and so more specific tags should be used instead, such as Template:Underlinked, Template:Dead end, Template:Cleanup etc. Thanks! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

78th Fighter Group

I've been looking at your edits to the 78th Fighter Group article and liked the shortening you did there (and a semihemidemi Barnstar for these edits). I have been shy of doing this on image captions after having editors with billions and billions of edits revert them, apparently on the theory that the full caption on Wikimedia is the only thing that is allowed when images are inserted into articles.

That being said, I don't agree with your elimination of the streamer images for awards and campaigns of the group. Your reason for the change was that images are disproportionate. It seems to me that in that case the appropriate action would be to resize the images to a proportionate size. So I have reverted your edit and invite you to size them to what you believe is proportionate.

Don't think this is snark. I really am interested in what size is appropriate for streamers awarded to USAF units. I think the graphic of the streamer enhances the article. (And I am aware of the parallel disagreement concerning whether ribbons should be displayed for individuals.) The alternatives I have seen on other articles on United States Air Force units have been to insert the image for the ribbon in the infobox. This is inappropriate because USAF units are awarded streamers, not ribbons. (Aside: I understand the equivalent for campaigns for UK units is to inscribe the battle/campaign on their colours). I have also seen the image for the streamer in infoboxes, but to make them fit the infoboxes, the images are reduced to a point that they are not distinguishable one from the other. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't say that I disagree with what you posted on my talk page. I'm currently working my way up through fighter groups assigned to Air Defense Command, so I won't hit 78 for a while, but what do you think of the resizing of streamers on 32d Air Expeditionary Group?

--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Keepitimpartial

Keepitimpartial is accusing you of being my sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan. I listed all of my socks on my userpage and made it clear that they were in line with policy on keeping socks.Rajmaan (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

History of the Great War

Would "See also" be better under "Further Reading"?Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Giffard Le Quesne Martel

Hi, I see we are both working on this somewhat overlooked military pioneer at the same time. I'm more interested in his work on bridging than anything else and hope to be adding something on this in the near future. QThought (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

At least Charles Inglis has a decent writeup on Wiki. I've trawled the London Gazette for Martel and will post the referenced entries in a British Army Ranks subarticle on his wikipage next week. QThought (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New section on Chieftain talk page Israeli/UK design co-operation

• Hi Graeme. I ve created a new section on the chieftain talk page re early Israeli/UK co-operation on the design. Would like your thoughts. Ive also left a similar message on Hohums page, I respect you lads regarding your armour knowledge. Any thoughts would be welcome. Happy new year! Irondome (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Centurion tank references

Hello!

There is currently a mix-up in the references at Centurion tank. I saw you were adding to the references there, including the book Centurion 5 by M. Norman, which is involved. Please, check the article Talk page for details on the issue and see if you can help solve it. Thanks. — Marvin ^talk 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Original language investigation reports

Hi Graeme! Let's take a look at this edit Normally non-English links are "inferior" to English links and are to be included, but in this case the Japanese report needs to be linked somewhere in this document. If you look at the English report, it clearly states that the Japanese report is the original, and if there is a conflict between the Japanese and English report, the Japanese report prevails. So both need to be linked WhisperToMe (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Armour in Profile - page numbers.

Only a small thing, but the Profiles in my possession have numbered pages. In some cases, online versions that have been cropped for PDF have lost the number. That might explain the confusion. Hengistmate (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be it. Since I made that bold anouncement I have been thinking that a) I was working on what-I-think-I-know rather that what the actual case is and b) whether it would just be better to assume the page numbers run from 1 after the inside cover. The latter though would also probably be wrong because (for example) an online copy of AFV Weapons Profile No.40 US Armoured Cars runs from page 169 to page 188. Which implies it came from one of the compilations published. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If its of any interest, the aircraft Profiles are paginated with the front cover as Page 1.TheLongTone (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Same with the armour. Inside front cover is p2, and so on.Hengistmate (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on that basis from now on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitler and the Mosquito

Hi Graeme, it's possible that it had something to do with zig-zag, but without some clear source/evidence it is a ridiculous statement to make without adding a great deal of explanation. For example, the Supermarine factory at Southampton was targeted and destroyed during the B of B - do we also say that the Spitfire was targeted by Hitler? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Military Structure

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox military structure.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gavbadger (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military installation/sandbox

I "think" i have fixed the switch problem however there is one }} which shows up in the testcases that i cannot find out why it shows up.

Can you have a look please?

I will not edit the templates until past 11pm tonight. Gavbadger (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Gavbadger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gavbadger (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Aviator move

I have no problem whatsoever with the move back to aviator as long as the article is actually talking about aviators in general. But man, doesn't that look like an article about airplane pilots to you? The first two sentences in the article (even before my edits) made very clear that the two are not strictly synonyms! Let's talk this over at the talk page for the article. I'm certain you know a lot more on this matter than I do and I'm eager for you to clear up any misunderstandings I may have on this. Maybe a split is needed? Red Slash 21:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking for your input on a matter

Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [10]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force.
Message added 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

HMCS Nene (K270)

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You have new messages at Talk:HMCS Nene (K270).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Anne Delong (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

County Class cruisers

Dear Graeme,

Thank you for your prompt response to my bracket note on HMS Norfolk, I added the original para some years ago connecting Hampshire, Devonshire, Kent and Fife to the Royal dockyards, and also observed that Antrim, Glamorgan and London were "Capital counties".

Norfolk was a previous County-class name of distinction, and with East Coast connections not yet commemorated (South had 3, West 2, Scotland and NI 1 each) Norfolk filled a geographical gap. But the suggestion that it was also a proxy "Dockyard" was a matter of discussion in 1975, when Ark visited Norfolk Va with Hampshire as escort. I could not prove this, but I hoped to draw out a challenge or a confirmation with my factual 'coincidental' observation.

I will pursue this notion with the NHB when next able to.

(Thanks also for your interventions on the 'Cruel Sea', which I have clarified in the 'fictional' listings after their reversion by 'Mervyn'. You may be able to find a more economical way of doing this, but as the Book and the Film are equally noteworthy I felt they both deserved a line, as 'Saltash' and 'Saltash Castle' are not the same ship types. It was to provide this clarity that I separated the 19th & 20th century fictional ships, and the films from the books).

Rupert Nichol (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

P-61

Hi,

I see some time back you removed the Ta 154 from the "similar aircraft" part of the P-61 Black Widow Page. The reason you cited was that it was "single-seat, single-engine."

Surely you're confusing the Ta 154 with the Ta 152? I'd revert the edit myself, however the same edit also removed, correctly I believe, the dH Hornet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.161.48 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Might have been collateral damage. I've put it back in there.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers 121.217.161.48 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

German resistance

Please DO NOT again delete my reply to your comment at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II. Sca (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military installation

Good Afternoon

There is a question here about Infobox Military Installation which I do not know the answer, can you answer it please?

Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Made no sense

You do realize that your response for reverting my change made absolutely no sense. Yours and everyone's else seems to be more of "keep it the same" then to actually recognize the major issue with that article and fixing it. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)