User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 3

WW1Battle casualties
How about a page on WW1 Battle casualties? A page that would have the stats on the major battles? What are your thoughts?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd start with overall casualties on each front and then add in the major battles or campaigns under them. eg under Western Front, Third Ypres etc, but under Med the Gallipoli campaign. What would the article name be?. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:NorfolkLifeboats
A tag has been placed on Template:NorfolkLifeboats, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Content has been merged into Template:Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -Arb. (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Cromer Lifeboat NavBox
A tag has been placed on Template:Cromer Lifeboat NavBox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Content has been moved to Template:Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -Arb. (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk
Hello,

I've changed a few of your edits. See full explanations in the template's history.

I've also included a few &nbsp. To my eye it looks neater if the second column has a consistent width. YMMV.

-Arb. (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheringham lifeboat station
Hi, Graemeleggett

I am not familiar with the organization infobox that you have suggested on the talk page of Sheringham lifeboat station. Can you point me towards an example of article which has the box that you suggest so I can see what its like  stavros1  ♣


 * Its "Template:Infobox Organization" if you go there and follow what links there, you can find a selection. I think I might apply it to the RNLI page GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheringham lifeboat station
Hi, Graemeleggett

I don’t see why you removed the nav-box for the different classes of lifeboat. It is relevant to a lifeboat station as different classes of lifeboat have been stationed there. A reader may wish to find out more about a certain lifeboat and the nav box will help in doing further research.  stavros1  ♣  13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (Posted on the Talk page Also)


 * Nav boxes are used for navigating across linked articles. Sheringham lifeboat station is not linked in that navbox. Have a look at HMS Rothesay (F107) for a similar case. I suggest adding the appropriate lifeboat classes as wikilinks ot the boats and then fform there it will flow into the types of RNLI lifeboat.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamilcar
Hey, thanks for that new external link - I think I'll be using that in the article, a good find! Skinny87 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Table format
In List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War you "simply" the table format by taking out the background colors. You didn't even discuss the edit in the impending FAC, and during the ACR it seemed that a lot of people liked how they were color-organized. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll turn the question on its head, why did you use those colours in the first place? Do they add anything to the information (color coding?. The A class review had only a few comments but the major comment on colour use was a suggestion about colouring the factions differently. If it has lost info then I have no issues about reverting, but the columns for producer are overwide for the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Pointblank
The 450 is for those lost in the 16 major raids on Berlin, there were many other raids both small ones on Berlin and small and large on other cities during Battle of Berlin (air). --PBS (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So during the period of the Battle of Berlin, not the Battle itself? I'll CE the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The campaign known as the Battle of Berlin included attacks on other cities as well as Berlin. All the raids were part of the Battle of Berlin, its just some were not direct attacks on Berlin. Attacks on other cities were needed because without them the losses over Berlin would have been much to high for operations to be sustained for sixteen consecutive raids. The pattern of attacks had to be random so that the German did not concentrate all their defences in one place. --PBS (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, I've CE'd Pointblank so that is understood. I'd stripped some of the sideline action from Battle of Berlin though: Minelaying and SOE drops in the first instance because they had little effect on the BoB operations; the other ops because it overcomplicates the timeline and too much detail in giving numbers and types of aircraft. We might as well just pastwe the whole of the Bomber Command Campaign diary in and be damned. The date formatting is poor too!GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification addition - using insetting on the bullet points implies the activities are directly related to the main raid with the superior bullet/number placement - eg those SOE raids again . GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Director
Just been looking at the nice work you've been doing to the director article, good job! Keep it up ;) Ryan 4314    (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New project proposal - Norfolk & Suffolk
Hi

I have proposed a new project "Wikiproject Norfolk & Suffolk" and would appreciate any support that I can get for getting this through.

I did think of making it a task force, but that would limit action as it would have to belong to a parent.

