User talk:GraemeLeggett

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 [1]. 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)

Um kindly please do not delete my comments from article talk pages thank you. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Velocette MAC (WD)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Velocette MAC (WD) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

German Wiki

I was attempting to resolve an issue with a bunch of English speakers arguing over the linguistic use of an English translation of a German name by citing the German page on that same issue which if I am not mistaken is edited by Germans who speak native German and can thus be considered a reliable source in relation to the German language if nothing else. the term "not entirely correct" is quite appropriate as though in contemporaneity German the English Name "King tiger" is an accepted part of the German language and shows up in any translator, at the time in question this term was stretching the language rules. However just as it is not entirely accurate it is not entirely inaccurate either, as the Germans did not call a bengal-tiger (the cat) by that name as the German word for Bengal is Bengal and is not representative of the German name in terms of imagery or bearing. the English word denotes a basic location of a majority of the animal in question, where as the German name denotes a cat of some superiority to the basic tiger which is closer to the meaning of and better represented by the historic mistranslation than the actual translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyphen (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Short haul for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Short haul is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short haul until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I am placing this here because you have contributed to the article. Kbog (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of short-haul aircraft for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of short-haul aircraft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short-haul aircraft until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Both these articles are inferior duplicates of list of regional airliners.

I am placing this here because you have contributed to the article. Kbog (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gustave Whitehead. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gustave Whitehead may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about the Centurion

You recently added a passage to the Centurion article about some of the early prototypes. This concludes with a sentence about a version armed with a "77 mm" gun. The 17-pdr is, of course, 77 mm. So I'm wondering if this section is referring to the 17-pdr, or another gun entirely? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And why not…

I see on your user page that you hail from the Norwich area? How difficult would it be for you to meander over to the Cambridge area, specifically Earith? I'd desperate for a photo of the remains of the Tracked Hovercraft test line, and I suspect this may be of some interest to you as well. I'd do it myself, but there's this nasty Pond in the way… Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the header template I just added, it's not outside the realm of possibility and the sort of thing to do to take a break from sitting inside. I know people I visit occasionally in Cambridge so it's a case of remembering, then remembering also to take the scenic route and the camera. I'd need some co-ordinates and an idea of what sort of image you require (the bleak majesty of the fens or close ups of dilapidated concrete.) Alternatively I might be able to "subcontract" the job to them - he's quite technically minded and interested in regional history. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Helpfully, someone added the COORDs into the article header. However, the area is a bit fenced off, so I won't pretend that it will be straightforward. Images of the crumbling concrete would be ideal I think, albeit somewhat sad perhaps… Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have piqued my friend's interest. He sometimes goes that way for a pub lunch, so might have a recce. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military installation (again)

Hello GraemeLeggett

How are you getting on with Template:Infobox military installation?

Last time we spoke I think you said you were working on the co-ordinates, how is that going?

The elevation is sorted and we are just waiting on the coordinates.

Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wing configurations

Hi, Your undoing of my revision doesn't seem to make sense. "Cabane struts" had been part of the parasol definition for some time, and all I did was to add a wikilink. Also, I deleted an addition by SteelPillow who had put a comment in the wrong place. (In my view, his comment is wrongheaded anyway). So, you have deleted a wikilink and have restored a misplaced comment! SteelPillow has frequently been accused of sailing very close to WP:OWN, and it seems that he is doing it again. Please don't aid & abet him! Also, you write "doesn't need struts to be a parasol wing" ; but I thought that was the very definition of a parasol wing. Please advise! Arrivisto (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You have restored a definition that says that a parasol is "mounted on the upper fuselage. " Ignoring that there is just one fuselage, and that there is no "upper fuselage", surely the point of a parasol wing is, as its name suggests, that it is like an umbrella from which the aircraft is suspended? Arrivisto (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Parasol wing means above the fuselage, that can be by strut, pylon or pedestal. And it is mounted on the upper part of the fuselage - the "upper fuselage" - as opposed to mounted on any other part the aeroplane. Perhaps I should have shuffled the words a bit more but I felt you'd taken the definition in the wrong way by omitting other parasol designs that didn't use struts. On the other matter, if you think a user is going OWN, then you have options. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. I shall revert, but shall add the "strut, pylon or pedestal" variants. Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the recent confusion. I made an edit in the wrong place and you two have been trying to figure it out. It is now back the way I meant it. With regards to what is or is not a "high wing" I merely pointed out in this edit comment that we two had this conversation two years ago here, and asked what has changed? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

a comment

"There are many wise heads there,...." well.... not so "wise" after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.219.73 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aerated Bread Company may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Seconds From Disaster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | style="background:#fff;" colspan="5"|At [Los Rodeos Airport]] in the [[Canary Islands]], a [[KLM]] [[Boeing 747]] trying to take off through fog strikes a [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Belgian Air Component may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• bore personal markings affixed by their pilots, but no unit designations.<ref>Pieters (1998) p.14 }}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Weymann

