User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 6

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)

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
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)

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)

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)

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)

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? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 27 May 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)

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)

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 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  is used.
 * but  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 Sortable_table. 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)

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)

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, 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,, 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 . 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 . --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:17, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:04, 11 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. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of Doctor Who serials by setting page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605612639 your edit] caused a URL error (help) and a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F605612639%7CList of Doctor Who serials by setting%5D%5D Ask for help])

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? )&mdash; 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? &mdash; 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 Thank you. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 16:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Another move request: Free_French_Forces. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 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)

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 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 --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)

Reference Errors on 24 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of military equipment of the Canadian Army during the Second World War page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618223776 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F618223776%7CList of military equipment of the Canadian Army during the Second World War%5D%5D Ask for help])

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=615186169 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 18:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * |title=Wozy bojowe Polskich Sił Zbrojnych 1940-1946 |publisher=Wydawnictwo Lampart |page=198}} After the Second World War many of them went to the Portuguese Army, which used them

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617565537 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 11:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * *Arkhangel’sk («Архангельск») 1915; HMS Royal Sovereign (05), transferred as a loan in 1944 [[Soviet Northern Fleet|Northern

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618549145 your edit] to No. 322 multi-role F-16 Squadron, RNLAF 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 14:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [No. 322 (Dutch) Squadron RAF|No. 322 (Dutch) Squadron]] with Dutch personnel under Royal Air Force control. At the end of the war 322e Jachtvliegtuig Afdeling of the Royal Netherlands Army was

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619194849 your edit] to List of battles and other violent events by death toll 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * * 1,400 - Operation Linebacker II 'Christmas bombing' (Vietnam), 1972
 * | 2,100+ refGarzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1985). ''Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in

Reference Errors on 31 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of battles and other violent events by death toll page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619248187 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F619248187%7CList of battles and other violent events by death toll%5D%5D Ask for help])

Theberton
Well spotted, & now amended. No the source does not say Norfolk. Most of the content about Zeppelins in this article was copied from the Zeppelin article & I made a concertrated effort to add cites (there were almost none), but I was concetrating on dates, airship numbers & so on.TheLongTone (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Krill oil
There was a bunch of WP:COPYVIOed material from other editors that I removed, but some of your copyedits were lost in the process. I unfortunately don't have time to go through the intervening edits right now; feel free to restore any useful bits. I started a discussion at Talk:Krill oil. (Thanks for reverting the obvious promotional edit; that raised my suspicions further on the other ones.) 9kat (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we do
"are we suggesting Hanbury mistaken"

Yes. Given the timing, it is extremely unlikely a Hart was used for AI or ASV. The fight throughout development was to get higher-performance aircraft in order to provide realistic speeds and intercept profiles, something the Hart could not do. As a radar carrying aircraft the Hart was lacking any sort of space for the radar, had no suitable power source (only one PTO) and had open cockpits. It's possible one might use a Hart as a radar target, but even in this role it seems highly unlikely, it certainly wouldn't have been able to do much as a target for a Battle. Further, the list of aircraft is repeatedly provided in many sources, and none of them mention a Hart. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So why mention it at all in text. Wikipedia NPOV only needs to give minority viewpoints if significant and Hart whether used or not isn't of much significance to  Al development. Sorry bit terse but editing from mobile phone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, NOW I understand the checkin note... Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bombs away
I seem to rember an exchange regarding the HP O/100 bombload questioning whether it was intended to carry a number 100lb or 112lb bombs...I was visiting the RAF museum yesterday & they have in display bombs of that vintage of both weights. Pure OR so not worth a bean, but I thought you might be amused.TheLongTone (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So I guess that possibly makes sources on the matter both right, and incomplete. I take it that was Hendon, rather than Cosford? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hendon - I've never been to Cosford. On the list, since they have a lot of interesting machines.TheLongTone (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I went to Cosford about 2-3 years ago, and once about 10 years before then. (curiously about the same interval between my two most recent visits to Bovington). It's good for shiny British aircraft from the "white heat of technology". Hendon, I've haven't been to in the last 30+ years - I should visit again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * More aircraft than anybody can reasonably look at in a single day, even with the hall devoted to WWI closed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template trouble!
Hi Graeme, could you have a look at Template:Rocketspecs for me please? I think you can see what I'm trying to do but I'm making mistakes. I think you mostly coded the aircraft specification template? In the example below (of the current version) I have added sequential numbers to simulate a value, they should only appear once, strange things are happening!! You might want to move this to a sandbox, I'm looking at the result in Armstrong Siddeley Stentor. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   14:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I dabbled, but let's see what I remember... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been a bit of duplication in the code. Stentor looks better now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG and China's Wings
Hi! Regarding China's Wings I have two book review sources for this article. WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - There is significant coverage in two (multiple) articles so therefore it meets GNG.