Many thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Singapore Island (battle honour) category edit
Hi there, I removed [[Category:battle honours of the British Army] because it has a syntax error and the category seemed invalid. In retrospect I should probably have modified it to read . Is this edit ok with you? Many thanks [[User:Cubathy|Cubathy]] (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * fine, I should have seen it myself, thanks GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington's Regiment
Hi Graeme! I've just done a save after having the article open for a while, Whilst I was working on the Dukes page and cross referencing with the Yorkshire Regiment article. Then found that you also seem to be editing the same article. Please don't think I reverted your edit. The list I am editing is the definitive one for both regiments, Please note I am the Regiments archivist so have the correct listings in front of me. Some of the Dukes battle honours have been taken on by the Yorkshire Regiment along with ones from the PWO and Green Howards. I'm trying to get them all correct as the Regiment will be presented with new Colours for all four battalions in York in 2010. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what's happening. I'll relink the appropriate theatre honours to the campaigns later.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! You got the error on the link before I had fully finished, I got a bit waylaid correcting a linked battle article. :) I am putting the honours as they are displayed on Regimental colours and Magazine. Don't be tempted to place all dates within the bracketed wikilink as dates can relate to totally different battles, fought by different battalions of regiments at the same time (in WW2 the Dukes had 13 battalions on active service - Infantry, Tanks, Artillery, Engineers and training, there were 26 in WW1). This is made more complex as regiments are amalgamated and although all battle honours are retained from the antecedent regiments, only a certain amount are permitted to be displayed on Regimental colours. Additionally as battle stubs on wiki are merged into larger articles the resultant link can be way off what it is supposed to be linked to. You can see what I mean by the way I have done the links on the Dukes page for the WW1 battles of the Marne, Ypres and the WW2 Burma Campaign. The Chindit Battle Honour for the battalion is due to two separate columns in the Burmese jungles IE: 33rd and 76th from the regiment, which correspond to the 33rd and 76th Regiments of foot that made up the 1st and 2nd battalions of the Dukes at the time. The WW1 Messines also has two separate battles, involving two different battalions, though only one battle has been covered on Wiki (as far as I can tell) so far. If you feel any are incorrect drop me a message and I will research them further to ensure the correct one is linked. I'm now off for a lie down as my head is hurting. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle Honours
Hi,

saw your name on history of British Army battle honour redirects. I am at present creating stubs for Indian battle honours as and when I get the chance.

The main articles that you point to, do not mention the existence of battle honours for them. May I suggest a line be added to each about this. Better still, a section could be created with (an example) and a line or two underneath it added giving the most important information.

May I have your views, please.