Weymann-Lepere

Is this new to you? I just tripped over it in Flickr. Eddaido (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, is this of interest to you and can you help - they seem to be a group of French aviators? Eddaido (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't recognise the names in the photo. A trawl in the Flight archive perhaps? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Russian_weaponry#Left-outs

Did you ever mention AfD-ing the articles listed there to any project? I was sifting through some pages including List of Russian weaponry, and saw some of those - I've dropped a question at WP:GUN regarding any special criteria regarding WP:N of firearms, but there's been no reply. I'm tempted to put all of them on AfD, but considering there are 20+ articles, I'm rather afraid of overwhelming the other poor folks out there. Ansh666 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Or I could just PROD all 22 (or was it 23? don't remember) of them, I guess. What do you think? Ansh666 04:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned it on the Milhist project talkpage. Try prodding one or two of the most obviously poorly cited stubs. It might draw an editor out of the woodwork who knows the subject but who has overlooked the page on his watchlist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Looked through the archive; you did indeed mention it (not sure why I didn't catch that the first time). The only response there was to ask about ru-wiki, but there don't seem to be pages linked and I don't know Russian either. I got a little trigger-happy (appropriately, perhaps) and impatiently prodded the articles without non-image sources: Shkval (rifle), Grad assault rifle, A2P assault rifle, AG-021, Kovonalov machine gun, and SVS-137, citing "Fails WP:GNG - no WP:RS." as the rationale - probably not the best reasoning, but more likely to get somebody to oppose, eh? We'll see what happens. Thanks, Ansh666 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group (VH)

Mr. Graeme Of course your advice is always appreciated and I understand your point. It is frustrating to have so many people delete out all of the information that I spent decades collecting. Especially when they do not even take the time to read through the whole page to understand what is meaningful, versus what they can just take their meager frustrations out on. Warmly, B29bomber (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Thanks for the improvement of the things I added to the article. I am not a native speaker, and my grammar is far from perfect. Thanks again, that is the spirit of cooperation! Tymek (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Early RN destroyers

Graeme, I note that you are working on the early RN destroyers that have recently been "boiler-plated" to death, and I salute you for it. I have some concerns that the data (esp dimensions & power plant) may be wrong, and I'm not even sure there was such a weapon as a "QF 12-pounder 8 cwt". Do you have a decent source for this sort of stuff? Until now I've been doing little more than reformatting and tidying up, I'm afraid. Shem (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just concentrating on formatting and tidying up at the moment. I also have my doubts since 8cwt to give a 12 pounder seems a tad light given the (admittedly long-barreled) 6 pdr Hotchkiss was also 8cwt. I had a quick look at navweapons and din't spot anything but I have the Conway book on reservation from the library so might actually be able to check something -or get more info on the boats -towards the end of the week. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got Friedman's book on naval weapons of WWI and I can confirm that there such a thing as a 8-cwt 12-pdr gun. It was mostly used on River-class DDs and subs. There was even a 4-cwt gun made in small numbers for boats and landing parties.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont know if this helps http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/River_Class_Destroyer_(1903)#Guns cheers Irondome (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

All info handy. even if there's not enough for a separate article perhaps it could be added to the disambig at 12-pounder gun.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The piece seems to be strongly sourced too. I was impressed with the W/T section also. Irondome (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Crap, I've already built a page for the naval gun using data from Friedman with the title of QF 12-pounder 8-cwt Mk I naval gun. I guess we'll have to merge them at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they were initially armed with the QF 12 pounder 12 cwt naval gun. The 6 pounder was replaced by the 12 pounder 8 cwt in 1906. The 12 pdr/12 cwt also seems to have be fitted to the earlier Daring-class destroyer (1893). Irondome (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Interetingly, there's also a 3" 8cwt apparently... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Type 35 torpedo boat