I have not added as much content as I wanted from one source, because one of the pages of the document is missing (I need the other page to see more comments from the reviewer). WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found even more sources. Hopefully this should resolve any notability concerns :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I remove the notability template? I think the # of sources establishes the book's notability WhisperToMe (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was removed by another editor. Anyway, thank you so much for helping with the article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bombing of Hamburg in World War II
Thanks for you patience. I am finished for today. -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Coal Hill School AfD
Hi, Graeme. Over at the AfD for Coal Hill School, you said that to determine whether the Kim Newman source constituted "significant coverage" per WP:GNG, it would depend on whether the quoted material was all that he had to say on the matter. I've now posted the full quotation from Newman at Talk:Coal Hill School, and thought you might be interested in seeing it, to determine whether it reaches the standard of "significant coverage". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=623766635 your edit] to List of airliner shootdown incidents 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * British Overseas Airways Corporation civilian airline flight on 1 June 1943 from [Lisbon] 's Portela Airport in neutral Portugal, to Whitchurch near

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624697674 your edit] to Großadmiral 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hungary, comparable to NATO rank codes OF10{cn|date=September 2014}, and to the five-star rank in anglophone armed forces.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625123634 your edit] to Panzer III 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 18:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * have this capability, providing the Panzer III with a potential combat advantage. For

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625352154 your edit] to List of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 🇺🇸 Ordnance QF 6-pounder (as 57 mm Gun M1){cn|date=September 2014}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625497777 your edit] to List of equipment of the Philippine Commonwealth Army 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 09:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ! style="text-align: center; background: Lavender;" colspan="10" | Rifles, assault rifles and battle rifles

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626260448 your edit] to Battle of Piis 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 21:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * |place=Piis, Lucban, Tayabas (now Quezon), Philippines

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627598707 your edit] to Challenger 2 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new 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) 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Interested to know your opinion
Hi Graeme, as you saw a lot of the activity of User:Januarythe18th, I wasinterested in your view, but no obligation. Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the USS Akron (ZRS-4) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627982137 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F627982137%7CUSS Akron (ZRS-4)%5D%5D Ask for help])

I see.
Thanks for your clarification on the TOGII article - I checked The Tank Museums page and "Tank, Heavy, TOG II*" is given as its precise name.--Devon&#39;s King Tiger (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bovington does like to be precise. Have you seen TOG II in person? It's tucked up a corner now next to where the school visits etc have their packed lunches so it's not so easy to appreciate or study. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * They're a fantastic museum, that's for sure. Yes, I have had the pleasure of seeing the MIGHTY TOG II in person! But you reminded me of how horrifyingly poor my photography was on the day I visited the museum - my photo of TOG was terrible. And somehow I didn't get a photo of Tiger 131, yet I know I saw it there (including the damaged turret ring). When I was over at Bovington, a group of school kids all dressed up in 1940's outfits were around...well, I need to go back! --Devon&#39;s King Tiger (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was there and took a bad photo of TOG (a bit blurry, probably the poor light at the time), and forgot to photograph 131. I found it difficult to take it all, pick things that might come out interesting and handle my 9-year old at same time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Blandford Camp
Good Afternoon

Don't suppose you could look at the Blandford Camp article and see what causing the weird co-ords problem?

It originally had Infobox Military structure with the same problem but I changed the infobox on the article to Infobox Military installation and the problem is still there.

It's the only article I've found that has the problem.

14:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything out of place viewing on my computer, can you be more specific as to what you see? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter now, someone changed Template:Coordinates or something very similar and damaged the code so it affected all of the infobox's which had a coordinates field. There was a big discussion at the village pump which I completely forgot to check first. Sorry. Gavbadger (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

virgin
I understand why people are optimistic and want to dream about the Virgin Galactic SS2. However, it does not exist so the plane is a was, not an is. However, your edit makes complete sense. The project still exist. You have written a good compromise version Stephanie Bowman (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Though, I'm not optimistic about it at all. Never fallen for Branson's 'charm'.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)