AshLin (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_85?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that one due to hibernation. So is what I have done in Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918) acceptable? AshLin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have left the detail in the article rather than end up with a stub, but you could still build up the stub by listing the units that received the battle honour...GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pending due to work. AshLin (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Modernwarshiptype
A tag has been placed on Template:Modernwarshiptype requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. Izno (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blythe Brown
An article that you have been involved in editing, Blythe Brown, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Blythe Brown. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Piero da Vinci (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian light destroyer project
Hi Graeme, thanks for your comments and changes to this article. I've just responded to your request that the article clarify the RAN's role in the Indonesian Confrontation. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Glider Pilot Regiment
Hey there! Thanks for all the help in the article, that's very kind of you, especially the tricky stuff for the infobox. If you don't mind, when I eventually summon the writing power to continue expanding the article, I'll replace the web sources you've used (except for the last one about the Battle Honours) with offline book sources, as they have more info in them. I hope that's okay? Thanks again, Skinny87 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, books etc are the generally the end sources, though sometimes web sources are easier to get to. I have Ambrose's Pegasus Bridge out of the library at the moment, there may be a useful bit or other from there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I need to dig up my copy. My main problem is writer's block at the moment :) Skinny87 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well most of the time, I'm a better (copy)editor than a writer. Why not have a look at the earlier variations of the page and see if there's a sentence or two there that could be polished. Failing that - if you summarize the intro to each of the major airborne ops and drop that into the sections it'll give a place to hang on whatevery is pertinent to the regiment in each case. I suppose the number of British/Commonwealth gliders in each op would be something to quote if its findable.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Finucane
Please see this. Can you help me put this better? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
 * At first look, I would say you are explaining it adequately but I will look and see if a third party source will help.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * thank you, but are you sure you got the right guy?GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Bremen in World War II
No and as usual despite requests on the talk page, edit history and on his home page, (s)he will not talk about it. I have reached the position with this editor that if someone was to start an RFC on them I would support it, because the editor is tenacious, deletes comments from his/her talk page requesting a dialogue, and almost never comments on the talk pages of articles, while engaging is long term slow revert wars. --PBS (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; dialogue does seem to be limited to the edit summaries, or hidden text within the article. Perhaps given the lack of engagement on Bremen, we can petition for a relaxation of the editprotect early and build it up. To misquote the Germans Keine Antwort ist eine Antwort. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikiquette alerts would be useful to try and try some dialogue out?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About external links
Hallo, Graeme! Allow me to explain my actions. Wiki pages, devoted to the fighting ships, are very various. One articles are very substantial and detailed, others have not enough information from professional point of view. My resource contains, IMHO, laconically submitted and as maximally systematized information on this theme, compiled of many sources, repeatedly checked up and the most authentic from the point of view of the specialist. But a resource is already enough large, pages are issued under own standard, and altering them under Wiki standards means loss of a plenty of time. Alas, I continue to create a resource and need the time for it. Therefore submission of links on specified pages is, IMHO, the lonely possible method to offer a plenty of the information to readers. That before the latent advertising, on the one hand, vanity is the common sin, on the other hand: how to submit the link to a site without specifying the address of a site? From its part, infinitely respecting with all authors and moderators of Wiki, I undertake to not give more links on my site without special permission of moderators. Ivan Gogin. www.navypedia.orgIigogin (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of naval guns
Hi Graeme, we've had 2 competing lists of naval guns/artillery going for some time now.. I've started to resolve this by moving the table of "naval artillery" from List of artillery by type to List of naval guns (which was created some time ago) which seems more correct, as the purists have stated the correct term is Naval guns.

So now we have all the data within List of naval guns - in a table by country, and another by ascending calibre. Would you like to express an opinion on how we should go about consolidating this into a single table ? Or leave it as is ? regards Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Welbike
Hi Graeme just has an edit conflct sorting out typos but wondered if you'd be interested in helping get this to GA? I've found loads of good refs but imagine that you know a bit more about it than I do. Am thinking of doing a biog on Dolphin as he's a really interesting character Thruxton (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know nothing but what I've read here or on websites, but that's most of what it takes to produce an article. take s ome sources and stitch them together to give a narrative. I can help with editing etc. At the moment what the article needs to my mind is some more hard facts on its size power weight, in both imperial and metric units, which can fill out the infobox. And some more on actual issue and use Eg for regular units number per battalion, which platoon got them and operations they were used on. For SOE use what were they used for?
 * Re Dolphin, as the head and involved in several things I think you got a good chance of showing his notability. I'd start with seeing if there are any existing articles where his name would appear, eg where he gave authorization for development or had a significant part in the design of an item. You should then be able to redlink him at that stage. When you do come to start his article, you will already have some links feeding in and a number of points to put into the article. I suspect that he's a bit of a character like M Jefferis of MD1.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll see what I can dig up. I discovered by chance that if I can nominate an article for DYK it can get a lot of interest, why is why I started a 3x expansion (actually got to 5x). I'll have a go at researching Col Dolphin, as I found a letter from him claiming to have invented the trigger for the atom bomb. That's notable! Cheers Thruxton (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

British Admirals, Generals & Air Marshals
If you can locate a copy, (which I haven't been able to), I am told that "UK DCI (Joint Service) 125/2001" is useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. If you do locate a copy, I would like to read it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