Hello Graeme
I notice you just added an infobox to this article; I was kind of in the middle of doing that, so it got lost as an edit conflict. Were you working on these articles too? If so I'll give it a miss for a while. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It was on my watchlist but I'd forgotten about it until I noticed your activity. So I guess I kind of blundered in. I don't have access to the sources so I can't add more material just shift around what's already there. Makes more sense for me to give it a wide berth for a while more.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries; I probably should have put a construction tag on it (and I was having all kinds of trouble with the infobox, which slowed me down) I was mainly trying to sort out the German torpedo boats of World War II page (I flagged it on the talk page, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, many thanks

Hi, Graeme
Your banner at the top of this page could very well describe me. When I saw what had been added to History of the Swiss Air Force yesterday I have to confess to a moment of being overwhelmed. The best I could think of to correct it, after perusing the checklist "read before delisting from GA status", was to make a sister article out of the material. I left a discussion on the talk page asking for assistance, and either in response or by coincidence you came to the rescue. I still feel documentation is necessary, so perhaps the well-meaning editor, who I think may be a young Swiss English-speaker (has no talk page), may be prompted to either provide the documentation or discuss it. In any case, my most sincere thanks for taking on the task. (I have a deep aversion to edit wars.) John/aka--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Hi GraemeLeggett- You've made a few non-constructive edits which undermine the consistency of various data columns. I thought I would drop you a note about this in an attempt to maintain Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your recent edits. I noticed you removed the process for incident selection. Would you be okay with that material in a note versus fully removed. I think that some people may wonder how the list was constructed... --Godot13 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the route by which the incidents were found is not necessary to the article in any form - it could have been by finding a list on the internet, by looking through all the articles in en.wikipedia, or finding a big book in the library - or all three. Wikipedia covers the facts of a topic not how they were first marshalled on the page. It might have had some value as a hidden note to editor if it was an article in the process of being developed but as the article sprang into existence more or less completely formed I don't see the point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Not sure I fully understand the completely formed reference... As I posted on the list talk page, I attempted to participate in redesigning the death toll list and even went so far as to actually create a draft of the entire list just to be able to demonstrate how it could look. There was basically no interest. I felt like I reached out to collaborate. So I moved on and did my own project.--Godot13 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List size

I saw your recent comment at AfD about size. I would be happy to work with you to bring the size down without a significant reduction of content. Could you tell me what you had in mind? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

reducing the use of would be one thing I'd look at.

eg at the moment for dates <span style="display:none">2001-09-11</span>11 Sep 2001 is used.

but 11 Sep 2001 displays the same and sorts without problems. That would be a saving of 43 characters for that line, for 200 entries 8000-9000 characters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow... I'm very surprised (I just tested in my sandbox). It shouldn't work but it does... I expected that it would sort by the day of the month numerically which is why I used the hidden key feature. I'll go through tomorrow (well, later today... it's 2:15am here) and make the manual changes. Great catch!--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had to give it a shot, so I reworked the whole list and it seems to be sort the way I had feared... But I'm a bit bleary-eyed and I could have messed something up or missed something. I'll look at it with fresh eyes in a few hours... It's HERE if you want to take a look.--Godot13 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved...--Godot13 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have mentioned Wikipedia:Sortable_table#Date_sorting_problems. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military installation coords question

Good Evening

Where did the coordinates code come from?

Was it the airport infobox or the military structure infobox or somewhere else?

Gavbadger (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Short on battery, so must be brief. I think it started with both sets of code and then I trimmed off what I thought was superfluous. The current template is quite compact. The airport infbox code is quite involved with more (duplication or alternatives?) parameters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

BLM edits

your revert is a whole. you do not find ANY of my contributions useful?

i've put something on the talk page. please discuss it there if you feel like reverting it again - although i know what i'm doing and you won't get anything from me.

cheers.

Amanbir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.225.126.33 (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

8th King's Royal Irish Hussars

I noted your replacement of the tag. It's a fair cop guv'nor. I'll get round to this article eventually, if someone else doesn't beat me to it first. I'm just a bit tied up with other articles at the moment. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Submarines of World War II Specifications (moved from user page to talk)

Thank you for adding the British T-Class. I'm looking to get as many submarines in the list that had an impact during the War. The table formatting was a bit off so I had to readd your entry. Also, I'm trying to standardize the units in each column to save display space; hence, the individual cells would not have different units than the column header. Unfortunately, not all reference sources distinguish between tons, long tons, and metric tons.

