User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 9

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Warhammer Fantasy deities has been nominated for discussion
Category:Warhammer Fantasy deities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Warhammer Fantasy creatures


A tag has been placed on Category:Warhammer Fantasy creatures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And (belatedly) to you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Role of French MD at Second Villers-Bretonneux - Fathi has changed his position
Hi Graeme - I'm writing to challenge the edit you made to the article about the French Moroccan Divison at Villers-Bretonneux. You have let stand the assertion by Fathi that "On 26 April, the French Moroccan Division attacked south of the town and rescued the Australian 51st and 52nd Battalions." when such a statement is clearly in dispute and is not even a view still held by Fathi. See his April 2019 article on The Conversation website (https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-do-the-french-care-about-anzac-110880) where he concludes "Instead of desperately wishing others to remember us, perhaps Australians should change their perspective. At the new Monash Centre, Australians don’t remember or discuss the French Army’s Moroccan Division, which relieved the AIF’s 52nd Battalion during Second Villers-Bretonneux in late April 1918."

Fathi's original article and his VB book suffer from a lack of balance in his research. Whilst he researched extensively in French archives he made no attempt to delve into or verify the events of that day from Australian manuscript sources. I have had this discussion with him. If you won't acknowledge Fathi's failure to research the events of the day from both sides properly then you should at least reflect Fathi's current view and revise the sentence to "On 26 April, the French Moroccan Division attacked south of the town after having relieved the Australian 51st and 52nd Battalions." Harpooner1830 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The original position is in the article and correctly verified at the time? Then it meets verifiability test hence no need for me to change a I don't have access to the works cited so I can't check. If you have access then rewrite the section in its entirety to match what the source does say about the French units and don't get hung up on the reasons why the scholarly position changed instead. Also discussion of conent belongs on article talk page not my talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, GraemeLeggett

Thank you for creating Dennis Brothers.

User:TheLongTone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

AASF
Having been prompted by your edits to have another look, I've spotted some howlers, thanks. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * de nada, bitte schön etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Seabees in WWII
Wikipedia expects edits to be done in good faith. Some of yours are close to vandalism in my opinion. You changed Rear Admiral(RADM) to Admiral over and over. This article is USN specific. A Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy is paygrade O-7. An Admiral in the U.S. Navy has a paygrade of O-10. They clearly are not the same. They are not inter-changeable. I will thank you for the formatting corrections you have made. Mcb133aco (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The intention was to give a bit of variability rather than writing out the title in full each time. In general one talks of admiral in the generic for the average reader. Eg Admiral Nelson rather than Vice-admiral Nelson. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Start Date and Age Template
In regards to your edit on the Convair page, could you explain the proper usage of the start date and age template? Unfortunately, the template page doesn't provide any examples.

I can't remember where I first came across it, but it seemed like a reasonable thing to include in the infobox. (Especially given that it creates microformats, which I understand to be similar to the increased usage of autofilled Wikidata information I have seen in infoboxes.) It is probably another case of me reusing something that was incorrectly used in the first place. –Noha307 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I think I made an error, and my edit summary didn't help. "start date and age" and related templates are good to identify data that other systems can use but the age part is superfluous in the infobox (the use is inconsistent across aircraft company infoboxes but seems to lean to not use it). What I should have done is swap it to Template:Start_date. I'll agree the documentation is poor as to purpose and intent.
 * As to wikidata - a lot of the projects don't like wikidata autofill. But that's another story. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, for some reason I didn't realize that Template:Start date was a version of Template:Start date and age without the age on the end. Thanks for pointing that out.
 * I can understand the dislike of Wikidata autofill. It irritated me a bit. I believe I saw a few cases where it was adding incorrect information to infoboxes. –Noha307 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was working on another company's article, and, after copying the company infobox template to use as a starting point, I noticed that the documentation there uses the Start date and age template, not the Start date template. It seems like the suggested use is the former and not the latter. (I'm not trying to be contradictory and I'm sorry if I sound that way.) I can stick to using just the start date template from now on, but I just wanted your thoughts on this. –Noha307 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Roya Air Force station" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Roya Air Force station. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  23:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)