PIAT
Hey, you were recently active on the PIAT talkpage, and as such I'd wonder if you'd like to comment there: I'm proposing to replace the current article with the one in my sandbox once the lede has been written. Skinny87 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd always seen the PIAT as an article that couldn't be written because all the info was scattered all over the place, but then I got Ian Hogg's 'Tank Killers' book and managed to get it done. I was going to do the Boys next, but after talking with a few people on IRC I thought I'd have a go at some of the Home Guard weapons; so firstly the sticky bomb, then the Blacker Bombard, then the Northover Projector, and finally the Smith Gun for good measure. Skinny87 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that along the way you will gather enough info to write up MD1, I can start it with a barebones on foundation and key individuals thanks to the book I have out on Hobart's Funnies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Flare myth in Rotterdam Blitz
Hello Graeme, 29 April you asked for clarification with respect to my edits in the 'Rotterdam Blitz' article concerning the use by the Germans of red flare allegedly in order to signal abort mission. I don't know on which page of the mentioned book, but it contains a picture of a form, an original German form, designating red as the colour for flares to be used to avoid friendly fire for a certain period of time during spring 1940. The 14th of May 1940 was in this period. I don't remember things exactly but I will pay a visit to the library and look up what this form mentions in detail and on which page of Elfferich's book it is shown. Best wishes,--Antiphus (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Forward air control in Afghanistan
Nice tidbit you have turned up. What kind of aircraft are/were they using to mark the targets?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The RAF Regiment are ground troops, these FAC's were part of a fire support team.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping me with Namer!
I'd like to improve the article as far as possible. Flayer (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking for the heaviest APC's/IFV's. Namer with 25-30 mm autocanon will appear soon, maybe this year. What do you suggest? Flayer (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Best see also's would be - other tank chassis conversions (more modern the better) into APCs, other IDF IFVs/APCs not already mentioned in article, any "list of IFV/APC" articles, any IFV used in similar circumstances (urban/built up areas) eg BTR-T, BMPT (just found them). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

British propaganda during World War I
Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the helpful tags you placed on the article I created. I am planning to expand it sometime when I get the chance, so your pointers for improvements are appreciated. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Oak edits
Hi. Why did you remove the cite style links from the references? They worked well before. In your latest round of edits, you are describing them as "non-functioning wikilinks". They are non-functioning now because at this edit you removed the  code. Were you aware that the function of this code was to provide a link to a more detailed and highlighted citation in the bibliography section? If you were not, you can see the effect by clicking on this revision and then selecting the linked title in a reference, for example Black Saurday. &mdash; BillC talk 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was unaware - I've restored the code to the bibliography section as a (part) relief from my errors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RAF Middle East Command
Hi GraemeLeggett,

When I first saw the existing Wiki page for Middle East Command, I too suspected it was the wrong link to use for RAF Middle East Command because it appears to be strictly Army. That is until one reads further down and the info about the ground, air, and naval aspects of Middle East Command is mentioned. To be honest, I'm just not sure about this one. Are you sure?

489thCorsica 489thCorsica (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers*

Aluminum Overcast
Please see comment. I am going to give it a try to see if the article can be expanded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle
I don't have the source that claims the aircraft was mostly made from wood. Bowman does not explain why the AM wanted all metal construction at that time. As far as the above is concerned, I don't know, the AM blew hot and cold over this project, perhaps they changed their minds. Dapi89 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll in Bf 109 article
A troll seem to have has risen his ugly head in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, and is on the path of initiating an edit war with barely hidden motives. I know you care about the quality of that article, so I kindly ask you to take a look at what he does. Thanks in advance. Kurfürst (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merlin-engined Mustangs?
I'm puzzled by your edit to Supercharger, "...(also Merlin-engined) P-51 Mustang..."

As is regularly debunked hereabouts, "Mustangs" didn't use "Merlins". The handful that did weren't used in a high altitude role, the majority that were used thus were instead using the Packard that had a significantly different supercharger (admittedly closer to Hooker's work than the Allison had been). As this article is specific to superchargers, the V-1650 hardly qualifies as a Merlin, and mostly because there's the ongoing "P-51 Merlin" problem, I'm concerned that it's more confusing than less to word it in this fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was adding that it was a similarly engineed aircraft, aside from supercharger there was a lot of airframe difference but not a lot of power difference between Spit and Mustang. The thrust of the sentence was the reworking of the supercharger for the spit rather than the comparison of the Packard and RR engines superchargers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