One question, where did you get the range for the T-Class as 11,000 nm? My source states it at 8,000 so I changed it to that. But if you have another source you can cite, please feel free to change it back.

Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allies of World War I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |align="right"|33.3m km²)
• dead figure is from a 1991 history of the Japanese Army{{ref|Harries|10,111}}.</ref>||907||1,322||<1% <!--Please do not change casualty numbers without discussion-->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, GraemeLeggett. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nelson-class Battleships

Fair point Graeme. You can't disable superstructure. I hurriedly changed another persons text from 'dismantlement', whatever that might be, to 'disabled' in regard to the turrets without changing the following part of the statement. Thanks The Dart (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I have replied further at my talk page, thanks Graeme. The Dart (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Alcock (RAF officer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | branch = [[Royal Naval Air Service|RNAS]] (later Royal Air Force]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Orion-class battleship

Graeme wouldn't it be clearer to simply delete any reference to horizontal or vertical when talking about armour thickness? Yes belt armour thickness is in the horizontal plane but the armour plate is oriented vertically, which is how Naval Architects express it. For instance David K. Brown in all his books, Jane's Fighting Ships, Siegfried Breyer, and Ray Burt. It should be obvious to any reader of Wiki naval articles how belt and deck armour is oriented and what thickness means.The Dart (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is talking to the average reader, not a naval architect. By all means try a different phrasing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Concept?

Hi.

Can we cross reference "concept" with another sources because it introduces an inaccuracy.

a) God is not a concept to the BKs, it is a being; and b) Liz Hodgkinson is not at authority on Judaism, Islam or even religious matters in the slightest. She's a tabloid journalists and then part-time adherent who wrote for papers like The Sun in the UK.

It's part of the BKs mission to introduce the idea that their god is Jahweh, Allah etc and that is what she is suggesting.

I suspect Jews and Muslims do not agree with the BKs that their god is the same spirit entering the BKs' spirit mediums. Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are indeed very different to the BKs'. This is why I removed it. It's not necessary to be as slavish to sources as to introduce inaccuracies.

I suppose you could put "the BKs claim their god is ..." etc. How does that work for you?

Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You tell me, I'm working from the source given. WP:Verifiability and all that. Conversely atheists probably belive that - at best - all religions gods are concepts and nothing more. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a useful discussion. I've just learned that there is an entire series of pages such as, e.g. Islamic concept of God, God in Judaism, God in Christianity, and so if the BKs want a separate page for, e.g. Brahma Kumari concept of God, they could have one. It might be good to document how their concept of god has evolved from when they thought their founder was god incarnate to the point now where they believe god possessed him and now possesses another medium within the religion called Gulzar.

A sort of Indian or Sindhi J. Z. Knight. It might be best to combine a couple of sources to get the best result. For clarification, you could also ask the BKs whether god is a sort of universal concept for them, or a person in the form of a spirit being who enters the bodies of others and takes them over to speak and interact.

If you look here, [2] there is a video of the old Sindhi medium they believe is possessed by God (Allah) pulling up a flag. She is second from the left. Or in this one, [3], where they believe the little one, who looks a bit like E.T., is feeding God who has again possessed the body of bigger old lady sitting in centre.

The word they use, Bapdada, means the combination of God and the spirit of their deceased millionaire founder, Lekhraj Kirpalani, who now both possess the spirit medium together at once. Basically, they believe that God comes down to earth and speaks to them exclusive a dozen or so times a year as mass seances at the headquarters. The rest of the time, their spirit mediums go off to another realm to speak to them in person.

Or this is God cutting his birthday cake [4]. I think you see how different a "concept" it is from Allah or Jahweh. --Januarythe18th (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion should be carried out on the talkpage for the article itself. I doubt a sub-page is required - scholars have been discussing the Christian god for about 2000 years so there's more content compared to a 70 year old religion and if the concept needs more than a paragraph to explain then it's probably more detail than necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood. It's just such a blizzard of other information, I'd prefer to make my informed asides somewhere quieter.

Professionally or academically, one has a responsibility to be accurate and I find it very, very difficult to believe Muslims, Jews or Christians are boing to believe the BK god - as you see performing at the BKs' headquarters - is the "same concept" as their god. I think their far more likely to think it is some Satanic influence, an "angel of light" some at the End Times to deceive the faithful and so on.

Again, it is the BKs who want it to be seen as the same concept, and that is what is going on through all the BK generated resources. It's not what is, but rather what they want people to think or believe.

For the record, according to the BKs, now that you have been introduced their god you have benefited in some way and come the End of the World or Destruction, you will remember this introduction and "gain some inheritance" from him. That is to say, you will be born in Heaven on Earth even if only for a life or two. However, may be if you help the BKs you might gain more "inheritance" from their god and either spend longer in Heaven on Earth or have a higher status here. They say it is like paradise except they have nuclear powered mind controlled flying machines and everyone lives in houses made of gold and jewels.

Yes, I know that sounds bonkers. No, I do not believe it. Yes, that really is what they teach [5]. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

18 January

No problem; your alert enabled me to comment at the SPI, and it would have been helpful even if I hadn't had anything to say there. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BAT F.K.27 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• attached to the bottom of the fuselage and the upper mainplane supported on [cabane strut]]s above the fuselage and solid built up inter-plane struts. The fixed under-carriage consisted of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits on BK article

Hi Greame, seeing your recent edits I just wanted to say thank you. Your quiet and humble approach is great appreciated - a few things I am doing wrong (ref's, inserting bits into the article that refer to other parts of the article etc) and you don't seek rub my nose in it being wrong. From watching the changes you make I can learn how to get it right for the future. Plus the guidance on things like AfD. So thank you very much. Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you for the kind words. 15:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks re. Lancaster and Dyson

Thanks for your feedback re. Lancaster bomber and Dr. Dyson's article in MIT Technology Review Magazine! Azx2 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

named aircraft moves

Apologies. i got the wrong end of the stick, thinking that there was some sort of unwritten policy, slapped my wrists and moving on. thanks.--Petebutt (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nelson-class Battleships

Hi Graeme, someone else added an incorrect reference to the section on service life. They attributed the statement to D.K. Brown in "Nelson to Vanguard" but it actually comes from Iain Ballantyne's "HMS Rodney" which I have corrected it to; after finally after getting the ref. protocols right. My short-term memory for getting sequences correct is not as good as it was before my CVA (stroke).The Dart (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks Graeme, for the tidying up of the alternate dimensions and unabbreviating NC armour on Nelson-class Battleships. I was just in the business of adding lots of further material and didn't get back to do them.The Dart (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Samson: Bizarre coincidence

This morning I corrected that date in another article & thought I'd better check it was right in 1912 in aviation...must have looked at the article minutes after you added the cite. I'm still looking for a really rock-solid modern cite.TheLongTone (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No coincidence. You cast a long shadow. I saw you'd made the correction, and I thought "I've seen the flight mentioned in another article, I ought to check if it's correct." It was so I then thought that as I had it in front of me uncited and you'd just given a reference for it, I could use the same reference and so I did. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, should have thought of that! Infuriatingly, the FAA museum website doesn't mention the date: the Fleet Air Arm Officer's association website says 2 May. Which is at least a Thursday. The Putnam book on British naval aircraft says the 9th, but says Arthur Longmore was the pilot.....TheLongTone (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Its Template:Infobox military installation/sandbox again

Good Morning

I was wondering if you could take a quick look at Template:Infobox military installation/sandbox please and see where the mysterious "-" on the testcases has appeared from.

I've had a good look and can't find an odd one out but you understand wikicode more than me.

Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I wondered at first if it was the code to layout the tests cases side by side - but it doesn't seem to be there. It's definitely in the sandbox version as a quick preview with the template showed me. Nothing springs out looking at the code, so I would try the empirical approach: try removing, testing and then replacing each instance of "-" one at a time working through the sandbox version from top to bottom and see if it solves, or breaks the template further. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Military infobox

I just realized that we started working on that template nine months ago. Do we want to go ahead and finish it, because it has been awhile since we worked on it, and it might be good to improve it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flying-machine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The flying-machines are also featured in both [[Jeff Wayne's The War of the Worlds (1998 video game)|the computer game and ''[[Jeff Wayne's The War

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Churchill tank may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{chart| | |!| | | |,|-|-|(| | |!| | | |!| | }}
• [http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm] {{deadlink|date=November 2013}}}}</ref> This was used for the post war Conqueror heavy tank.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Independent opinion

Hi Greame, I hope the real world stress will end soon! I was putting some content into the BK article about Meditation retreats and was thinking that I can make each of the locations mentioned in the introduction into a hyperlink where there is a webpage for those particular retreat centres - the pages usually give nice photo's and info about the places. Is it fine to do that?