List of insurgents killed
Hello, I saw you voted for delete on this article, I myself originaly voted for keep. But, after researching the article, I came to a change of heart. I am still for keep, but I would like to massivly change the article so it is not in violation of the OR or Synthesis rule and wouldn't contain the massive raw data anymore. I made my proposition on the restructuring of the article in the discussion known. The restructuring I would make is based on your own proposition, that you made in the discussion, of what could be put in the article specificly. Your advice would be welcomed. MidnightBomber (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that this editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of User:Top Gun and been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Blacker Bombard
Hey Graeme. I'm working on rewriting/expanding the Blacker Bombard article, and I'm having a devil of a job finding enough information for it. From what I can tell from the article's history, it was you who created it back in 2005. I don't suppose you remember where you got any of the information for it, do you? I'm especially looking for the infobox statistics, like the weight and number manufactured. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now there's a question. I think apart from an initial entry from some multipart Encyclopaedia-of-modern-weapons sort of thing, it was epxanded from the web. I'll see what I can findGraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I've already used that spigot mortar page in my sandbox, and it looks like it's got more info I can use to expand the article. Even better, it's a Reliable Source because its source is cited at the bottom of the page! Skinny87 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue"
Hello Graeme, in the past you showed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident article I have now raised the matter in the article's A-class review, if you are interested. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw ur comment on the review. U ever considered being BOLD and removing the whole lot? Ryan 4314    (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
The lifting of a part of a sentence, not even a direct quote, might be lazy but its not worthy of the much more serious accusation of plagiarism, as numerous attempts to sue rappers for sampling has shown. Even where there isnt 'fair use' as in the US, there are plenty of shades of grey here - no need for the bazooka on the rats. The edit itself is fine, if a little dull. Mdw0 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wing configuration drawings
I replied on my Talk page to your questions. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at LCA?
Dear GraemeLeggett, I see you were in at the start of the 'Landing Craft Assault' page. This is the first I've fiddled with Wiki and I was hoping you might have a look at what I'm doing there and offer some critic. If so, thanks in advance. AmesJussellR (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying the LCA
Dear GraemeLeggett, Thanks for your tidying on the LCA page. I will become better as I go. Just now my enthusiasm is far outstripping my competence with the media.

By the way, is this way of contacting you the polite way on Wiki? Is there some other path or etiquette I ought follow?

Thanks again. Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, Talk pages are the way to do it. one way to pick up on the editing "tricks" is to watch the changes others make.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sticky Bomb edits
Would you mind adding page numbers to the Macrae references, and formatting them so they're the same as the others? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my plan. I'll have to read the chapters again to pick the best pages. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - still one to go! Interesting fact about the safety range, thanks for adding it. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged one that doesn't have a cite, a sentence you added that is, and also citation 4 has a question mark I added as it needs a page number. Skinny87 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Empennage
Hi, I followed up your suggestion and did a makeover to the Empennage list and diagrams of tail configurations. Hope it's good enough for what you had in mind. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did a good job there, your illustrations match the sort I was experimenting with. I wouldn't necessarily have picked the examples you did but they are good examples.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's anything else you'd like to see me do, or do better, let me know. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

hms boneventure (hms Vulcan)
thanks for responding. I had a look at hms bonaventure, and I guess you mean HMS Bonaventure (1892), but as there is no such article I couldn't see which categories it was in. the source for the vulcan info said it was also designed to act as a cruiser at a pinch. Categorising it as an 'auxiliary' ship doesn't seem to make sense despite its name as a torpedo boat tender. It strikes me it was intended to sail with the fleet. Don't know if there were ever any more, torpedo boats went out of fashion and became seagoing destroyers.Sandpiper (talk)