I was also wondering, that poor quality edit I made in the controversies section - if those comments instead link to the instance of the conduct referred to on the webpage in question, is that allowed? Or is that a primary source? Thank you Danh108 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of inline hyperlinks, and you want to avoid coming over as promotional. Is there a link that lists the centres? - that could be used as a reference. Alternatively a general link in the External links might pass. I'll think on the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame. I found one link that lists about 8 of the retreat centres (clearly not kept very up to date!). Happy to delete the hyper links and settle for that. It was the promotional perception was was concerned about, though a couple of the sites are actually quite good (IMO). RegardsDanh108 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landing Vehicle Tracked may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The first usage of the LVT in combat was during the [[[Battle of Tarawa|amphibious assault on Tarawa]] in late 1943. Of 125 vehicles used, only 35

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ZB-53 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• year the new machine gun was adopted by the [[Czechoslovak Army]] under the name of TK vz. 37 (literally "Heavy Machine Gun Mark 1937"<ref>"TK" stands for "těžký kulomet", heavy machine gun,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RAF Intelligence may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• specialists (from Air Ministry, MI-6, [[MI9|MI-9]], [[Central Interpretation Unit]] Medmenham and [[Bletchley_Park#Listening_stations|Station "X" at Bletchley Park.)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Harris and Panacea targets

Harris referred to specific targets contemptuously as "panacea targets". This article infers that Harris was little more than a homicidal maniac who killed 50,00 aircrew and hundreds of thousands of civilians while accomplishing little militarily. Correct ? In modern terms this article presents evidence for just/intelligent war vs unjust/brainless war. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A panacea is a solution to all things. Is it the case that Harris did not believe that attacking a single target would be the answer to everything as the supporters of the idea claimed? Are their sources that interpret Harris' comment? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think my criticism of Harris was very excessive. But yes, Harris appears to use the term Panacea to criticise the idea that attacking single particular aspects of Germany's infrastructure could be decisive in winning the war. He appears to have been wrong in hindsight - but it may not have been so clearcut at time, as he implies. I raised this because a major quality discussion of the issue would be useful here - but it is beyond my knowledge to contribute to. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aircraft in fiction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (CAF).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.warbirddepot.com/aircraft_attack_tbm-cafrm.asp |title=Attack > CAF Rocky Mountain Wing Grumman TBM-3E Avenger |publisher=Warbird Depot |date=|accessdate=2012-07-
• </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.warbirddepot.com/aircraft_attack_sbd5-pof-2.asp |title=Attack > Planes of Fame's Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless |publisher=Warbird Depot |date=1987-02-07 |accessdate=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to No. 352 Squadron RAF may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• No. 352 Squadron spitfires before first mission on 18 August 1944, from [[Canne]] airfield, Italy.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

RttS

I noticed your edit so have incorporated it in the rewrite I'm maturing here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 thanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tip jet page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hello Graeme, I sincerely hope my reply to you at Nelson-class battleship talk didn't upset you. I meant that some of the other editors were bullying, not you. You're always most pleasant and constructive. Could you please drop by the Nelson-class battleship and talk page and HMS Rodney (29) articles, at your leisure to see if you think I have assuaged any concerns about POV, with my new edits. Thanks, hope you are well. Bill.The Dart (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fears assuaged, I did not see any impugning of my editing skills in your comments on the Nelson-class talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ta muchly, Graeme, CheersThe Dart (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to R101 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• view/1928/1928%20-%201103.html |title=Building the structure of R101 |last=The Editor |pages=88-98 (1020e-1020p }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to VP-16 (U.S. Navy) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to T-42 super-heavy tank may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• mashiny. XX vek. 1905—1941. |trans_title=Domestic Armored Vehicles, XX century, 1905-1941)|last = Soljankin|first = A.G.|publisher = Ėksprint|year = 2002|isbn = 5-94038-030-1|location =
• mashiny. XX vek. 1905—1941. |trans_title=Domestic Armored Vehicles, XX century, 1905-1941)|last = Soljankin|first = A.G.|publisher = Ėksprint|year = 2002|isbn = 5-94038-030-1|location =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Whoniverse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Lofficier]] uses Whoniverse to refer to the fictional setting.<ref name=Databank>Lofficier (1992) [[http://www.lofficier.com/dwfrwrd.html Foreward]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hybrid airship may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• producing shape (like a wing) combined with horizontal thrust, or a combination of the two.<ref>[http://www.military-heat.com/91/p791-hybrid-airship-project/ |title= P-791 hybrid airship project |
• P-791 hybrid airship project |last=Tolip |date=18 February 2008 |publisher=military-heat.com}}</ref> The aerodynamic approach is similar to that of a conventional [[lifting body]] aircraft,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saab 37 Viggen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Instead, [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] ("RB 24")/[[AIM-9 Sidewinder#Air Force AIM-9E.2FJ.2FN.2FP|AIM-9J]] (RB 24J]] were used on the fuselage pylons and inboard wing pylons or in combination with optional 30 