AfD nomination of List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

United Airways
Hi Graeme, the reason why I (via the helpdesk) intend to move United Airways (Bangladesh) to United Airways is that the only other airline of that name is United Airways (United Kingdom), which ceased operations in 1935 and is therefore totally out of the news today. The Bangladeshi is the only commonly known one of that name. I inserted an for...see header into the article. Similar article arrangements were done with Midwest Airlines (where the Egypt airline is much less known than the US-based one) or Ryanair. Best regards Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bangladeshi airline has three hatnotes pointing to airlines with similar names which suggests that ambiguity could be an issue. For an English language part of wikipedia it might be the case that the British two would be likelier to be linked and expanded. Under the circumstances I would have suggested a move from United Airways to [United Airways (disambiguation)]] at the least before moving the Bangladeshi one over the original. Why not flag the issue up under WPAviation? Besides getting a third opinion there are some there with admin rights who can carry out any moves. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/United_Airways_%28Bangladesh%29 and http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/United_Airways_%28United_Kingdom%29, just thought I'd draw the stats to attention, although I don't really mind what the outcome of the discussion is, cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found another couple of United Airways in 1938 (of New Zealand) 1951 and 1988 (operations in south africa according to this |list of incidents and accidentsGraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy, I'll let you resolve this with Per aspera ad Astra, kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what about having a page United Airways (disambiguation) like at USA (disambiguation)? I still think that the Bangladeshi Airline gets by far the most attention. Once again, the same was done at Midwest Airlines, so why not here? Otherwise, inconsistencies would arise. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * edit: added the discussion also here. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * edit: done as I told. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Hi, Graeme; I hope you are planning to create articles for Watkinson Dingbat, Hafner AR.III gyroplane, Fane F.1/40. Having just made a lot of effort to convert a red link to a blue one on the Heston Aerodrome page, I'll now be reluctant to add any new stuff that someone might infest with red links. If you've done it to flag up the need for articles, may I recommend you put them in the List of Aircraft articles, to avoid blighting other articles with obscure red links that might never get their own pages, per WP:RED. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Fane F.1/40 is already linked from list of... and there's a link to the Hafner from Hafner's own page. If they weren't interesting/notable aircraft why mention them in the first place? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Landing Craft Assault page
Dear GraemeLeggett,

I hope you don't mind my asking you a few things that I suppose I should be learning on my own. I've placed a beginning description of LCA at Dieppe in the "1942" part of "Service History." I can't sort out how to make the Robertson quote show up as a proper citation. Could you please help? Thanks.

Second, in the same section - how do I get "Canadian 2nd Division" to link to the WW2 formation page?

Also, this is my first experience with Wikipedia - I had thought it would be more of a rough and tumble - I thought there would be more discussion. Should I be thankful for the solitude? What do you think will happen when this page is submitted for review?

Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LCA Stuff
Dear Graeme,

Thanks for the quick response! The Canadian 2nd Division now links correctly. Now, the end of the paragraph beneath that has a citation for Roberts, "Dieppe: The Shame and the Glory" - only citation from this source so far. It does not make itself into a footnote.

Don't know where you are, but I'll wish you a happy Thanksgiving, nevertheless.AmesJussellR (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aircraft in fiction
Graeme, I have just seen that I mentioned your recent additon (wrt the Vulcan) as an example of an entry without a citation: no offence intended! Just to clarify: Does a wikilink to another article which contains a verifiable source qualify as a citation? I appreciate that it might be difficult to find a citable source for a fact such as this - perhaps that's just another reason for removing this article! --TraceyR (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it was all rather transformers heavy and wanted to offer an alternative. I forgot to add a cite, I'll try and find one for it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RR LiftSystem
Hi Graeme, if I remember correctly, and this is going back a while, the entire material in paragraphs that only had citations at their end was covered by that single cite. Therefore I can only assume that the flow multiplier and main fan stuff came from the pdf document downloaded from the RR website that formed the basis of a significant proportion of the article. Wanting to check it out I discovered that the document is no longer accessible! That adds a few more problems – alternative sources are now required, but I see in the meantime that Nimbus has removed the questionable sentence anyway – good man! A second point; your "Brew, Boulton Paul Aircraft" cite could really do with initials, publisher and year, and page number/s if you would be so kind. Cheers. --Red Sunset   19:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Indonesian military acronyms
Without almost any exception these acronyms are usually used in lower case - Kostrad, Kospassus, Kodam, Yonif, YonArmed etc. Reference for example, Ken Conboy, 'Kospassus: Inside Indonesia's Special Forces (buried in a box somewhere, so forgive me not giving the pub date, though it is at Falintil). Thus I am going to return the Division 1 article to Infantry Division 1 Kostrad. Hope this explains the edit. Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)