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

VP-16 and DANAS

Chapters in DANAS are presented in sections in the online PDF version. Chapter 3 has 13 different sections. IMHO, your recent changes to the reference citation have made things less clear and less useful -- it now appears that the link is to Chapter 3, when it is really to a specific section of Chapter 3. Lou Sander (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a tweak.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the History of the U.S. Navy could be removed from the "See also" without much loss. It was in some of the early squadron articles, and I just continued it. Also, is there a way to make the infobox narrower? Lou Sander (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Russian weaponry

I noticed that you just made some edits on the List of Russian weaponry. I am in the process of attempting to clean-up that page. I have just added the following to the talk page..."I recommend that we remove all of the experimental weapons from this article as none of them have gone into production and are unlikely to be encountered outside of a museum. As such they are not particularly notable. Also, while some of these prototypes lead to notable weapons, such as the AK-47, the prototypes themselves are not notable individually." I would appreciate some feedback if you would like to comment on the talk page. Thank You.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle honours of the Royal Air Force

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 22#Category:Battle honours of the Royal Air Force. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid airship

Hi,

I see this edit of yours to the Hybrid airship article has effectively been reverted by User:Cronkurleigh in this session. If I weigh in I will be shot down in flames, but if you wish to defend your edit I will be happy to support in any way I can. 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS on Whoniverse

Congratulations for the good work! Hopefully the article can now be built up properly, without all the OR and RS. There are still problems(such as the "Features" section, citations in the wrong place, and the inclusion of non-RS). But at least someone has actually added RS to benefit the article. Thanks. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait - now we don't want RS? G S Palmer (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Universal Carrier may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |weight=3 ton 16 cwt (3.75 t) laden<ref name=AFV14-124/></br>3 ton 5 cwt unladen)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Modern equipment of the British Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Terrapin Movie, Aquacheetah

No idea. Until I saw that movie I'd never even heard of the Aquacheeta and Google found nothing. The commentator described it as an experimental vehicle, so I suspect you're seeing the one and only example ever built. Possibly it was a speculative exercise from some company hoping for a nice fat contract.

From the movie it seems to have performed even worse on land than the Ford GPA, which I read was a complete dog's breakfast. So I guess it's deservedly obscure, even if does look nifty.

Catsmeat (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cronkurleigh

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Doctor Who serials by setting page, your edit caused a URL error (help) and a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North American NA-64 Yale may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• **No.1 Wireless School (WS) [[CFB Winnipeg|Winnipeg]], MB]]<ref name=F45 />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unmanned aerial vehicle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• org/files/105.pdf Model "Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code"] (January 1, 2014 aircraft.org </ref> the United States' national aeromodeling organization. To

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RCAF Station Calgary may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• line at Lincoln Park was taken over by the various Army field units garrisoned at CFB Calgary]]. The remaining property was sold to the ATCO Company, the City of Calgary and [[Mount Royal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of large aircraft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | [[Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter|Boeing 747 "Dreamlifter"]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

List of large aircraft

Hi, I notice that you deleted the Douglas X-3 Stilletto from the List of large aircraft. It meets the current inclusion criterion, so may I ask why you deleted it? (It wasn't because the nose of the X-3 is too "pointy" is it? )— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a rather pointed design. But I did think the Valkyrie fitted in as an example of trying to achieve a very high speed through (or despite) a large airframe. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Valkyrie is fair enough, but why replace a type which meets the stated criteria rather than just add the extra one? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WWII France articles mess: occupation edition

I'd appreciate if you could share your views: Talk:German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II#Requested_move Thank you. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Another move request: Free_French_Forces#Requested_move. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Olympus 593

"The reheat jet pipe was longer than the engine itself (as was the case with all early turbojets" Rather than look for a cite I think the statement should be removed. I don't think it adds any value.Pieter1963 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at a drawing and the jet pipe is shorter than the engine so will delete incorrect statement.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Arnhem

Steve Ranger just wamts to revert whatever I edit on this article. The article is badly constructed to say the least. He has insulted me with the whole gamut - vandalism, ridiculous edits etc. I had the honor to meet Cornelius Ryan (a long while ago), who looked into these events. He was most critical of the slurs made against a number of fine soldiers who fought in these and related actions, especially those against the Poles, who he considered were "sacrificed". I see this critique has ventured into these articles. It is not encyclopedic material or even history. I would call it "shifting the blame". Wallie (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep the discussion on the article talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Submarine Squadron 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Captain Worrall R. Carter (Nov 1940 – 7 Dec 1941
• Groton, CT.<ref>{{cite |magazine=All Hands |date=November 1997, Issue 968, |title=42, 1/4p |url= [http://www.navy.mil/media/allhands/acrobat/ah199711.pdf |publisher=US Navy}}{{deadlink|date=June

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Market Garden order of battle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• **2nd Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion [[Welsh Guards]]<ref>three [Cromwell tank]]s and one [[Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger|Challenger tank]] per troop</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fox Armoured Car may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |title=Wozy bojowe Polskich Sił Zbrojnych 1940-1946 |publisher=Wydawnictwo Lampart |page=198}}}</ref> After the Second World War many of them went to the [[Portuguese Army]], which used them

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''Arkhangel’sk'' («Архангельск») (1915; {{HMS|Royal Sovereign|05|6}}, transferred as a loan in 1944 [[Soviet Northern Fleet|Northern

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Short Stirling

Saw your edits, do you have a view on the citations question?Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is. But linking from the citation to the bibliographic source doesn't actually add much functionality. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? It does for me.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sergeant" Stubby

Most of the discussion is at User talk:Drmies. 'Sergeant' is an urban legend, he wasn't called until after he was dead so far as I can tell. Interesting title question. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

THANKS!

Thanks for your edits and suggestions on Military production during World War II. I will clean it up. However, a number of your changes were in error. I've reinstated some. Let's talk about them rather than just have an edit war. I DO NOT want to add to your stress :) Also, why did you removing the colour coding from the charts? They are critical to the complex GDP chart and a graphic I am preparing to add to the article. They also allow for very easy contrast and comparison between axis and allied. cheers --Brukner (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the colouring goes directly against WP:ACCESSIBILITY. eg black text on dark backgrounds. The manual of style says do not rely on colour to convey information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for putting the under construction notice at the header. Much appreciated --Brukner (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look at Military_production_during_World_War_II#Land_Forces and let me know if this is a style that would be acceptable. thanks --Brukner (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of the book used as a source for this diagram Image:WorldWarII-GDP-Relations-Allies-Axis.png. I intend to check it. Some of the text in the diagram appears to have mistakes. But more importantly there is the question of original research for some of the combination of data. I am aware that the author of the book has published a correction to one of his tables in [6]--Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot

Hi Graeme, thanks for your input into the page. Would you be able to facilitate the following change to the introductory text as I cannot change it myself? Please replace: "The Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a type of autopilot meant to defeat attempts at skyjacking."

With: "The Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a set of sub-routines in post-1995 Boeing aircraft (termed the Unauthorized Flight Detector), aimed at defeating attempts at skyjacking by removing electrical power from the flight deck, and irrevocably passing pilot authority to the autopilot and navigational computer for an automated landing at a safe airfield which can deal effectively with the incident."

Much appreciated.John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What impedes you from changing it? Is there a partial protection on the article?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, my mistake, I can! A matter of clicking the right edit button ;-) w.r.t. Joe Vialls' citation, Joe and I both knew the US Colonel who told his sister (Ms Marcey) in 1989 (running the then US Marshall's Prisoner Transportation Service) how to drone ConAir flights to make them safer. She worked with relevant parties to develop BHUAP in 4 x 727's when she formed JPATS in 1995. Inside info is hard to cite, such as the Lufthansa 'rumor'. Happy to take it out as there are only a few of us who know it wasn't just a rumor. What do you suggest?John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)